241–250 of 281 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, to give a concrete example: one way Q could ratchet back on the aggressive hate in the nonsense is to just stop posting. Stop posting anything. That would ratchet it down.
They tried once to silence Q by taking down 8chan. Like Obi-Wan, he just came back stronger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The average person isn’t capable enough to judge information for themselves; we need people in power to curate what is seen. I hope this is just missing the sarcasm tag?
So here's a fun thought experiment: If that proposition ("The average person isn’t capable enough to judge information for themselves") were true, what would be the correct way to structure a society to maximize the quality-of-life for people in that society?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, to give a concrete example: one way Q could ratchet back on the aggressive hate in the nonsense is to just stop posting. Stop posting anything. That would ratchet it down.
They tried once to silence Q by taking down 8chan. Like Obi-Wan, he just came back stronger.
For those looking for a viable, already-blooming alternative, with resistance to such problems, look into the Fediverse. https://torresjrjr.com/archive/2020-07-19-guide-to-the-fediv...
Unpopular opinion: while I don't oppose the existence of non-moderated social networks in the sense that I'd want them extinguished overtly, I'm not deeply convinced they're good, especially in this decade. gab.ai gave breathing room for a man to be so radicalized by surrounding himself with anti-Jewish conspiracy that he murdered people at a synagogue. 4chan is a notorious breeding ground of terrible memetic hazards…
I don't think social platforms should be non-moderated. Calling for harmful action should lead to a ban. Believing unrealistic things shouldn't. In such a context, most non mainstream communities would have no need to exist in a bubble. In the same vein downvotes and upvotes are fundamentally antithetic to free speech as they only serve to amplify the dominant echo and push minorities to their own bubbles. Instead people should be able to downvote locally, informing their own future interactions without affecting the community as a whole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The scale. These major platforms are becoming increasingly dominant forms of communication and mediums of expression. There's a real question about when they cease being just another website or chatroom and become a public utility.
I don't think the scale argument holds water, because back in the days of AOL, AOL had, by percentage, about as much control over what mainstream user saw as Twitter and Facebook.
https://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm
Use, interactions, control benefits, and ad spend have grown vastly more than linearly as a consequence.
A large Internet service in 1999 might have 1-10 million users (AOL peaked at ~27 million subscribers in 2002). Those were not connected wirelessly 24/7, but had occasional and intermittant, often dialup, access.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you are claiming that QAnon, "a thing" that started in October 2017 is somehow responsible for attack in 2016? Could you explain your reasoning? I don't think you believe in some time travel conspiracy, that would be more of QAnon thing.
I would think it fairly disingenuous to claim QAnon as a distinct thing with no history or causality and that it appeared fully formed and unchanging. It should have by rights have disappeared into obscurity after the imminent mass arrests of HRC and other prominent Dems didn't occur; much like the lone gunman inadvertently showed Pizzagate as a hoax. Rather it has morphed into a moment of sorts that channels people…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They tried once to silence Q by taking down 8chan. Like Obi-Wan, he just came back stronger.
Sure wish he'd use some of that epic strength to actually deliver on some of those high-profile elite pedophile arrests he keeps promising. Trump's first term is almost up and instead of being in prison, Hillary Clinton is chumming around on Zoom calls with Lin-Manuel Miranda. Where's the damn beef?
And, if there's a group of people involved, they just seal the indictments until they have the evidence to convict all of them.
There's a huge number of them involved. You can view the number of sealed federal indictments by state on the qmap.pub site.
Be patient, the arrests are coming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They tried once to silence Q by taking down 8chan. Like Obi-Wan, he just came back stronger.
The mistake there was trying only once.
I always wondered why the military was helping 8kun. [1]
1. https://twitter.com/prayingmedic/status/1194054383488516096
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So here's a fun thought experiment: If that proposition ("The average person isn’t capable enough to judge information for themselves") were true, what would be the correct way to structure a society to maximize the quality-of-life for people in that society?
Preserving inalienable rights or ignoring them?
I'll start: I see nothing in the inalienable right to life incompatible with structuring a society that can maximize quality of life for its citizens who, on average, aren’t capable enough to judge information for themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mistake there was trying only once.
They didn't make that mistake. They tried to shut down 8kun, repeatedly. So many times that 8kun was able to harden their services with the assistance of the DOD. I always wondered why the military was helping 8kun. [1] 1. https://twitter.com/prayingmedic/status/1194054383488516096
"There is a secret truth to the universe known only to this secret cabal in the back of this drinking parlor" is an old trope. Far more expected than "There is a secret truth to the universe and Twitter is letting the nutters who believe in it multicast it via one of the most populated social networks on the planet." Better for Twitter to give it the axe, lest people confuse a badly-hashed-together conspiracy theory for actual truth.