111–120 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See the second definition. Also note the comment you first replied to (made by bjeds) was using "nazi" with lower case.
I'm waiting for you to show me all these nazis. I can show you plenty of communists, within the new US administration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> anyone we label violent extremists should be completely and utterly deplatformed They've labeled themselves, though, by espousing violent extremist views.
I agree, they must be punished for their violent extremist seditionist views. They are a threat to our society. It’s called the “paradox of tolerance” the intolerant do not deserve rights because they have labeled themselves as intolerant.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(Totally unrelated: if you want us to rename your account we can do that for you. It's easiest if you email hn@ycombinator.com. I'm just adding this here because I noticed you mentioned it in your profile.)
To me, Parler has equivalencies
- AWS linked to calls for violence that were made on Parler
- The platform was actively suppressing non-conservative viewpoints
I would recommend looking at r/ParlerWatch on Reddit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If fascism is defined as the merger of corporation and state, does a dominant political party allying with major corporations to suppress a political opponent not ring alarm bells for fascism?
Fascism is when racism becomes state policy. Nearly always accompanied by a violent dictator. The US narrowly avoided devolving into a permanent fascist state. Now people who at least support human rights and democracy are in power.
> The pending disruption for DDoS-Guard and Parler comes compliments of Ron Guilmette, a researcher who has made it something of a personal mission to de-platform conspiracy theorist and far-right groups. While this may solve immediate problems (such as the planning of unlawful or otherwise socially harmful events), we should consider the long-term impacts of de-platforming. Does censorship, even if justified, fuel a…
Anger and distrust are sparked, stoked and fueled far more by personalities in media and politics who actively promote them than by de-platforming.
> Is it possible to bring fringe groups back into the fold of peaceful civil discourse
People organizing and advocating violence are not fringe groups. The paradox of tolerance applies here: You can't extend tolerance to those who advocate for intolerance without destroying tolerance in the process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that content authentic, or is it made by good old provocateurs?
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Are you intending to insinuate that much of the most objectionable content on Parler has been posted by users who are trying to get Parler in trouble with the end goal of reducing the amount of content of that nature that is online? Because that sounds like an overly-complex theory, and doesn't explain any content on Parler that was posted more than two weeks…
Correct The Record used this exact technique to get posts, pages, and groups banned across Facebook and Reddit during the 2016 election: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-troll...
The campaign has been given credit by Sanders loyalists, however, for all manner of things that it has had nothing to do with, including posting pornography on pro-Sanders Facebook pages which resulted in them being temporarily taken down. (The pages went down as a result of a Facebook software glitch).
This "glitch" dismissal given in the article is open to scrutiny when WikiLeaks showed us DKIM-verified messages indicating collaboration between Hillary campaign manager John Podesta and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg: http://www.departmentofmemes.com/news/wikileaks-proves-zucke...
If only we applied this same type of pressure and energy to politicians who enrich themselves at public expense or drawing down from our endless (but very profitable) wars.
Our ruling class does an excellent job keeping us fighting against each other so we don't focus on them.
There might be a selective enforcement issue here? If it turns out that lots of the IP address space is doled out based on semi-fraudulent claims like this (assuming that Guilmette's claim is correct that DDos-Guard doesn't really have a physical Latin American presence), but the only cases where the corresponding NIC takes action is when someone complains for content-motivated reasons, then... that's biased selectiv…
I wonder if this is more of a case where a NIC will only take action if someone is motivated enough to do this level of research. So maybe less selective enforcement and more selective researcher attention?
To people who complain about deplatforming Parler, how would you feel about de-platforming a forum to recruit members for ISIS, or the Taliban? To me, Parler has equivalencies - AWS linked to calls for violence that were made on Parler - The platform was actively suppressing non-conservative viewpoints I would recommend looking at r/ParlerWatch on Reddit
And there was definitely suppression of non-liberal viewpoints on many sites.
I don't agree with most conservative views, but I am not so tribal and blind to irony that I think it's ok to apply different standards to one side vs another. "But they are different!" - says the blindly loyal team player.