Voat Is Shutting Down

>Here's the issue, either you're advocating for something useless, or for the suppression of speech.

Incorrect. I'm pointing out your flawed argument where you somehow believe that "free speech" exists if there are social consequences for speaking. I provide a counter example where severe social consequences, effectively suppress speech.

As pointed out by another commenter on your post, freedom of speech is much more than the letter of the law. It is a much wider concept for exchanging ideas. Your claim that "not free from consequences" by the letter of the law while legally correct, is ironically, the polar opposite of what freedom of speech actually is.

You listed a crime that might happen, and then asserted that therefore we need more laws to protect speech. I find the argument unpersuasive, for reasons I have already provided.

As an aside, I find the hyperbole tiresome. "What if someone gets lynched?" is half a step away from "think of the children" in its triteness, and it's a really quick way to make these conversations go off the rail.

> Your claim that "not free from consequences" by the letter of the law while legally correct, is ironically, the polar opposite of what freedom of speech actually is.

And what, pray tell, do you recommend when the "social consequences" of free speech are also speech? Would you suppress the speech of "the mob" for the sake of the original speaker? Would you force people to associate with those they find noxious against their wills? If so, I don't think you're nearly as pro free speech as you think you are. If not, then I'm not really sure what you're actually advocating for, aside from generally being angry at Twitter.

It wasn't. But a bit of a context wouldn't hurt, right? Why did Koreans choose to return the remnants, out of the blue? You wouldn't have guessed it unless I told you, right? Given the general atmosphere, it certainly feels like there's a deliberate omission. Yay for the best journalism the U.S. has to offer.

I'm aware of T's conduct, I don't like him and I wouldn't vote for him if I happened to be a U.S. citizen. But I'm not, so I don't really care about him that much.

What I care about is freedom in a very broad sense, including the freedom to share information and express opinions, and to know other what others have to share and express. And here T. and his fate in media and on social platforms is a mere indicator.

Back to reddit: in 2016 you could see supporters from both sides. They were visible and vocal about what they had to say. In 2020, there is only "orange man bad" side to be seen. If I did not know better, I could have thought that this represents a legitimate change of the tides: in 2016 T. had supporters, now he does not.

But this isn't the case. In 2016 he got slightly less than a half of all votes, in 2020 he got slightly less than a half of all votes, no change here. So what changed? Reddit. For what I know, it deliberately chose to suppress the voices of the T. supporters for some reason. Ban this subreddit, quarantine that, change the mods to more loyal ones there. Like I said, they're probably in their own right, but this reverse astroturfing is scary.

This is scary because: what are they going to suppress next? What else did they suppress, but I did not notice? And if venues in the range between the best and the snobbiest magazine and the semi-anonymous public message board choose to suppress something, where do I find it then? And, most importantly, why so many reasonable people find this OK? Even fellow HN folks suddenly became very pro-censorship in the recent couple of years. My guess is that they have never been on the receiving end of it :(

It is not about T, it is not even about Reddit. How do I find something if Google chooses to suppress it? How do I send a link to what I found to my friend, if their messenger of choice bans these particular links, and their email provider puts emails with these links to spam? How do I keep my friends updated about what I have to say if their social networks or news aggregating tools forbid or suppress links to my website? Or (as in the case of Facebook, afaik) suppress links to all websites, while censoring their in-platform content heavily?

Do you really think that the problem "does not exist"?

There's not a whole lot positive to say about the man, so far you've offered up the tiniest sliver. You're clearly more informed on this wonderful information that is being suppressed so tell me more. I've already accepted that the NK remains was a good thing and he gets a gold star for that. More please?

As to the voters, well, according to this 45% of Americans believe ghosts and demons are real: https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2...

There's part of the problem right there.

As for de-platforming, yes I'm 100% ok with Alex Jones not making money. I'm ok with Trump losing twitter privileges after he leaves office if he continues to engage in stochastic terrorism.

You're scared of the wrong things. I'm scared of a population that wants fascism, that would love to hunt liberals for sport, that want to make their religious beliefs the law of the land.