71–80 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Being a man of principal is not virtue signalling.
> 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…
If I am following this correctly. The American right-wing(republicans) is equivalent to a terrorist organization that beheads people amongst other war crimes.
If I may make a recommendation. Don't treat half your country as if they are terrorists.
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 you only allowed the speech you didn’t have a problem with, then you wouldn’t need the concept of free speech. On the other hand I hate all fascists too and they are violent terrorists so there is no point in pondering philosophy for their sake.
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…
But DDoS-Guard wasn't doing business in Latin America. They made what amounts to a shell company in Belize so they can get a bunch of IP addresses from LACNIC.
To the extent LACNIC handled this situation poorly, their poor handling began when they gave DDoS-Guard IPs in the first place.
This is how things went:
1.) LACNIC erroneously gave IP space to DDoS-Guard, a Russian company
2.) Someone did LACNIC's research for them and said 'Hey, you know that company isn't really based in Belize.'
3.) LACNIC did their own investigation, concurred, and revoked the IP space.
The real story is how LACNIC apparently does little-to-no due dilligence before handing out IP space. And then it took an American man to do cursory research for LACNIC to actually figure out that LACNIC was being lied to by a duplicitous Russian company trying to get cheap IP space in violation of LACNIC policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you only allowed the speech you didn’t have a problem with, then you wouldn’t need the concept of free speech. Well that's exactly the question: Is free speech more societally useful than disallowing the kinds of speech I disagree with?
Yes free speech is useful but not for fascists and their allies. Fascist speech is never okay. The philosophers of the enlightenment didn’t foresee that freedom of speech would be exploited by racists for the purposes of promoting hate in a tolerant society. Freedom of speech is an outdated concept.
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?
It's not. And it would be silly if it were, since corporations are exercises of state power ab initio; there is nothing separate to merge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
And BLM & ANTIFA use Facebook and Twitter? We banning those? 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you only allowed the speech you didn’t have a problem with, then you wouldn’t need the concept of free speech. On the other hand I hate all fascists too and they are violent terrorists so there is no point in pondering philosophy for their sake.
> X is fascist and terrorist Sounds like a good excuse the real fascists would use. Yesterday in that balcony there where a number of world-class terrorists and psychopats received with fanfares. One bombed Irak, the other bombed Lybia, the other bombed Syria, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So should we also cancel sites like Twitter that don't ban far-left conspiracy?