21–30 of 333 posts
[0] https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/ukraine-facebook-azov-ba...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"All hate is hate, but some hate is more hate than others." -- Hypocrite Valley
I would love to see a rise of alternative BigTech (FB, Google, Apple, Microsoft). Not the Parlor kind, but more leaning towards libertarian values and the foundational principles of the United States. Perhaps based in the East Coast: Philadelphia, Chicago or Boston.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"All hate is hate, but some hate is more hate than others." -- Hypocrite Valley
I would love to see a rise of alternative BigTech (FB, Google, Apple, Microsoft). Not the Parlor kind, but more leaning towards libertarian values and the foundational principles of the United States. Perhaps based in the East Coast: Philadelphia, Chicago or Boston.
On a pedantic level, saying NATO should impose a no-fly-zone is a call to violence. Did these platform ever forbid calls for State-sanctioned force? I would have assumed that these parts of the user terms were referring to unsanctioned, or otherwise criminal violence.
maybe it's time to pump the brakes a bit
Which brakes? Russia's attack on Ukraine? Sure, let's stop or slow that down, but how?
On a pedantic level, saying NATO should impose a no-fly-zone is a call to violence. Did these platform ever forbid calls for State-sanctioned force? I would have assumed that these parts of the user terms were referring to unsanctioned, or otherwise criminal violence.
Well, if you're going to be pedantic:
There's a fundamental distinction, which you're missing, between initiated force and defensive force.
When someone robs or murders, that's initiated force. When the police use force to stop a robber or murderer, that's defensive force.
A "call to violence" is only applicable to initiated force.
For example, if I say, "let's murder Bob," that's a call to violence. If I say, "The police should arrest the murderer of Bob," that's not a call to violence.
Calling for a NATO no-fly zone is calling for defensive force, not initiated force, and thus is not a "call to violence."
I hope you can see how unjust and absurd it would be to call the defense of innocents a "call to violence."
maybe it's time to pump the brakes a bit
Which brakes? Russia's attack on Ukraine? Sure, let's stop or slow that down, but how?
On a pedantic level, saying NATO should impose a no-fly-zone is a call to violence. Did these platform ever forbid calls for State-sanctioned force? I would have assumed that these parts of the user terms were referring to unsanctioned, or otherwise criminal violence.
"A no-fly zone" is one of the worst misnomers out there. In this case, it means that NATO - and specifically the USA - will start shooting Russian aircrafts. Sending NATO aircraft is not different from sending tanks. I understand why Ukrainians are asking for it but there is a reason NATO can't get involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would love to see a rise of alternative BigTech (FB, Google, Apple, Microsoft). Not the Parlor kind, but more leaning towards libertarian values and the foundational principles of the United States. Perhaps based in the East Coast: Philadelphia, Chicago or Boston.
that's the stated goal of Gab and its sub-brands, but [insert reasons for why they're bad here]