911–920 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a legal reason to have defamation up there? It seems like a pretty funny one to have for a free speech platform - the others are more understandable.
Defamation is not free speech, it's illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I would also probably buy said malicious actors a beer if I met them, accompanied by a high five. You would, would you? Thousands of individuals who by and large wanted to try out a competitor to Facebook ended up getting their personal details downloaded and leaked (and we're talking about very sensitive details here), and you're going to buy a beer for the criminals who did this? I assume before you turn them into…
> Thousands of individuals who by and large wanted to try out a competitor to Facebook That is a very, very generous take. And if that's all users were doing then their data being breached is regrettable but not world ending.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.…
> The sad fact is your comment exposes how difficult it is for anyone in the tech industry to hold a sincere conviction that free speech is a good thing Twitter occasionally labels disputed/debunked political claims as such (but still lets them be published) and, after literally years of doing little more than that, finally took actions to ban a half-dozen high-profile accounts that kept pushing such claims after the…
"We're a community town square, an open town square, with no censorship... If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler."
That's a quote from the CEO I just grabbed from CNBC[1] and there are others floating around about the lack of censorship.
How does that lead to suppression of opposing political viewpoints?
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/27/parler-ceo-wants-liberal-to-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.…
> The sad fact is your comment exposes how difficult it is for anyone in the tech industry to hold a sincere conviction that free speech is a good thing, which until recently would've been astounding. It's a giant backwards step. 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…
Great, let's stop interfering with speech, it leads to bad things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.…
I think we have all unfortunately seen what unbridled free speech on the internet looks like. I think we have reached a good balance (for now). Government has to be hands off, and platforms can censor as they wish. It’s hard to say whether this will work long term, though.
Which place has more violence as a result?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> knowing that it is extremely controversial Aside from it being sad that supporting free speech is controversial, if we assume good faith in the founders' statements then the controversy is simply the way the media has highlighted a section of the user base. Have you been on there? I haven't but I've been around long enough not to rely on the media for accurate representations of groups on the internet (or much else…
yeah look at the recent dumps and insight into moderation and it's quite clear supporting "free speech" was smoke and mirrors. combined w/ the security lapses it's pretty jarring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately you won't find much interesting commentary in a politically charged thread like this, best to just scan and pattern match the kind of exchanges occurring before moving swiftly along.
> best to just scan and pattern match the kind of exchanges occurring before moving swiftly along. How do you do that? I've noticed lately that HN commentary (at least in threads like this) has trended increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately, and it's pretty disheartening to read. Would rather do something like what you say, but I'm not quite sure what you mean. [1]: Which is a bit ironic, thinking about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>147 congresspeople voted to throw out the votes from an entire state, even after their party had pursued the appropriate legal remedies Hey wait, they had the opportunity to vote their conscience on it? Does that mean they were Constitutionally empowered to raise and decide the question? The USA is a republic, and explicitly not a democracy, said status having been debated early on and pure democracy was found seri…
No. The constitution does not allow them to throw out votes. A republic is a form of democracy. Arguing semantics has no place in HN. And "vote their conscience" is a weasel phrase. They had a duty to tally the votes, a procedure to follow. Some of them didn't want to follow the procedure. Changing the procedure requires a constitutional amendment, agreement from a supermajority of states. Regardless of their individ…
So are you neglecting the Electoral Count Act of 1887? If the law and procedure requires they must vote when a proper objection is raised, it is not against the law to vote as they see fit, aka vote freely. This is the generally accepted meaning of "voting their conscience", not vague or misleading and thus not a weaselly phrase.
Perhaps you should cite the Constitutional support for the premise that Congress must vote a particular way when a vote is taken in this case. Especially when actual law and rule allows for the particular question to be raised and put to a vote.
>>A republic is a form of democracy. Arguing semantics has no place in HN.
There is a distinction, as described in Federalists no. 10, Madison proposes that representatives are elected to protect us from the failings of democracy. It is my understanding this is the generally accepted distinction of why we don't vote directly or bind our Senators and Representatives to vote a particular way. I feel it is germane because it means the actions taken were consistent with the specific republican form of government in the USA and to imply they were un-democratic or a threat to democracy is to imply the government is a different form.
In other words there is nothing wrong or unlawful with contesting the electors the way they did. Their only risk in Congress is if Nancy Pelosi (or whomever is Speaker) can gin up a ⅔ majority of members present for a quorum and win a vote to expel the objectors. And of course that can be for any reason she pleases, just like the impeachment. Which is why we may interpret the stated reason as partisanship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, the irony of /r/conservative complaining about censorship or their rights to free speech being restricted while making submitting posts and commenting "flaired users only" (AKA only the users who agree with us and think the same way) is completely lost on them...
I get that it is a kind of contradiction to claim being about free-speech, but to see their point, when free=speech and they as the primary advocates for free-speech are under clear and direct and persistent and unrelenting assault of their speech and thought, I can see how they would take on practical positions to protect their community from infiltrators and subversives as they are struggling to survive under relen…
What are some other human rights?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the difference is that r/politics doesnt actually ban you for posting something conservative, its just the users deciding they dont like it. I dont use it either way due to their horrible link rules, but there is definitely a difference in my opinion.
Over the past 5 years r/politics has quietly banned users for thoughtful critical comments devoid of profanity (the proof has been shared elsewhere such as WatchRedditDie), and deleted inconvenient current event posts before they hit 100+ upvotes. The mods leave alone flippant casual unpersuasive conservative comments knowing they'll be downvoted and make conservatives look bad, and censor the thoughtful persuasive o…
This might feel unfair to you, but perhaps it's not anyones fault, it's just that you're not very insightful to people who have been exposed to a broader tapestry of ideas.