571–580 of 1001 posts
This is the same argument cake shops make against taking order from gay people. I do believe that so-called manifesto is mind-numbingly dumb, fact-free and it is dangerous in the sense it will inspire more violence against innocent people. But that precisely what makes it a good test case for asking some fundamental questions. Can commercial businesses with deep reach, pricing power and critical function deny service…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can put together a pointed argument for freedom of expression being tainted, however your username and comment history paint the picture of someone who’s not exactly down with free expression and individuality. I always find it interesting to try to understand a persons viewpoint and put their comments in context of that viewpoint when I see comments like this. Sometimes That little look teaches me something abou…
I think I've been ideologically consistent but feel free to continue looking and post any examples where I'm against freedom of speech and individuality. *note when I say freedom of speech and expression I don't necessarily mean unreasonable forced accommodation and celebration and there is a bit of nuance in my opinions IE I might draw a line between megacorp oligarchies making it virtually impossible to have an opi…
What I intended to imply is that your comment history appears to align with sympathizing with right of center while sarcastically deriding left of center. I think that knowing that colors your comment differently than if your comment history were more neutral in its expressions. There is nothing wrong with that really.
I have my own biases and you have your own biases. I for one believed in completely free and unrestricted speech at one point. However, I’ve come to realize that the tongue can be as sharp as the sword. Hate speech, relentless bullying, and suggesting violent actions towards others have little place in a civilized society. Of course there are degrees of each, and there is the problem of ‘definition’. Who defines what qualifies for the aforementioned and what the severity is can have chilling effects.
Still the problem remains, and I don’t disagree with you entirely. Why should Facebook, Twitter, or any other ubiquitous stage for discourse get to define what is and isn’t appropriate speech? We as a society have created these massive soapboxes yet utterly failed at remaining civil. A modern day tragedy of commons.
What kind of free speech are we exactly advocating here? The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? I'm sorry but moderating such offenses isn't a limitation to free speech. For the same reason why, if you start shouting nig or monkey to black people in a shopping mall, the police is likely to intervene and take you away - and I don't think that any sane person would argue that they'r…
I'm sorry, but how can anyone say "what kind" of free speech...? Don't you see that labeling or discriminating between "free speech of type A, allowed" and "free speech of type B, disallowed" defeats the whole notion of "free"? Somehow people tend to think that their own discrimination isn't, while others is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This always has been and always will be about publicity. 8ch started getting mentioned on national television, and there started to be questions directed at cloudflare. Reddit used to happily host discriminatory, violent communities, and only banned them once people started paying attention and companies became afraid to advertise on reddit because of its perceived connections to hate by the public. The message to ha…
Speech cannot be violent. To the downvoters: speech cannot be violent, by definition . Using your own private definition of a word—in this case, violence —without making an explicit disclaimer is inherently deceitful.
If you build a system that is technically possible for someone to censor, particularly if you make it easy to do (and in fact where not doing so would cost them potentially billions of dollars in market cap in an upcoming IPO, recruiting, sales, vendors, etc), you shouldn’t be at all surprised when they do censor. It is interesting that Cloudflare has only really censored two sites (dailystormer and 8chan) outside of…
Kicking out and not providing service isn't the same thing as censoring. One is customer-driven, the other is content-driven. You can kick a customer out because they espouse certain views or whatever, and it's fine to call it discriminatory, but it's not censorship. This isn't usually a relevant distinction, but here it is because Cloudflare hasn't built "a system that is technically possible for someone to censor".…
They have removed at least two portals, and higher up in the thread it is mentioned that they have also axed various sex related sites - and they are providing monitored info to agencies that use courts and guns to force people to do things... that is starting to sound more and more like a censorship system than a dump pipe which prevents overuse (ddos) - to me..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To extend your metaphor, imagine that part of humanity's brain is engaged in thinking about the abduction and exploitation of children. Another part is lionizing mass murderers and advocating for copy cats. A different part of the brain is contemplating the state of the art for financial and cyber crimes etc. If you come to believe that the time humanity's brain spends occupied with these pursuits leads to negative r…
That’s a good point. Thoughts can be dangerous. My post only works if you have a bias against thought-crime. As an aside, if someone’s thoughts are ill-intentioned, you should be able to dispel them by forcing an honest examination of everything.
Unfortunately the human brain doesn't work that way. It tends to resist new information -- even if logically presented and supported by hard evidence -- that contradicts its world view.
And I'm not even talking about people who suffer from some sort of mental illness, or who are poorly educated, or anything of that nature. Everyone's brain works this way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the gut reaction toward moderation at the corporate level, but United States law already covers these situations: hate speech, criminal conspiracy, and murder. The issue is lack of law enforcement.
There is no law against hate speech, and any such law would be unconstitutional. Many attempts at passing such laws have been struck down. It's an oddly pervasive delusion that hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.
On the one hand, I like the idea of a free, open, and distributed internet, where no one company or government has the power to control what is distributed or discussed. As the great John Gilmore said, more aspirationally than accurately even then: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." On the other hand, we don't live in that world, and I don't know how well it would work in practice if we d…
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." As if "The Net" is a perfect, neutral, self-supporting entity that behaves with mathematic predictability rather than a projection of the chaotic human society on which its existence depends. There is a widespread habit among futurists and technologists, perhaps arising from an appreciation for semantic economy and the anonymizing instinct to downplay as…
What kind of free speech are we exactly advocating here? The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? I'm sorry but moderating such offenses isn't a limitation to free speech. For the same reason why, if you start shouting nig or monkey to black people in a shopping mall, the police is likely to intervene and take you away - and I don't think that any sane person would argue that they'r…
> The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? I'm sorry but moderating such offenses isn't a limitation to free speech. For the same reason why, if you start shouting nig or monkey to black people in a shopping mall, the police is likely to intervene and take you away - and I don't think that any sane person would argue that they're violating your freedom of speech. Popper taught us th…
On the one hand, I like the idea of a free, open, and distributed internet, where no one company or government has the power to control what is distributed or discussed. As the great John Gilmore said, more aspirationally than accurately even then: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." On the other hand, we don't live in that world, and I don't know how well it would work in practice if we d…
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." As if "The Net" is a perfect, neutral, self-supporting entity that behaves with mathematic predictability rather than a projection of the chaotic human society on which its existence depends. There is a widespread habit among futurists and technologists, perhaps arising from an appreciation for semantic economy and the anonymizing instinct to downplay as…
Internet was not designed in an adversarial model.