Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Internet Policy] - Restricting the series of tubes

15556575860

Posts

  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    1) I guess I'd just say agree to disagree here. I think it is preferable, no matter how they arrived there, to laud companies for doing something we want, rather than criticize them for not doing it more often. Which isn't to say you shouldn't continue to criticize them for having bad decision making rules or whatever, just that for the brief moment where they finally do something right, it's maybe not the best time to lay into them for the things they still do wrong.

    2) My point here is not a free speech argument. It's that we often see the internet as whole as fundamentally different than any specific part of it. Which is why we often seek to impose more rigorous control over those companies who control access/availability/etc of the internet experience. I don't think we necessarily want to embrace the mindset that these giant corporations should be the ones controlling the internet, and what we can see.

    Which isn't to say that it shouldn't be regulated somehow in terms of what is allowed. Just that it's far easier for abuse to occur with a company that controls access to the internet at all than with a company that's just doing business on the internet. Maybe this doesn't apply as much to CloudFlare since it's not as obviously a monopoly as say comcast, but I don't think it is unreasonable for CloudFlare to say that as an essential service provider it is more appropriate for the government to decide what is and is not fit to be seen.

    3) I understand that consistency does not trump rightfulness. Being consistently wrong is obviously not something to be happy about, and using consistency as an argument against change is ridiculous.

    But you're arguments all make consistency seem pointless, which I would strongly disagree with. There is a benefit there. And to the extent that we want a business like CloudFlare to change, what we should NOT be doing is saying "fuck whatever rules you have and just do what I want." What we should be saying is "change your rules, in a consistent and transparent way, to achieve better outcomes."

    1) No, we should not reward companies who have to be forced, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing. They aren't actually doing what we want them to do unless forced to. Again, nothing about 8chan changed between Prince arguing that he was obligated to work with them because freedom and to make them better citizens; and Prince saying that 8chan was "lawless" and thus he was cutting ties. What changed was the pressure on Prince, and his loss of reputation - and like with the Daily Stormer fiasco, Prince folded like a cheap suit once it was his personal reputation on the line.

    Why should I respect or commend that?

    2) Here's the thing - you keep talking about how having CloudFlare stop working with Nazis, bigots, and terrorists is the first step on a slippery slope leading to corporate control of the internet, while ignoring that the blind eye we've turned towards 8chan resulted in 22 people dead. I think that we shouldn't work with Nazis, bigots, and terrorists and that the paradox of tolerance explains why their views cannot be treated as legitimate if we want to preserve a tolerant society. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why hate needs to be legitimized.

    3) Nobody is saying CloudFlare shouldn't have rules. What people are pointing out is that "don't work with Nazis, bigots, and terrorists" is a pretty good rule to have, and that after getting caught with their pants down twice, perhaps they should adopt it.

    2) I don't think I am ignoring anything. If you want to debate free speech we can go to the free speech thread. But in this thread, I do think there is something worth noting about who should be expected to make decisions on content. Should comcast be in charge of deciding what content is good and bad, and take active steps towards removing content it sees as unfit? Because that seems like a terrible idea to me.

    Wherever you stand on free speech vs regulated speech, I don't think I want Comcast or CloudFlare to be the arbiters. The same way I wouldn't want say a private but regulated electrical company to try to remove a business by refusing to provide electricity. It's not the right avenue.

    First off, a free speech argument doesn't magically become not a free speech argument just because it's in the Internet Policy thread. But beyond that, why is it a bad idea for Comcast, CloudFlare, or any business to have a policy of "we will not condone or work with Nazis, bigots, or terrorists" (like this very website that you're posting on)? And don't extrapolate - that's just jumping down the slippery slope and expecting others to follow you. If you think it's a bad idea for Comcast or CloudFlare to not work with hate, you need to defend that specific point, because that's what people are asking for. And I think that the fact that you've repeatedly jumped to extrapolate shows that you don't actually have an argument there, so you move the goalposts and hope nobody notices.
    3) Points 2 and 3 are separate points to me. Specifically, I am saying, that even if I agreed with you that CloudFlare should be refusing to host websites based on content, I still think consistency and transparency in how the approach it are essential. And before you say you are totally fine with them consistently banning Nazi's, this is the original quote I was responding too:
    As the saying goes, foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. The rule of law, to be just and legitimate, must serve and protect the people under it.

    I simply take exception to the quote because I think it trivializes the importance of consistency. It seems like you're saying if the laws don't get you what you want, then you should just ignore them and do whatever you want. In this case we are talking about CloudFlare's TOS instead of an actual law, and the ignoring would be CloudFlare ignoring their own TOS and banning sites whenever they felt "justified."

