121–130 of 218 posts
You can pretend to care about North Korean censorship all you want, but if you name your platform “Pepe,” positively cite 4chan as an influence, and take the time to criticize “cancel culture SJWs” then it’s quite clear what your intentions and motivations are, and who your audience is: you want to create a space run by and for racist pieces of garbage. You don’t actually care about free speech at all, and neither do…
This is an interesting project by all means, but I'm curious as to what your goal/vision for this project is. The reason that most online forum-esque services involve some sort of moderation isn't because they give in to the so-called "woke SJW Twitter mob", it's because they want to expand their user bases - a platform cannot host large amounts of sexist content and attract women, it cannot stop taking action agains…
In the post, they mention that each board will be moderated (filtered) by the creator, and the same goes for thread creators. Effectively it comes down to content creation and filters that can live on the client-side. Any decentralized unauthenticated or federated social network faces the same issues around reputation, moderation and sybil attacks. Matrix, for example, has the same. I imagine over time we'll get a gr…
In a tolerant society, should we tolerate intolerance? I am genuinely interested to hear your thoughts.
> In a tolerant society, should we tolerate intolerance? What if in a society once tolerant to gaybashing, and other things (not so long ago), should one not tolerate "intolerance" to this? I think your question needs re-phrased.
That is just not being tolerant to intolerance. The question stands
"You see, freedom of speech and expression must be absolute." This is a very ignorant take on freedom of speech and a terrible foundation for your project.
If you believe this then you must believe the US is poor at censorship given the amount of chaos in the past year.
All this really means is China will guaranteed to be the next superpower, they have perfected censorship. Freedom of speech is the only thing giving the US a competitive edge at this point.
Either the US becomes a mediocre censorship state or freedom of speech stays.
Parler may be a shithole and this person could be a racist, but this is exactly the kind of thing we need. We may feel secure in our ability to silence people we find odious, but it's only a matter of time until the system evolves to silence us for one reason or another. In particular, I think the magic sauce Pepe has is every user having his / her own moderation filter. The bitcoin donation address is here: bc1qs9pk…
Edit: I believe that free speech being absolute is problematic, but I also see issues with the changing contours of what’s allowed or forbidden in the “not absolute” classification that’s commonly used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about libel/slander? What about child pornography? What about doxxing? Surely you agree we have to draw the line _somewhere_, even if you disagree with where we currently draw it?
Has anyone, anywhere, ever suggested that child pornography is 'speech' let alone 'free speech'? It seems bizarre to include in this list.
Empty repo.
The referenced blog post explains why. The author has just started.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, of course. This is presented as if it's some deep philosophical conundrum, when it's not. An example: I'm gay and I have had friends that didn't agree with me in supporting gay marriage. One was an ultra-orthodox Jew that was my coworker, and we would disagree on just about everything politically, but we still managed to tolerate each other and even become friends. This is what should happen in a tolerant societ…
Counterpoint: you seem to have accidentally strawmanned the opposing argument into a situation where the worst outcome is polite disagreement where you still can "become friends". I'd like to hear your opinions on my steelmanned version of the hypothetical: You meet somebody that is adamantly homophobic. They use their speech to rally others and take political action against gay people. They make same-sex marriage il…
You may argue that free speech may lead to intolerant laws and actions - but history suggests the direct opposite: free speech has mostly expanded tolerance.
And it makes sense: we have gay rights as a result of free expression. For the longest time the “offensive” idea being censored was that being gay was ok and not a result of mental illness. Without free speech we wouldn’t have gay marriage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would love to see a legit reply to this point. Usenet is there.
Because free speech like the author wants = objectionable content. Which server providers will be hosting that Usenet newsgroups and be willing to be legal responsible for said content ?