161–170 of 880 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost like there was some sort of catalyst event that occurred very recently that would provoke such a response. /s
> catalyst More like excuse :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The threats are no longer hypothetical (or FUD), we've seen what the mislead masses can and will do
Yes people cannot think for themselves, we need to make sure they cannot speak or be near us. If they make their own platform like we tell them to, we'll just ban that too, haha.
But they can't ban the website and they can't stop sideloading, can they?
It’s pretty coincidental that all of these tech companies are having epiphanies simultaneously now that Democrats will control the house/senate/and presidency. The interesting question is whether they are doing it out fear of anti trust action from Democrats or weren’t doing it for the last four years out of fear of Republicans.
I mean... what do you want to happen here? The right wing got carte blanche to spread violent rhetoric for years on these platforms in ways that we would have called "terroristic" and "radicalizing" in other contexts. And it went too far. So... do we just ignore it?
I just can't understand how your mind goes to a routine election result and not a failed coup attempt as the reason behind this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The threats are no longer hypothetical (or FUD), we've seen what the mislead masses can and will do
Yes people cannot think for themselves, we need to make sure they cannot speak or be near us. If they make their own platform like we tell them to, we'll just ban that too, haha.
How long will Chrome hold out as a neutral pipe for websites? Does anyone here think it's unthinkable that Google would block parler.com on Chrome? It seemed unthinkable a couple years ago, but at this point I would put even money on Chrome having a "radical" website blacklist within a year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does illegal content look like? What jurisdiction? Does Parler need to hire a lawyer to make content decisions? When Trump says "we need to fight hard!", is that illegal? What if he says, "Go back to the Capitol and start shooting!"? Is that illegal? FWIW that was our policy at reddit for a long time too. There is a whole lot of nuance to it that is really hard to deal with.
So do we need a DMCA type thing for courts to file injunctions against illegal content? What is the solution? The fact is any moderation will be subjective and imperfect. How can making more complicated subjective rules help at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not censorship, it's free market. These are private companies.
Of course it’s censorship. Censorship has nothing to do with who is doing it. Whether a private company suppresses communication or the government does it, it’s still censorship.
How long will Chrome hold out as a neutral pipe for websites? Does anyone here think it's unthinkable that Google would block parler.com on Chrome? It seemed unthinkable a couple years ago, but at this point I would put even money on Chrome having a "radical" website blacklist within a year.
Wow, is this the great purge? I don’t support certain people, but man I don’t think this is going to end well. This censorship just seems crazy to me.
Newspapers and magazines have always had a choice who or what to print in their papers. TV and radio stations have always had a choice who or what to air. Why shouldn't social media companies have the same liberties?