651–660 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes.
Why doesn't chain of custody apply to data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My evidence was attempting to show that "claims Instagram thinks are true" is an explicitly political category. By moderating away political claims that diverge from that category, IG is advancing a political agenda. You're asking me to prove the much harder claim that IG has never taken moderation action against political beliefs on the other side of the political spectrum. Of course, that is a. an extremely hard cl…
From my perspective the proper response to OP is to either 1. point out how the claims made about Parler are false. 2. point out that this is done by other large social media websites and thus Parler should not be singled out. Keep in mind that by "this" in 2 I mean specifically that there are large social media sites that are designed specifically to enforce a certain political viewpoint. As I see it neither of thes…
I'll try to break down my claim more simply. Saying something like "I don't really care about any political issues, but abortion is fundamentally wrong" is a political viewpoint. If IG took moderation action against people who were saying pro-abortion things, we would call that enforcing a certain political viewpoint.
Similarly, a statement like "all claims are fine except for those that tie Biden's crime bill to mass incarceration" is, again, a political viewpoint. It perhaps doesn't map cleanly onto left or right or pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump, but the set of claims that IG picks to dispute is political because the issues around Biden's crime bill (for instance) were political.
I'm neutral on whether Parler should be "singled out", my point was merely that the two conditions set up by OP are not sufficient to single out Parler, compared to the actions taken by other social media networks.
Likewise, thanks for engaging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This really is the rule, not the exception. Every time I've deigned to wade into conservative "free-speech" zones I've been booted out for ideological nonconformity. Tolerance is a peace treaty: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...
FWIW I've found that true on the left as well
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the tweet text it says "all new users start out shadowbanned until enough of their post get approved for rightthink by their user moderators"
Did they provide any evidence of that, or was it just editorializing? It's not uncommon for new users to start out with limited privileges on some platforms for spam and fraud prevention reasons.
When you purposefully leak private data, you no longer get to hide behind the title "Security Researcher".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikileaks leaked John Podesta's emails, including such criminal activity as his recipe for risotto.
And that was widely criticized as improper behavior. Parler is not good, but stealing and publishing this information is also not traditionally ethical.
Where are the comments about how awful it is for people's private messages to be leaked? Or is this okay because the media told me these guys are the bad guys.
You can pretty easily see for yourself they are THE bad guys. There are calls for violence and white supremacist rhetoric ever way you turn. You really have to try hard to find the non horrible parts of that site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so the non-asshole thing to do is to just use their preferred pronoun. I agree. I completely agree. I myself call the transgender people in my life by their preferred pronoun. I also find compelling someone's speech by threat of banning them to be disgusting. Especially when there's a block button available. If you don't like what someone's saying, you can literally ignore everything they say. Herein lies the conun…
Blocking does not scale if you interact with a lot of people (see many famous examples of celebrities quitting Twitter over harrassment), which is something Twitter would obviously want its users to do. To make it easier, it makes absolute sense to me for Twitter to enforce clearly defined civility rules.
This seems to be viewed as a sort of "bug" of scale; I see it as a feature. If you become extremely popular and your voice is amplified, you're going to have to contend with being criticized and scrutinized to a greater degree.
I fall into the Sam Harris & Joe Rogan Greater Internet Reply Theory: "Don't read the comments. You can't read the comments." Jamie Foxx said it best on why you don't need to read them, "Sometimes the comments'll get in that ass."
I will simply never agree with removing someone for the content of their speech. I do think that you eventually reach a point of harassment (for example, if you reply to every single tweet of someone you don't like with, "You're a cunt."), but by-and-large, a lot of the "problems" simply result in people not being able to ignore others, either by using a button on a website, or just by sheer willpower of not looking at a comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [US limits on free speech] seem to be relevant to this discussion. But not to my comment, and not just because I'm not from the USA. I'm not speaking in favor of parler if that's what you assumed (for some reason). Specially if it is, like the top comment said, just a propaganda machine trying to enforce a single viewpoint. That's antithesis to free speech.
I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected in the US like calls to violence, or speech that insights others to violence. Companies gave Trump et. al. the benefit of the doubt on the “inciting violence” part, until the violence actually materialized and the FBI warned of groups organizi…
I didn't use the word "bizarrely" and I'm not talking about condemnation of unprotected speech (and again, not just because I'm not from the USA). I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example.
> [Trump]
Again, I wasn't talking about parler nor about Trump. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to imply that I'm talking about stuff I'm not, or steering the conversation toward subjects I've never even alluded to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there's a drunk guy trying to start fights in your restaurant, you boot him out the door immediately for being a safety hazard and overall reflecting poorly on your business. I don't think any reasonable patrons will see that and think "Wow, they just kicked that guy out because they didn't like what he was saying, it could happen to me too, better get out of here". It's a similar (digital) situation here. Parler…
Jan 6th was not an insurrection, we had at mon 500k people there. If it was an insurrection, we'd all still be there occupying the capital building. Stop using words that aren't accurate.