61–70 of 94 posts
Please excuse my naïveté, and I do not share the opinions of the neo-nazis, but isn't it part of free speech to able to use these symbols and to be prejudiced? Edit: My follow-up question: Why then is it Twitter's responsibility to censor such speech?
It's hard to sell ads against "I'm going to rape you and your children kike bitch".
Please excuse my naïveté, and I do not share the opinions of the neo-nazis, but isn't it part of free speech to able to use these symbols and to be prejudiced? Edit: My follow-up question: Why then is it Twitter's responsibility to censor such speech?
Let's make this point loud and clear, there's a huge difference between criticizing Israel, Netanyahu, or even Zionism but attacking Jews solely for being Jews, this shouldn't be tolerated at all.
I get your point that the Free Speech absolutists may find these social networks unwelcoming when they start censoring or moderating this kind of content on their platforms but on the other hand Anti-Abuse absolutists would welcome this immensely and ask even for more.
So, in the end it's Twitter's call to make and pick which audience they should prioritize and set of policy goals they should pursue.
I also I can't hide to comment on the irony that this opinion is coming from an HN veteran here when you know well how HN is run - Not that I disagree with the moderation policy, on the contrary :) - and how it doesn't represent the pinnacle of Free Speech as a platform on the internet.
The underlying political philosophy is sound, but for some reason the crowd it attracts are essentially losers (in a very specific economic sense).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you hold one user accountable for drawing attention to a user who is now receiving messages from third parties Inciting violence against a person makes you responsible for the violence that follows; let's not pretend this is something different - it's not.
Internet messages are violence now?
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/definiti...
> Interpersonal violence is defined as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against another person or against a group or community that results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/16
> The term “crime of violence” means—
> (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
Threats of violence are by definition violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's surely free speech to write articles suggesting free speech be curtailed. It's also free speech to disagree with censorship. What's your point? (GP didn't seem to be expressing an issue with the article having been written, but with the article's suggestion that Twitter (and other media) need to do more to censor hate speech. In that context this comment is non sequitur.)
Free speech and Twitter are unrelated concepts. Twitter has no responsibility to enforce free speech and can do whatever the hell it wants, although it can be subject to user backlash.
The author of the linked article argues that Twitter has a responsibility to censor hate speech, which GP disputed, because Twitter can do whatever the hell it wants. You're arguing that Twitter does not have a responsibility to not censor hate speech, which nobody disputed, because Twitter can do whatever the hell it wants.
You're arguing with the wind again.
edit: typos, phrasing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did, because people here can get pretty salty and I didn't want to "bite the bait", but yes, now that you insist, I am one, and I am not ashamed of it.
Why are you a white nationalist? Do you think badly of people who aren't white or that such people should be treated differently? If so why?
In other words, they feel that the white "race" as a whole is being genocided because of race mixing. Some feel that there is an international conspiracy of Jews orchestrating this white genocide. If you try to disagree with them, they will reply that you are either a shill or "JIDF" which stands for "Jewish Internet Defense Force". It's not a very homogenous group though, so I try not to generalize them and keep an open mind. Empirically, I will say that there are studies showing working class (blue collar) white youths are worse off economically than black youths, which could explain the rise of this political philosophy.
We even see it on here. Mods have a hard job, BUT they also are subjective when it comes to who they claim is ranting off topic vs those making profound points.
The founding fathers knew all of this quite well, which is why we have "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
Private companies can do all they want to make a safe space, but then we usher in the era of the whirlpool of 'hurt feelings' == physical violence. Which really just weakens people, it robs them of their own capability. And as a result of this safe spaces are really just illusions. By trying to cleanse they actually become impure.
Oh well. I'll be for whatever platform supplants the draconian ones. It will be the selling points.
Please excuse my naïveté, and I do not share the opinions of the neo-nazis, but isn't it part of free speech to able to use these symbols and to be prejudiced? Edit: My follow-up question: Why then is it Twitter's responsibility to censor such speech?
It's Twitter's responsibility out of their commitment to the welfare of community. Abuse and harassment should not be tolerated in any community to guarantee healthy atmosphere and smooth exchange of information and constructive communication for all participants. Let's make this point loud and clear, there's a huge difference between criticizing Israel, Netanyahu, or even Zionism but attacking Jews solely for being…
This is all bad news. A general platform for everyone should really be as open as possible. Also a really important point, there's no more corrupt law making entity than the EU. These are a small group of people not consulting the associated countries one bit. So a pet project suddenly gets Twitter turned into a sissy nightmare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Internet messages are violence now?
You might want to re-read your dictionary. Violence has included non-physical force for very many years, very much longer than the Internet has been in existence. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/definiti... > Interpersonal violence is defined as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against another person or against a group or community that results in or has a hig…
The only problem after this is somebody who gets criticized then pulls the race/ethnic/religion card and suddenly we're all supposed to then set our sights on ruining the life a person being critical, for whatever reason, subjectively insulting or not. Then again who would EVER hide behind their so called protected class, play victim to hurt others. Oh wait, It only happens every day. We even see it on here. Mods hav…
Give me your work email address and I'll send you 800 death threats, including pictures of your family and where they work / go to school, and pictures of you arriving at or leaving your workplace, and then you can talk about whether the discussion is actually about "hurt feelings = violence", or if it's actually about the profound impact on your life some pathologic arsehole can have.
Since you mention US constitution: this concept -- that actions can cause harm even if they don't include physically hitting you -- has been written into US law, and has resisted first amendment challenges.
> I'll be for whatever platform supplants the draconian ones.
Yet you're still here, a place that (you said) is even more restrictive than twitter?