761–770 of 1001 posts
People don’t seem to understand, censorship is a double edged sword. You never know who will be in charge years from now and will abuse those very same good intentioned laws & we end up a police state.
Content moderation is a form of free speech. A police state is when the state tells you that you have to allow something.
Someone brought an interesting perspective in another thread and I can't shake it off. The other side keeps deplatforming them. Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. We're not even listening to them, because it's science and they're *ists if they disagree. We're not debating anymore. We just assume we're right. We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the populat…
I'll be honest -- I haven't really seen any cases where someone was deplatformed for a legitimate political view. By that I mean a viewpoint that is at least tolerant, if nothing else. If the argument against deplatforming is that people should be allowed to heap hatred on gay people or other minorities, then it's not a particularly strong argument. Maybe this is just inherent to a conservative viewpoint, I don't kno…
https://boingboing.net/2020/08/21/citing-violence-facebook.h...
Suddenly half the population is realizing the cons of centralized platforms. Curious if this moment sparks renewed interest in decentralized tech of yesteryear ie the good ol world wide web.
I'm seeing a lot of talk about standing up competing platforms. I'm seeing a lot of talk about destroying incumbents, as through antitrust. I'm seeing some promotion of specific, arguably decentralized, alternatives. But the more successful of those do a lot to hide "decentralized" as an implementation detail, since so few potential users understand, much less care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's highly improbable that the right wind of politics solely resides within the lower half of the bell curve, or that there is even a strong correlation.
No, it's not, because it's a self-association . You might as well say it's highly improbable that the lowest income are also the least educated -- nothing says these variables are independent, and it's highly likely that they are, in fact, linked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Five years ago civil society was in general agreement that racism was bad and that we should respect the democratic process instead of seeking to violently overthrow it. Of course there were people who disagreed but they were at the margins and their voices were isolated to a few forums most people never heard of. A demagogue came along and used mass media platforms to destabilize the norms of civil society and give…
You have a rosier view of five years ago than I do. Anyway, demagogues are products of their respective times. To focus on them and their personalities and their rhetoric is to completely miss the forest. Edit: In fact, that approach is part of what gives them their power. And it certainly makes avoiding their ascent nearly impossible.
I agree with you about demagogues being products of their times. In this case it seems the forest being missed is social media platforms allowing intolerant content and the organization of domestic terrorism.
If that is your point, then I agree. Social media companies need to do more to fight against the pressures that allow demagogues rise to power. Deplatforming them seems like a good place to start.
This year when you go home for Thanksgiving, your mom is going to ask you to set up that "dark web thingie."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Nice strawman argument there. Believe it or not, not everybody who likes Trump is a nazi or racist.
Do you see how rediculous that is?
I know it is hard to swallow, but you are on the wrong side of history here. Just admit you made a mistake and try to move on.
You aren't alone, he lied to the entire world and at least 74 million people in the the US bought it.
Someone brought an interesting perspective in another thread and I can't shake it off. The other side keeps deplatforming them. Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. We're not even listening to them, because it's science and they're *ists if they disagree. We're not debating anymore. We just assume we're right. We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the populat…
Their legal cases are being rejected because they are filing bogus claims without evidence...totally made up crap..not quite the victimization you make it out to be...
Remember “If you don’t like Twitter’s rules, you are perfectly free to make your own platform”? I suppose we are perfectly free to make our own pocket computers now, right?
To be fair, there are legitimate efforts underway to do just that: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/.
More broadly, almost any unmoderated platform will, over time, degenerate. In real life, people tend to self-segregate by individual and community, and laws do delineate limits on speech (for example: the classic, "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater)"): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/
Someone brought an interesting perspective in another thread and I can't shake it off. The other side keeps deplatforming them. Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. We're not even listening to them, because it's science and they're *ists if they disagree. We're not debating anymore. We just assume we're right. We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the populat…