21–30 of 939 posts
makes sense to own the means of communication, to shape the narrative. Ye on Parler will present a pretty clear challenge to US norms of freedom of speech - he is a vocal anti-semite (whilst at the same time claiming to be Jewish)and I doubt very much that ownership of any platform will moderate his views.
Musk and everyone else is right that we do need a platform with free speech. The only problem is that all those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech. I have been following self proclaimed free speech absolutists(because I too, believe in free speech but don't believe it exists) and they are totally not the kind of people that say "I hate what you say but I will die defending your ri…
> at least we can hold them responsible when they don't deliver it. This is in contrast with the pure fascist where they cannot be held responsible for anything because they don't claim virtue in first place. What's the plan to do that when they censor all dissent on the platforms they just bought?
Musk and everyone else is right that we do need a platform with free speech. The only problem is that all those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech. I have been following self proclaimed free speech absolutists(because I too, believe in free speech but don't believe it exists) and they are totally not the kind of people that say "I hate what you say but I will die defending your ri…
> at least we can hold them responsible when they don't deliver it. This is in contrast with the pure fascist where they cannot be held responsible for anything because they don't claim virtue in first place. What's the plan to do that when they censor all dissent on the platforms they just bought?
Musk and everyone else is right that we do need a platform with free speech. The only problem is that all those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech. I have been following self proclaimed free speech absolutists(because I too, believe in free speech but don't believe it exists) and they are totally not the kind of people that say "I hate what you say but I will die defending your ri…
> at least we can hold them responsible when they don't deliver it. This is in contrast with the pure fascist where they cannot be held responsible for anything because they don't claim virtue in first place. What's the plan to do that when they censor all dissent on the platforms they just bought?
The only thing these networks censor is anything that is illegal in their hosted jurisdiction i.e the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> at least we can hold them responsible when they don't deliver it. This is in contrast with the pure fascist where they cannot be held responsible for anything because they don't claim virtue in first place. What's the plan to do that when they censor all dissent on the platforms they just bought?
Probably similar to what is currently happening on all the other platforms censoring dissent.
In my opinion controversy and political incorrectness are Okay. I don't think people should be too concerned about hurting others' feelings when discussing objective phenomena or expressing their own opinion (as long as they acknowledge their subjectivity) . Nevertheless obvious (although not to everyone) absurd, blatant lies and manipulations shouldn't be covered by the free speech umbrella. I wish people could correctly judge what they read themselves, taking what they read and what they feel critically, but many apparently can not.
makes sense to own the means of communication, to shape the narrative. Ye on Parler will present a pretty clear challenge to US norms of freedom of speech - he is a vocal anti-semite (whilst at the same time claiming to be Jewish)and I doubt very much that ownership of any platform will moderate his views.
You know, there's a name for this. It's called a black Israelite.
Given that Parler is primarily associated with alt-right users, this purchase is quite amusing. Yet it underlines how the right to speak freely is under threat online and I am not sure if Billionaires further centralizing access is the right way forward.
It makes sense that the "more free" platforms tend to attract people from the right because highly moderated platforms tend to censor right wing discussion more than left wing discussion. More extreme people are kicked off each platform successively until they end up places like 4chan. The opposite would be true if the mainstream advocated right wing politics, forcing left wing people onto the fringes. Similar to what happened pre-internet with the 60s counterculture, left wing ideas were found in the underground, whilst mainstream media pushed right wing ideas.
Musk and everyone else is right that we do need a platform with free speech. The only problem is that all those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech. I have been following self proclaimed free speech absolutists(because I too, believe in free speech but don't believe it exists) and they are totally not the kind of people that say "I hate what you say but I will die defending your ri…
I posit that this is the unavoidable result of free speech absolutism.
People like their idea of what absolute free speech will be like, but they don't like the real thing when they see it.
I mean you can say “men are trash”, “white people are trash” and so on, but at the same time you are not allowed to say anything against jewish people or other people? Isn’t it kinda hypocritical? Maybe we should not allow toxic behavior at all and have a civil discourse about someone is feeling towards some group of people to allow him to change his mind? Personal attacks and hatred will not do any good this will on…