    That seems like a bad idea to me. I think we should fight to change their TOS, not demand they ban whatever site we want regardless of their TOS. Maybe this is a bit pedantic, but I think it is an important distinction.

    No, the quote is aimed at putting consistency above everything else, hence why the first word is foolish. If you argue for consistency while people are being hurt, it should be no surprise when you get viewed as foolish rather than principled. Besides, this isn't the first time CloudFlare has been here, and the nature of 8chan is not some secret. Matthew Prince doesn't win any points for being consistent about "we have to work with Nazis, bigots, and terrorists because freedom", because it's a fucking goosey position.

    On the consistency point I don't think there is much more to debate. I think we agree that there is a right way and a wrong way to seek change, and we both agree CloudFlare should change their TOS if the want to target Nazis, rather than just banning sites with no additional information other than a two word announcment of "fuck Nazi's."

    If you want to argue that you were not implying that consistency is always bad, just "foolish consistency" which puts consistency above doing the right thing, then that's fine. It's not what I read from you're original post but if that is what you meant, then as I have already said, I agree you should not value consistency above doing the right thing.

    But I will just leave it out there (not as a direct comment towards anyone specific) that consistency does have value and we should be aware of that when structuring our complaints of a companies actions.

    As for the free speech part, my point is that it doesn't matter where you want to draw the line about free speech vs regulated or banned speech. Even if you want a massive amount of bans for a wide range of speech (which does not apply to anyone here, probably), there is a legitimate question about who would be best equipped to make the site by site judgement calls in a fair and equitable manner. In that sense it's not really about free speech or slippery slopes. It's about the transparency of execution, transparency of rule generation, and ease of control (by which I mean the ability to affect change in the rules) by affected parties. All of those things seem like they will be done poorly by a private company and done at least better by government or someother neutral third party.

    You can certainly disagree that private companies can't or shouldn't be the arbiter, but it's not about the fucking place where you draw the line for what is and isn't free speech. We need not even mention Nazi's at all to have that debate.

    You're basically echoing Prince's position, and given how it's now blown up twice in his face, that should be a signal that it's not working. "We shouldn't be picking who gets heard" turns out to be a poor excuse for defending working with hate.

    The Atlantic just published a piece about the whole matter, and there was one part that seems emblematic of the whole problem:
    In 2017, Prince worried that, by taking the first step along the road of moderating vile but legal content at all, it would be “harder for us to argue against a government somewhere pressuring us into taking down a site they don’t like.” This weekend, he cited regular requests from Middle Eastern governments to take down the sites of an LGBTQ support group because they are “corrupting the children.” Companies might feel justified in rejecting such requests on human-rights grounds. But especially in less clear-cut cases, who is Matthew Prince to determine from San Francisco the legitimacy of a government’s insistence that something is harmful a world away? How can he justify his decisions as more than arbitrary? This is no doubt why he wants someone else—legislators, legal scholars, an independent oversight board, somebody—to provide a framework.

    The source of this is the same as the problems at Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc. - leadership is unwilling to take a stand, so they desperately ask for others to do it for them. Prince wants the power that being CEO of CloudFlare gives him - but he refuses to accept the responsibilities that go along with it.

    As was pointed out above, CloudFlare has done business with 8chan for five years now, and it is only now that they see them as "lawless". This is a failure on their part, and it is long past time for Prince to accept and acknowledge his failure.

    Social media has blown up in people's faces for lots of reasons. Most of the time for terrible reasons. I don't take that as a convincing argument of anything.

    At some point we are just going to have to agree to disagree I think, because I read that atlantic piece and Prince's point is a very good one. Why the fuck would I want some rando deciding what is and is not harmful, especially considering his incentives are going to be all kinds of fucked. Censuring/banning/deplatforming speech is something that we should be deciding as a community/society together, and honestly the only way that really works with an oversight community that is controlled by society (like governments that get voted in).

    Let me note that you're talking on a site where what is and isn't allowed is dictated by three "randos" (specifically Mike, Jerry, and Tube,) and the result has been that this forum has become a more inclusive place because of their decisions. Conversely, you have places like Reddit where the owners have given that decision over to the community, and the result has been a continuous struggle with hate and white supremacy (there was a point where Reddit was the largest white supremacist website because of the number of white supremacist subreddits.)

    Again, Prince has been working with and turning a blind eye to 8chan for five years, and their nature has changed little over that time. What did change was the willingness of people to treat Prince's argument as legitimate.

