101–110 of 139 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slippery slope. How many rappers will get banned for promoting violence through their music? Guns, violence and misogyny are part and parcel of rap music these days.
That's true for some rap but not all rap. There's also a subset of rap that to me shows some of the strongest promotion of equality and peace.
I thought that was Hip-Hop
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt that sports glorify violence in the relevant sense. In particular, I doubt that people who get excited about the NFL or MMA or whatever are inspired to go out and hurt people in real life.
You would be surprised to see what motivates people to do the things they do, even if it's just a child ( https://kotaku.com/grand-theft-auto-blamed-after-eight-year-... ) or a teen ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/02/16/lawsuit-grand-theft-... ). And this is just one video game so you can only imagine what all those violent sports and a whole lot of other video games can make people do. Common sense, after all, i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems a little unclear on that. Can a candidate say "If you elect me to office, I pledge to wage war against the elbonians" and post it on Twitter?
We know that Twitter is willing to ban US political ads that violate their personal values. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/twitter-bans-bl...
I've gone through and reported a number of accounts that seem to violate this policy after the announcement and made note of the usernames and if they were a left wing or right wing organization. I'm curious to see if this will be enforced equally.
I'd love to hear them. Would probably make a great blog post in itself
There's nothing wrong with Twitter operating a highly moderated platform. Hacker News is a successful example. In both cases though, it's a huge problem that there aren't alternatives that do off truly uncensored speech. At the very least, there needs to be a force that checks these organizations when they step over the line.
Hacker News is successful because it is still yet relatively small. It will not scale.
It's essentially an example of a benevolent dictator model.
Right now the people moderating are doing a great and largely unbiased job, but if you try to scale, you'll bring in new people, and gradually the quality of those moderators will vary with the larger group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be wary of Mastodon for their Embrace/Extend of GNU Social, as well as their banning of entire chunks of the federated network. Find a good GNU Social site, and bask in the freedom. it feels like Twitter when it first started.
Does Mastodon roll out these bans coordinated across the federated instances?
What the previous poster was likely referring to is the 5-10¹ instances that are banned by most other instances with the reason "allows controversial content" or "Free speech zone"².
¹: the number banned varies from instance to instance, but it tends to be the same ones.
²: this one was used by an "anarchist" instance that appears to have more rules than most other instances.
There's nothing wrong with Twitter operating a highly moderated platform. Hacker News is a successful example. In both cases though, it's a huge problem that there aren't alternatives that do off truly uncensored speech. At the very least, there needs to be a force that checks these organizations when they step over the line.
Why? Consumers are not paying twitter for a product or service and use of twitter is not a necessity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be wary of Mastodon for their Embrace/Extend of GNU Social, as well as their banning of entire chunks of the federated network. Find a good GNU Social site, and bask in the freedom. it feels like Twitter when it first started.
Does Mastodon roll out these bans coordinated across the federated instances?
Shared lists:
https://github.com/tootcafe/blocked-instances
https://github.com/MastodonBlocklist/blocklist
https://github.com/ticki/mastodon-blacklist
and others
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this insane to you? Where are you from?
From a country which lived under an authoritative regime and who knows what censorship will lead to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a country which lived under an authoritative regime and who knows what censorship will lead to.
Hmm I misread your comment. Still, a private company can do whatever it wants. Fact is, regardless, Twitter will never censor Trump or it’ll be the end of Twitter. But still, it’s a private company that’s not FCC regulated (yet).
If we have a constitutional right to free speech, and the majority of Americans use a certain website for speech, why shouldn't their constitutional rights extend onto that site?