781–790 of 868 posts
This increase of extreme assault on free-speech platforms should be worrying to everyone. Not too long ago, we were hailing the "internet" as a free fair space. Now it is a free fair space ... for everyone but some kind of people. I'm for free speech but this specific kind of targeted attacks is getting out of hand.
The free speech of facsists shouldnt be protected, Im glad there are hackers doing the right thing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN is what it is because it is not free speech absolutist. Posts get flagged. People get banned. This keeps spam and shills down to a level that signal can stand out from the noise. So in theory, people here may be "free speech absolutists", but in practice, we enjoy the environment that the moderation here enables. At some level, we know via experience that free speech absolutism is not where we want to live. And ye…
I'm a "free speech absolutist", meaning: you can't be imprisoned or physically attacked for what you say. HN is a private space. It can have its own arbitrary acceptance rules, and that has nothing to do with free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, I'm willing to have that discussion, sure. I am accepting the challenge to accept the rules of engagement you dictated. Are you willing to accept the challenge of accepting the rules of engagement I put forth - Acknowledge that neo-nazis are a problem, briefly state why? --- I think the GME stuff is a bit nuts, personally. I found the whole thing entertaining, but I find it hard to believe that most participants…
I invited you to share your opinions one way or another on two topics that I believe largely have common ground, and I appreciate your responses on both topics. I don't think it's comparable for you to challenge me with a "loaded question" that inherently puts me on the defensive, based on assumptions and false premises that I can't challenge without escalating the conversation into an argument. Do you see the differ…
For reference: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
The FBI disagrees with you quite a bit on whether neo-nazis & co are a problem.
This is why I insist so much. This is why so many on the left insist so much on this particular test. Pretending the problem isn't a problem is a thing that is actively causing harm to the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As far as political orientation goes, by worldwide standards America actually ranges from center-right (Democrats) to far-right (Republicans), Does anyone have a good global breakdown of political ideology? What we call the west (North America, Europe, Australia, etc) is about 20% of the global population. These are the sources I usually see. I’m curious about this stuff globally
OP is radically incorrect regarding where US parties would fit on a global scale. There is actually a lot of good research out available in political science papers based on large-scale surveys conducted over decades that show the US parties to be close to the middle of the right and left respectively. If you removed health care from the equation (given how messed up this is in the US) then the two parties would actu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the only defense they constantly employ for saying atrocious things is that it's not literally illegal to say them. It's not literally illegal to be racist, it's not literally illegal to be xenophobic, it's not literally illegal to be transphobic. So they think they should be all those things, although they don't call themselves those names. Things should be said based on the inherent merit of what they say,…
I agree with you, but Twitter is rife with leftists being almost as horrible as Gab's extremists and not getting banned because Twitter execs lean left. So let's not act like Gab users are the only ones being awful.
far left far right
[Overton Window]
perceived perceived
far left far right
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> very few people complaining about censorship are complaining about enforcement of rules against actual hate speech. Citation needed. But honestly, it doesn't matter because it doesn't change the fact that this is the libertarian ideal situation. The government is not mandating anything. All "cancel culture" is created from private individuals making their own private decisions, and that includes corporations bannin…
> Citation needed. Likewise. Can you name a single high profile twitter ban that was due to promotion of white supremacy, sexism, or similar? > But honestly, it doesn't matter because it doesn't change the fact that this is the libertarian ideal situation. Monopolies are not free markets.
> Can you name a single high profile twitter ban that was due to promotion of white supremacy, sexism, or similar?
Since you only asked for one, I'll give you probably the most clear cut example that can be asked for:
David Duke, well known former KKK grand wizard.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53608106
There you go, now you have one. If you want more, I'm sure you're more than capable of doing the research yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://gab.com/ANS https://gab.com/CNSM For example
95 and 52 followers. Is that representative of the platform?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He said “trannies” I wouldn’t say it’s a transphobic slur. He said it to clearly piss off people though. The ceo sounds like a very secure, happy person with no mental problems. Also, transgender issues aren’t political. Modern monetary theory can be political. Immigration policies are political. Human rights are not political. I’m not a liberal or anything, just a rational person.
If you don't think it's a transphobic slur I highly suggest you talk to some trans folks about what is or is not a transphobic slur, because I can almost guarantee that they'll tell you it's a transphobic slur (yes the politics of the Rocky Horror Picture Show have gotten a bit weird in the last ten-fifteen years)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a "free speech absolutist", meaning: you can't be imprisoned or physically attacked for what you say. HN is a private space. It can have its own arbitrary acceptance rules, and that has nothing to do with free speech.
I'd be fine with prison for phone spammers who ignore the "do not call" list. You could argue "free speech", but there's more to it than that - they're invading my space and time when I don't want them.
It's similar to a No Trespassing sign; you can picket on public property (free speech), but doing that on private property (when marked with a sign that fit certain criteria, in most states) might get you arrested and charged with a crime.
In the U.S., the rights of the individual generally trump "public interest".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also there are laws against said content: https://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/state-dept-offi... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law
Gab's censorship of adult content is considerably stricter than obscenity law. They're not a free speech network, they're just a network where racism is permitted speech and anything they don't like is banned.