    Let us not pretend like this forum is so inclusive outside of a certain set of forum culture supported ideas and positions entirely separate from advocating white supremacy or racism. There is a pretty narrow political culture fostered here which is situated pretty strongly in the center left space with a few specific policy preferences pulled from SocDems, and loudly and proudly shouts down and dismisses out of hand anyone to the right or left as either racist or antagonizing troublemakers. You can see it unfold in real time in any of the political threads.

    This forum is INCREDIBLY inclusive. More so than anywhere I've ever seen. It just so happens that if you come here supporting GOP policy, odds are that you are supporting bad policy and are told such in no uncertain terms. You also have to be arguing in pretty bad faith to support a lot of GOP policy which is also frowned upon.

    I like that you jumped directly to talking about the GOP in order to ignore both the rest of the comment and the larger point of the comment.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    Lanlaorn
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    1) I guess I'd just say agree to disagree here. I think it is preferable, no matter how they arrived there, to laud companies for doing something we want, rather than criticize them for not doing it more often. Which isn't to say you shouldn't continue to criticize them for having bad decision making rules or whatever, just that for the brief moment where they finally do something right, it's maybe not the best time to lay into them for the things they still do wrong.

    2) My point here is not a free speech argument. It's that we often see the internet as whole as fundamentally different than any specific part of it. Which is why we often seek to impose more rigorous control over those companies who control access/availability/etc of the internet experience. I don't think we necessarily want to embrace the mindset that these giant corporations should be the ones controlling the internet, and what we can see.

    Which isn't to say that it shouldn't be regulated somehow in terms of what is allowed. Just that it's far easier for abuse to occur with a company that controls access to the internet at all than with a company that's just doing business on the internet. Maybe this doesn't apply as much to CloudFlare since it's not as obviously a monopoly as say comcast, but I don't think it is unreasonable for CloudFlare to say that as an essential service provider it is more appropriate for the government to decide what is and is not fit to be seen.

    3) I understand that consistency does not trump rightfulness. Being consistently wrong is obviously not something to be happy about, and using consistency as an argument against change is ridiculous.

    But you're arguments all make consistency seem pointless, which I would strongly disagree with. There is a benefit there. And to the extent that we want a business like CloudFlare to change, what we should NOT be doing is saying "fuck whatever rules you have and just do what I want." What we should be saying is "change your rules, in a consistent and transparent way, to achieve better outcomes."

    1) No, we should not reward companies who have to be forced, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing. They aren't actually doing what we want them to do unless forced to. Again, nothing about 8chan changed between Prince arguing that he was obligated to work with them because freedom and to make them better citizens; and Prince saying that 8chan was "lawless" and thus he was cutting ties. What changed was the pressure on Prince, and his loss of reputation - and like with the Daily Stormer fiasco, Prince folded like a cheap suit once it was his personal reputation on the line.

    Why should I respect or commend that?

    2) Here's the thing - you keep talking about how having CloudFlare stop working with Nazis, bigots, and terrorists is the first step on a slippery slope leading to corporate control of the internet, while ignoring that the blind eye we've turned towards 8chan resulted in 22 people dead. I think that we shouldn't work with Nazis, bigots, and terrorists and that the paradox of tolerance explains why their views cannot be treated as legitimate if we want to preserve a tolerant society. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why hate needs to be legitimized.

    3) Nobody is saying CloudFlare shouldn't have rules. What people are pointing out is that "don't work with Nazis, bigots, and terrorists" is a pretty good rule to have, and that after getting caught with their pants down twice, perhaps they should adopt it.

    2) I don't think I am ignoring anything. If you want to debate free speech we can go to the free speech thread. But in this thread, I do think there is something worth noting about who should be expected to make decisions on content. Should comcast be in charge of deciding what content is good and bad, and take active steps towards removing content it sees as unfit? Because that seems like a terrible idea to me.

    Wherever you stand on free speech vs regulated speech, I don't think I want Comcast or CloudFlare to be the arbiters. The same way I wouldn't want say a private but regulated electrical company to try to remove a business by refusing to provide electricity. It's not the right avenue.

    First off, a free speech argument doesn't magically become not a free speech argument just because it's in the Internet Policy thread. But beyond that, why is it a bad idea for Comcast, CloudFlare, or any business to have a policy of "we will not condone or work with Nazis, bigots, or terrorists" (like this very website that you're posting on)? And don't extrapolate - that's just jumping down the slippery slope and expecting others to follow you. If you think it's a bad idea for Comcast or CloudFlare to not work with hate, you need to defend that specific point, because that's what people are asking for. And I think that the fact that you've repeatedly jumped to extrapolate shows that you don't actually have an argument there, so you move the goalposts and hope nobody notices.
    3) Points 2 and 3 are separate points to me. Specifically, I am saying, that even if I agreed with you that CloudFlare should be refusing to host websites based on content, I still think consistency and transparency in how the approach it are essential. And before you say you are totally fine with them consistently banning Nazi's, this is the original quote I was responding too:
    As the saying goes, foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. The rule of law, to be just and legitimate, must serve and protect the people under it.

