41–50 of 783 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
On the contrary, Nazis were very aggressive about suppression of speech they didn’t like. Furthermore, it was one of, possibly the very most, free-speaking societies in the world that played a key role—first economically, then militarily—in stopping them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The thing is, Nazis are really unpopular, so if we have a free market, Nazi hellscapes will be unpopular, too. This is a case where the free market is good at solving a problem, we know this because Nazis have been writing books for nearly a century, yet you probably haven't heard of any of them other than Mein Kampf. Whether we have a free market in social media is up for debate, certainly the dominant platforms enj…
Small, basement-run printing press? Sort of like nazi zines?
I remember seeing copies of "Soldier of Fortune" in the 1970's (US) but it was relegated to the one weird military-collectible-store-that-also-sold-Avalon-Hill-games. Extreme ideologies need buy-in from a printer, publisher, and distribution network — combined they create quite a series of hurdles, act as gatekeepers of a sort. I suspect that was enough to keep The John Birch Society and others in relative obscurity.
Letters to the editor in the local newspaper were of course heavily moderated.
The free internet with near zero-cost to print/publish/distribute due to social networks, site comments sections make the fringe voices just as loud as the mainstream ones.
Add bots into the equation and possibly determined state actors and it only gets worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
There have been plenty of free platforms that have not turned out like that. HN, for example.
HN is not a example of libertarian social media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The thing is, Nazis are really unpopular, so if we have a free market, Nazi hellscapes will be unpopular, too. This is a case where the free market is good at solving a problem, we know this because Nazis have been writing books for nearly a century, yet you probably haven't heard of any of them other than Mein Kampf. Whether we have a free market in social media is up for debate, certainly the dominant platforms enj…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Twitter is not a Nazi hellscape.
It's certainly possible to get stuck in a recommendation-algorithm Nazi hellscape, where it's a very weird far-right bubble. (I got some interesting recommendations on both Twitter and Youtube after a few posts and videos about that guy making the UFO claims. Quite suddenly the feed became dark, conspiratorial, and with lots references to "globalists".)
It's also, of course, possible to get stuck by the recommendation algorithm in some weird far-left universe, also quite out of step with the mainstream.
Nothing wrong with being out of step with the mainstream in itself; the problem is when you don't know that you are. Some of the people in these social media bubbles don't know they're in those bubbles. As far as they're concerned, everyone else agrees with them and they're getting more and more re-enforcement.
I think that a growing general ineptitude and inexperience with dealing with the fact that some people have radically different worldviews, social beliefs, and political attitudes, probably explains some of the contemporary derangement. If they're literally the only example of disagreement you run into, then obviously they're insane and/or stupid and/or evil, (Surely they know what you know?! We tend to assume that even when it can't be true.) Maybe related to why we seem to be particularly prone to portraying the political opposition as evil, insane, or stupid these days. The viciousness of the in-group towards the dissenters makes all the sense in the world if they're just evil, insane and stupid. And since we can't comprehend their worldview since we never see the world as they see it, (thanks to the algorithm), it just becomes re-enforcing.
> Doughty said that one Flaherty [White House director of digital strategy] message in February 2021 accused Facebook "of causing 'political violence' by failing to censor false COVID-19 claims." Flaherty also wrote in a July 2021 email to Facebook, "Are you guys fucking serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today." Sure sounds like a relationship where the power only goes one direction and th…
which direction are you imagining? the one originating from the dude who used a swear word? or the one originating from the company who felt comfortable ignoring the dude and the request? after all, anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get : e.g. TFG felt comfortable demanding that his political rivals be imprisoned, did he get it?
what is this referring to?
Does this mean I can yell fire in a crowded theater again? Apparently not limiting my free speech is more important than the impact of my disinformation.
Does this mean I can yell fire in a crowded theater again? Apparently not limiting my free speech is more important than the impact of my disinformation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. They don't, they just choose to do so. It's the same way pundits, authors, and broadcasters often get labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" while similarly left-wing ones don't get labeled. It's an editorial choice to call the reader's attention to it and imply relevance. Beyond t…
After the Senate ran a party-line unpresidented and unconstitutional multi-year campaign to block Obama's nominations from entering office without even a hearing, and then packed the courts with their own judges, it absolutely is relevant who appointed a judge.
It's only relevant to this story to imply that its causal, i.e., an impartial judge might not have made the ruling. Or to your point, "this wouldn't have happened if Obama's appointee were there." It's openly questioning the judge's ability to be neutral.
Regardless, though, I'm OK with it as long as it's labeled every time a Clinton, Obama, or Biden-appointed judge makes a decision that could be framed as political. That doesn't happen, though.
>But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits... 1. Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. 2. Granting a preliminary injunction is a long way from winning a case. 3. There is pressure and th…
It matters because Trump appointed, and the GOP Senate confirmed, a batch of federal judges who the bar association determined were Not Qualified, because they were found to be lacking in "integrity, professional competence or judicial temperament."
The past two GOP presidents have eschewed bar association recommendations entirely and instead had their judicial appointments selected by the right-wing Federalist Society.