61–70 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your point?
Parler isn't a bastion of free speech. They make the same "we don't want to be associated with certain users" decision that FB and Twitter do, often in the exact same ways. They just don't ban or limit far-right conspiracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not letting others speak IS fascism.
Can I put up some "TRUMP LOST DEAL WITH IT"[1] signs on your front lawn? No? Then you're being a facist because you're not letting me speak. [1] or if you're on the other side of the ideological spectrum, a "ABORTION IS MURDER" sign with pictures of bloody fetuses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or fear of the mob. We will be using DDoS-Guard going forward to show support for those with a spine.
Dunno that sounds vaguely like virtue signaling to me. Also, I'm personally not a big fan of a russian company MITMing my company's traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the only “free speech” Parler allows for that Facebook/Twitter don’t is racist bigotry + insurrectionist content, so I’m pretty much entirely on the side of “wipe them off the web”
Is that content authentic, or is it made by good old provocateurs?
Because that sounds like an overly-complex theory, and doesn't explain any content on Parler that was posted more than two weeks ago, when the idea of getting Parler off the Internet actually became plausible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I put up some "TRUMP LOST DEAL WITH IT"[1] signs on your front lawn? No? Then you're being a facist because you're not letting me speak. [1] or if you're on the other side of the ideological spectrum, a "ABORTION IS MURDER" sign with pictures of bloody fetuses.
Can't you? If not, then your laws suck.
These goings-on make me very aware of the fact that I'm still not settled on the matter of free speech. I used to be very pro-free-speech, but on the other hand, I'm anti-fascism, and I don't know what's worse: Giving fascists a platform to spew hate, or set a precedent for potentially limiting my own speech down the line? It's nowhere near clear-cut, and I'd like to hear some opinions on this.
I.e. "if that speech became actions would you want those actions to be universally accepted [where you live]" or even just "applicable to everyone indiscriminately including you and your family"?
In that case "line up the firing squads" "Pence goes first" is a clear-cut scenario.
Parler absolutely endorsed and supported all that and how anyone can defend them at this point is frankly baffling. Unless all those people are ok taking Pence's place in front of the firing squads? Even if they are then it is not sustainable to have that as a universal law because at some point we will run out of people to make firing squads of (they will all be shot).
These goings-on make me very aware of the fact that I'm still not settled on the matter of free speech. I used to be very pro-free-speech, but on the other hand, I'm anti-fascism, and I don't know what's worse: Giving fascists a platform to spew hate, or set a precedent for potentially limiting my own speech down the line? It's nowhere near clear-cut, and I'd like to hear some opinions on this.
If fascism is defined as the merger of corporation and state, does a dominant political party allying with major corporations to suppress a political opponent not ring alarm bells for fascism?
The US narrowly avoided devolving into a permanent fascist state. Now people who at least support human rights and democracy are in power.
The real story here I think is how LACNIC handled this. Who in their right mind will do infrastructural internet business in Latin America going forward if some self-righteous American man can cause them to revoke IP:s assigned to your company? There is no indication that this Russian internet provider - who claim they are operating in Belize - had a say in the revocation of this IP space. Looking at the website of D…
It seems pretty cut and dry; DDoS-Guard would need a physical presence there to operate, they didn't, so the IPs were revoked. The phone call was simply a tip to investigate.
> The pending disruption for DDoS-Guard and Parler comes compliments of Ron Guilmette, a researcher who has made it something of a personal mission to de-platform conspiracy theorist and far-right groups. While this may solve immediate problems (such as the planning of unlawful or otherwise socially harmful events), we should consider the long-term impacts of de-platforming. Does censorship, even if justified, fuel a…
These groups are already generating social conflict. De-platforming ISIS from Twitter and YouTube worked to stop their massive growth of new members through propaganda. There is no reason to believe it won’t also work on American right-wing terrorist and Christian terrorists. “Capitol Hill Attack Video Shows Rioters Pray With Lifted Hands After Violating Senate Chamber” https://faithfullymagazine.com/capitol-hill-att…
It’s insane to say “because “terrorists” use Twitter, let’s shutdown Twitter” instead we remove them from the platform.
Parlor was working with the FBI and was kicking people off their platform breaking their terms.
It makes no sense what’s currently happening.
These goings-on make me very aware of the fact that I'm still not settled on the matter of free speech. I used to be very pro-free-speech, but on the other hand, I'm anti-fascism, and I don't know what's worse: Giving fascists a platform to spew hate, or set a precedent for potentially limiting my own speech down the line? It's nowhere near clear-cut, and I'd like to hear some opinions on this.
But it absolutely does not mean that other people have to like you, listen to you, sell goods to you, or allow you to use their platform.