451–460 of 1001 posts
You might wish to believe that you free society can exist without any morality but I don't think it can really.
So what is "ok" and what is "not ok" - would you censor the NAZI party in the 1930s or do you think that letting theim air their views fully would convince Germans not to accept them? 10s of millions of lives depend on your choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I personally don't think the founding fathers of the US understood the future gullibility of their citizens. They absolutely did. When only white, male, decently educated property owners could vote, they had decent reassurance that a constitutional republic with state-specific voter management could work. I think they'd be horrified to see that today we don't even demand a basic proof of civics education. And I hat…
I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think the founding fathers could not anticipate the world we have today. The problem of course being that intelligence tests were used in the 60's to deny voting rights. But the founding fathers were okay with slavery, so would they have been okay with that for that purpose? Originalism has a purpose I think, but, we've changed so much since then...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Once again the EFF is proving that they'll stand behind their principles and defend freedom even for those they disagree with. They are one of the few remaining organizations that I feel I can support without reservation. I find this attitude very odd. Surely some disagreements indicate a violation of their principles. What would the principles be worth otherwise? Surely this is the paradox of tolerance in a differ…
> What would the principles be worth otherwise? Surely this is the paradox of tolerance in a different package. Why not instead model communication as a bilateral contract? If it was justifiable for speech infrastructure to ban the speech of any ideology based on if its implementation societally would probabilistically/historically lead to mass speech suppression and/or other atrocities, then a massive array of polit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forget the IRS, imagine if the President himself were to withhold American resources promised to foreign governments in exchange for dirt on his political opponents.
and then force the country to fire the top prosecutor who was investigating his son's illegal activities, truly imagine if such person would do something like that and then have the audacity to publicly brag about it knowing full well the media would cover for him due to his political party. truly sickening what politicians will do.
Weird choice to fire the guy slow-walking the investigation if you want to cover up illegal activities.
> [Archer] has also said, including under oath, that he was told Burisma’s allies in Washington didn’t want Shokin fired. “No, we were told that it was bad, and we don’t want a new prosecutor, and Shokin was taken care of,” Archer recently told former Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
Anyway, I guess the EU, IMF, World Bank, Germany, France, and the Ukrainian Parliament were all also colluding to save this guy's son from scrutiny back in 2015.
I agree, we've got far too many entities that should just be 'dumb pipes' trying to play moral police at the moment, and it's a very worrying situation when it comes to free speech on the internet. Cloudflare is an often brought up example, as are payment processors like Visa and Mastercard and app stores like the iOS and Play Stores, but ISPs trying to block traffic for a site that's not actually illegal feels like…
> I agree, we've got far too many entities that should just be 'dumb pipes' trying to play moral police at the moment This is one of the positives of capitalism. The only color that matters is green. More competition please.
I agree, we've got far too many entities that should just be 'dumb pipes' trying to play moral police at the moment, and it's a very worrying situation when it comes to free speech on the internet. Cloudflare is an often brought up example, as are payment processors like Visa and Mastercard and app stores like the iOS and Play Stores, but ISPs trying to block traffic for a site that's not actually illegal feels like…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never. In fact, the reason the First Amendment limits the government, exclusively, is that the ability to abridge free speech (to choose which forms of speech you support, spread, or disassociate from) is implicitly a part of individual liberty, held by the people. Free speech has never guaranteed anyone a platform. That's not a bug, it's a feature. Yes, it can be messy. Yes, it can be abused. Yes, it means social me…
Focus on speech though. Can the Phone company cut you off because of the content of your communication? Assuming you aren't breaking any other law like harassment? The deciding factor is if your business revolves around facilitating speech. The law has some way to go to catch up with the current state of affairs, but right now the government is enjoying the power of censoring that speech so it may not be an easy path…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. You're not understanding that Banning someone from your private establishment is within your rights. If they want to run their own business they can elsewhere. Banning someone via an ISP is different because ISPs have so much infrastructure they can in some sense be considered a "public utility". Nothing would stop someone from advertising ritualistic kitten killing in a public park (except maybe indecency laws…
Okay so like, what if I own the only mall in a large area. Like a rural suburb where there is often only one shopping space/public commercial space. Is there an upper limit where your private property is considered public utility?
And this already happens all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you lived next door to a house that had become a drug spot, would you find it acceptable to call the landlord, tell them what's happening, and then ask them to investigate and evict? I sure would.
Why would you call the landlord instead of the police? I'll tell you why you needed to do it for this metaphor - because Kiwi Farms doesn't break any laws and "drug spots" do. Now, we're deputizing landlords. If that isn't the perfect public-private partnership, I don't know what is.