    I simply take exception to the quote because I think it trivializes the importance of consistency. It seems like you're saying if the laws don't get you what you want, then you should just ignore them and do whatever you want. In this case we are talking about CloudFlare's TOS instead of an actual law, and the ignoring would be CloudFlare ignoring their own TOS and banning sites whenever they felt "justified."

    That seems like a bad idea to me. I think we should fight to change their TOS, not demand they ban whatever site we want regardless of their TOS. Maybe this is a bit pedantic, but I think it is an important distinction.

    No, the quote is aimed at putting consistency above everything else, hence why the first word is foolish. If you argue for consistency while people are being hurt, it should be no surprise when you get viewed as foolish rather than principled. Besides, this isn't the first time CloudFlare has been here, and the nature of 8chan is not some secret. Matthew Prince doesn't win any points for being consistent about "we have to work with Nazis, bigots, and terrorists because freedom", because it's a fucking goosey position.

    On the consistency point I don't think there is much more to debate. I think we agree that there is a right way and a wrong way to seek change, and we both agree CloudFlare should change their TOS if the want to target Nazis, rather than just banning sites with no additional information other than a two word announcment of "fuck Nazi's."

    If you want to argue that you were not implying that consistency is always bad, just "foolish consistency" which puts consistency above doing the right thing, then that's fine. It's not what I read from you're original post but if that is what you meant, then as I have already said, I agree you should not value consistency above doing the right thing.

    But I will just leave it out there (not as a direct comment towards anyone specific) that consistency does have value and we should be aware of that when structuring our complaints of a companies actions.

    As for the free speech part, my point is that it doesn't matter where you want to draw the line about free speech vs regulated or banned speech. Even if you want a massive amount of bans for a wide range of speech (which does not apply to anyone here, probably), there is a legitimate question about who would be best equipped to make the site by site judgement calls in a fair and equitable manner. In that sense it's not really about free speech or slippery slopes. It's about the transparency of execution, transparency of rule generation, and ease of control (by which I mean the ability to affect change in the rules) by affected parties. All of those things seem like they will be done poorly by a private company and done at least better by government or someother neutral third party.

    You can certainly disagree that private companies can't or shouldn't be the arbiter, but it's not about the fucking place where you draw the line for what is and isn't free speech. We need not even mention Nazi's at all to have that debate.

    You're basically echoing Prince's position, and given how it's now blown up twice in his face, that should be a signal that it's not working. "We shouldn't be picking who gets heard" turns out to be a poor excuse for defending working with hate.

    The Atlantic just published a piece about the whole matter, and there was one part that seems emblematic of the whole problem:
    In 2017, Prince worried that, by taking the first step along the road of moderating vile but legal content at all, it would be “harder for us to argue against a government somewhere pressuring us into taking down a site they don’t like.” This weekend, he cited regular requests from Middle Eastern governments to take down the sites of an LGBTQ support group because they are “corrupting the children.” Companies might feel justified in rejecting such requests on human-rights grounds. But especially in less clear-cut cases, who is Matthew Prince to determine from San Francisco the legitimacy of a government’s insistence that something is harmful a world away? How can he justify his decisions as more than arbitrary? This is no doubt why he wants someone else—legislators, legal scholars, an independent oversight board, somebody—to provide a framework.

    The source of this is the same as the problems at Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc. - leadership is unwilling to take a stand, so they desperately ask for others to do it for them. Prince wants the power that being CEO of CloudFlare gives him - but he refuses to accept the responsibilities that go along with it.

    As was pointed out above, CloudFlare has done business with 8chan for five years now, and it is only now that they see them as "lawless". This is a failure on their part, and it is long past time for Prince to accept and acknowledge his failure.

    Social media has blown up in people's faces for lots of reasons. Most of the time for terrible reasons. I don't take that as a convincing argument of anything.

    At some point we are just going to have to agree to disagree I think, because I read that atlantic piece and Prince's point is a very good one. Why the fuck would I want some rando deciding what is and is not harmful, especially considering his incentives are going to be all kinds of fucked. Censuring/banning/deplatforming speech is something that we should be deciding as a community/society together, and honestly the only way that really works with an oversight community that is controlled by society (like governments that get voted in).

