91–100 of 939 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Communism, socialism, ending capitalism, etc. Just look at European politics.
Where on e.g. Twitter or Reddit would that be disallowed? Isn't r/antiwork/ hitting the front page regularly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weird but I still think Elon’s idea of needing confirmed identity for a checkmark is solid. If anonymous users then are nicer than checkmarked users, I guess the filter will work in reverse? The elimination of bots will be nice if they can do it.
Requiring validated identity is anti free speech. There's been so many words spilled online about how terrible of an idea it is to require confirmed identities for online. Recently, see https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1576274615231401984 or more casually https://www.garbageday.email/p/oh-cool-were-talking-about-an... > Generally, if your solution is virtually indistinguishable from one of the systems the Chines g…
Mike Masnick in his tweets repeats some talking points but there's no cohesive argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weird but I still think Elon’s idea of needing confirmed identity for a checkmark is solid. If anonymous users then are nicer than checkmarked users, I guess the filter will work in reverse? The elimination of bots will be nice if they can do it.
Requiring validated identity is anti free speech. There's been so many words spilled online about how terrible of an idea it is to require confirmed identities for online. Recently, see https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1576274615231401984 or more casually https://www.garbageday.email/p/oh-cool-were-talking-about-an... > Generally, if your solution is virtually indistinguishable from one of the systems the Chines g…
You either have people incentivized to self-identify with a checkmark or what? The alternative is to build an AI that identifies you in order to remove bots? I don’t even think that’s possible without it auto removing everyone that uses anonymizing tools like Tor?
Go to Speakers Corner and have a go. Put up a website. Buy a TV/Radio station, or Internet provider.
Has anyone seen any stats on how many Parler active daily users there are? I’d assume it’s quite small.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nevertheless obvious (although not to everyone) absurd, blatant lies and manipulations shouldn't be covered by the free speech umbrella. "Capitalism is the problem", "modern employment is wage slavery". These are absurd, blatant lies meant to manipulate. Would you have statements like that removed?
These are opinions. And I lean to agreeing with them (except I don't think anybody knows a good solution to the problem). Blatant lies/absurd are things like all (or almost all) people of specific race are inherently evil or stupid, they control the state for their wicked aims and there is a gene for specific preferences which ought to be eradicated or we are doomed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Requiring validated identity is anti free speech. There's been so many words spilled online about how terrible of an idea it is to require confirmed identities for online. Recently, see https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1576274615231401984 or more casually https://www.garbageday.email/p/oh-cool-were-talking-about-an... > Generally, if your solution is virtually indistinguishable from one of the systems the Chines g…
How do you know that requiring identity is anti free speech? Not everyone online is Iranian political dissident. Sure, some people claim that you can't have free speech when your identity is known but I don't see any solid reasoning behind it. Mike Masnick in his tweets repeats some talking points but there's no cohesive argument.
Furthermore, there can be layers of anonymity. There can be anonymous publicly but not to Twitter. That’s dangerous given that Twitter cannot protect your identity from a state actor accessing its internal systems. Thus, again, why would you want a checkmark as a dissident.
Musk and everyone else is right that we do need a platform with free speech. The only problem is that all those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech. I have been following self proclaimed free speech absolutists(because I too, believe in free speech but don't believe it exists) and they are totally not the kind of people that say "I hate what you say but I will die defending your ri…
I’d argue that every place that allows every kind of speech without restriction will eventually degenerate into a cesspit. You lose the reasonable people quickly because they don’t want to deal with the toxicity and it’s all downhill from there.
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know that requiring identity is anti free speech? Not everyone online is Iranian political dissident. Sure, some people claim that you can't have free speech when your identity is known but I don't see any solid reasoning behind it. Mike Masnick in his tweets repeats some talking points but there's no cohesive argument.
And AFAIK an anonymous political dissident wouldn’t want a blue checkmark? Furthermore, there can be layers of anonymity. There can be anonymous publicly but not to Twitter. That’s dangerous given that Twitter cannot protect your identity from a state actor accessing its internal systems. Thus, again, why would you want a checkmark as a dissident.