101–110 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no such thing as "just words on the internet". Words express beliefs and intent. I take them seriously. How do you decide which words people should be allowed to read, and which words they should not be allowed to read?
I wasn't talking about that, but since you asked: My personal views and morals, just like everyone else. If you're on something I host, then I make the rules on my property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How about this: try posting an URL for kiwifarms or stormfront or whatever right here, in this thread. See if it stays up. See who's willing to tolerate it. Man, I almost did. But people just get so irrationally angry about words on the internet nowadays that I decided against tempting fate. I don't need people trying to destroy my career because I don't irrationally hate the right people right now. Yes, Kiwi Farms…
Hey when you think that everyone else is being irrational guess what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't talking about that, but since you asked: My personal views and morals, just like everyone else. If you're on something I host, then I make the rules on my property.
So immoral things should be excised from wikipedia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't talking about that, but since you asked: My personal views and morals, just like everyone else. If you're on something I host, then I make the rules on my property.
So immoral things should be excised from wikipedia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, God, I'm being dragged into this debate again. > There's no such thing as "just words on the internet". Words express beliefs and intent. I take them seriously. Intent? Find me a post on KF stating intent to harm someone in real life which wasn't either downvoted or promptly deleted. Go ahead. > Of course. The sort of people that compile elaborate profiles on people including personal information are some sort of…
They post contact information, links to profiles where the user can be contacted, and so on, right? If so, they're complicit in whatever people do with that information, even if they don't talk about it on the forums.
Most online forums have rules against doxing. Then again, most online forums have problems with anonymous users making false claims.
Is wikipedia likewise complicit for publishing articles on nefarious topics? How about linking to macdonalds.com, who is surely complicit in more deaths than kiwifarms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may or may not be the irrational one. Would you like historical examples?
Oh and you think you are exceptional too. Shall we go for the trifecta?
Of course. Everyone does.
> Shall we go for the trifecta?
Shall we put your notion in a historical context or no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's for Wikipedia to decide. I'm not a member.
But if you owned wikipedia, you feel it would be best to remove immoral things from it?
If you mean documenting its existence, then no, because we have to learn from history. So I wouldn't have an issue with an article on antisemitism or the like.
But if I found out that something I own actually helps Nazis, then yes, I'd do my best to stop that from happening. If I suddenly ended up owning Stormfront or Kiwifarms, I would absolutely pull the plug and burn it all to the ground with no warning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, Wikipedia pages seemingly get "vandalized" all the time and sometimes aren't corrected immediately. Doesn't this create a situation where a bad actor could change the Wikipedia page for a `semi-popular-brand.com` url listing to something bad? Anyone who used `semi-popular-brand.idk` in that timeframe would land in the bad page. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
This is possible with the DNS already which is why there have been various efforts to try to harden the protocol, to varying effect so far.