871–880 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can't I download these files from archive.org? All of the interesting files are marked as "not available for download"
Maybe because it's still being imported, but the archive.org team probably needs to review it and make it more widely available (ie. on web.archive.org).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as a friendly heads up, @donk_enby used she/her pronouns.
Wow. Downvoted to negative for politely correcting pronoun usage. Not sure what I should've expected given the average user of HN.
Personally I don't care about the difference but just mentioning "pronouns" seems to be enough to trigger the downvote reflex - "pronouns" has been abused to create so much drama the last few years that I can kind of see why people react even if I don't do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please send me twitter links of people conspiring to commit violence so I can report them.
Here are some interesting ones: https://twitter.com/MonkeyWrenchATX/status/13162253889059266... https://twitter.com/MonkeyWrenchATX/status/13089834842880450... https://twitter.com/Windstalker361/status/129150221759012044... https://twitter.com/ScothSenpai/status/1311436929351790592 I agree Parler is/was shit and yay for its death, but there IS a non-trivial amount of extremist stuff on Twitter as well and IMO letting…
Why is this report worthy?
> reminder that there are no good cops and no bad protesters
Why is this report worthy?
> Every liberal and lefty needs to arm themselves like yesterday
Why is this report worthy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those "more libertarian subreddits" seem to have similar behaviors...
/r/libertarian was famously unmoderated for years until the drama a couple of years when the head moderator finally resurfaced and decided to step in after alt-right mods took over the sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/ajg8ng/rlib... Slashdot is the only major site that was unmoderated in this sense - during the 10+ years I read it the only post ever removed was one with links to Scientology mater…
Probably the biggest thing keeping it in check is that they still a fully editor driven website. No article shows up that hasn't been seen by someone at Slashdot HQ, so it's nearly impossible for trolls to flood the zone with hate speech, and even if they try it's easy to filter out by just changing your post threshold. Also, the community is so small these days that nobody would even bother.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of this data was posted publicly. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Vast majority? OK..... So what about the stuff that was from private posts? You're really going to justify this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just look at reddit / r / conservative. You have to be proven to be conservative before you can post, yet, they preach about first amendment, freedom of speech and your rights all the time.
It is not possible for that page to be conservative, regardless of what the sub is called. The title is irrelevant, it is the nature of the thing that makes it such. Going to /r/conservative is like a red cross visit of a communist labor camp and all the inmates have brand new clothes with creases in them. A facade of what the regime thinks a conservative subreddit should look like. Do you actually think that people…
If the Republican Party isn't conservative you are going to have a tough time finding representation in government. Although I guess by global standards the Democrats are pretty conservative, maybe try there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you name any left-leaning communities that promote "unmoderated" free-speech? As someone who's in many left-leaning communities, this would be news to me and I'm genuinely curious to how it works.
You cannot have both an open community on the internet and unmoderated content. The right says they do this, but it is a lie. Even cesspools like the chans have heavy moderation to keep them from turning into a porn distribution form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CEO mentioned on Kara Swisher podcast that he felt he had zero responsibility for the content on this platform. So this moderation is mostly a PR point.
I wonder how he would feel about Sect 230 getting rolled back. Parler would be down and out (that said it's down and out right now). For clarity I don't support changing 230.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”. I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", just as an example of what I meant in my first comment. > so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree Please, don't. You're arguing against an extreme of my comment in…
Do you see how by using the word “censorship” as if it were a unitary concept with an agreed-upon meaning, you have made it difficult to continue this conversation? I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic — which I think you actually agree with. But you’re trying to argue with me anyway. I was just trying to answer your question on how to recognize a more nuanced and p…
Not really, no, what makes it difficult for me to continue this conversation is that I had no interest in having this conversation in the first place. My first comment was just asking the other person how he dealt with these threads, as I wasn't sure what he meant exactly or if he had a trick or something.
I certainly didn't want to start arguing the merits of free speech again (I already said I found it disheartening to read).
> I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic
And since I never spoke in favor of any extreme, I argued with you because your point about "everyone being pro-censorship" wasn't apropos... Something you seem to know too.
> look for people arguing about specific behaviors; avoid people arguing over the definition of the word “censorship”.
I've seen the same people arguing both in favor of the same "specific behavior" you mentioned and against free speech[1]. And no, those discussions were anything but productive or nuanced. With that in mind, I have no interest in looking for that.
[1]: Not that differentiating between that and censorship wasn't already a distinction without a difference (as I already implied in my previous comment), but I must say that those discussions did make it evident that they were ultimately arguing for the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, it's probably hard for a network like Parler to attract top talent. I mean, they explicitly advertised themselves as the "free speech social network" (i.e. "all hate speech welcome, we won't censor anyone except maybe Trump parody accounts") - would you want to work for such a company, or have it on your resume in the future?
> would you want to work for such a company, or have it on your resume in the future? Does top talent only work for giant ad networks that thrive through undermining privacy (and hence, free speech) while manipulating public discourse to the point where these companies hardly have any defenders left? I suppose so, money will easily trump other considerations, especially among the naive, ignorant or just plain venal.…
Free speech is a good thing. And if algorithmic ranking weren't involved, I would probably still hold to the notion that the appropriate cure for bad speech is usually more speech.
But I've come to understand that even when some of a thing is good, more of it is not always better.
By all means we need vigorous debate and principled stances arguing about where the line should be drawn, and what are the appropriate consequences for stepping over it, but "fire in a crowded theater" is just the obvious case when we have people nattering on about how it's stupid to prevent people from walking around with spare cans of cans of gasoline, just in case and ... "hey, did you know that if the fuel-to-air mixture is rich enough, gasoline actually won't catch fire? Here is your complimentary box of matches BTW."
We desperately need better models and mechanisms for regulating speech that don't require heavy handed censorship by the government or outright bans by private parties, and it would be great if these mechanisms can be meaningfully exercised at the edge of the network (or social graph) rather than centrally deployed, but I'm not sure how to get there from here without the various failure modes bringing everything crashing down around us anyway.