    Let me note that you're talking on a site where what is and isn't allowed is dictated by three "randos" (specifically Mike, Jerry, and Tube,) and the result has been that this forum has become a more inclusive place because of their decisions. Conversely, you have places like Reddit where the owners have given that decision over to the community, and the result has been a continuous struggle with hate and white supremacy (there was a point where Reddit was the largest white supremacist website because of the number of white supremacist subreddits.)

    Again, Prince has been working with and turning a blind eye to 8chan for five years, and their nature has changed little over that time. What did change was the willingness of people to treat Prince's argument as legitimate.

    Let us not pretend like this forum is so inclusive outside of a certain set of forum culture supported ideas and positions entirely separate from advocating white supremacy or racism. There is a pretty narrow political culture fostered here which is situated pretty strongly in the center left space with a few specific policy preferences pulled from SocDems, and loudly and proudly shouts down and dismisses out of hand anyone to the right or left as either racist or antagonizing troublemakers. You can see it unfold in real time in any of the political threads.

    This forum is INCREDIBLY inclusive. More so than anywhere I've ever seen. It just so happens that if you come here supporting GOP policy, odds are that you are supporting bad policy and are told such in no uncertain terms. You also have to be arguing in pretty bad faith to support a lot of GOP policy which is also frowned upon.

    I like that you jumped directly to talking about the GOP in order to ignore both the rest of the comment and the larger point of the comment.

    That's cause I kind of disagree with that too.

    I see all sorts of varying shades of left on this forum.

    That or I don't really understand what your complaint is =p

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Is the larger point that you don't like being confronted with facts that don't align with your worldview, or feel like a martyr when other people on this forum call you out on topics of racism/discrimination/et al? The post implied both, but I want to make sure we are clearly understanding your intent.

    AngelHedgieDarkPrimusMegaMekPhillishereSpoitMan in the Mistsautono-wally, erotibot300
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    Also, inclusivity stops when someone stands, specifically, for exclusion. You can join the party up to the point where you advocate for and/or take action on denying other people from joining.

    Enc on
    AngelHedgieMegaMekLoisLane
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    1) I guess I'd just say agree to disagree here. I think it is preferable, no matter how they arrived there, to laud companies for doing something we want, rather than criticize them for not doing it more often. Which isn't to say you shouldn't continue to criticize them for having bad decision making rules or whatever, just that for the brief moment where they finally do something right, it's maybe not the best time to lay into them for the things they still do wrong.

    2) My point here is not a free speech argument. It's that we often see the internet as whole as fundamentally different than any specific part of it. Which is why we often seek to impose more rigorous control over those companies who control access/availability/etc of the internet experience. I don't think we necessarily want to embrace the mindset that these giant corporations should be the ones controlling the internet, and what we can see.

    Which isn't to say that it shouldn't be regulated somehow in terms of what is allowed. Just that it's far easier for abuse to occur with a company that controls access to the internet at all than with a company that's just doing business on the internet. Maybe this doesn't apply as much to CloudFlare since it's not as obviously a monopoly as say comcast, but I don't think it is unreasonable for CloudFlare to say that as an essential service provider it is more appropriate for the government to decide what is and is not fit to be seen.

    3) I understand that consistency does not trump rightfulness. Being consistently wrong is obviously not something to be happy about, and using consistency as an argument against change is ridiculous.

    But you're arguments all make consistency seem pointless, which I would strongly disagree with. There is a benefit there. And to the extent that we want a business like CloudFlare to change, what we should NOT be doing is saying "fuck whatever rules you have and just do what I want." What we should be saying is "change your rules, in a consistent and transparent way, to achieve better outcomes."

    1) No, we should not reward companies who have to be forced, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing. They aren't actually doing what we want them to do unless forced to. Again, nothing about 8chan changed between Prince arguing that he was obligated to work with them because freedom and to make them better citizens; and Prince saying that 8chan was "lawless" and thus he was cutting ties. What changed was the pressure on Prince, and his loss of reputation - and like with the Daily Stormer fiasco, Prince folded like a cheap suit once it was his personal reputation on the line.

    Why should I respect or commend that?

    2) Here's the thing - you keep talking about how having CloudFlare stop working with Nazis, bigots, and terrorists is the first step on a slippery slope leading to corporate control of the internet, while ignoring that the blind eye we've turned towards 8chan resulted in 22 people dead. I think that we shouldn't work with Nazis, bigots, and terrorists and that the paradox of tolerance explains why their views cannot be treated as legitimate if we want to preserve a tolerant society. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why hate needs to be legitimized.

    3) Nobody is saying CloudFlare shouldn't have rules. What people are pointing out is that "don't work with Nazis, bigots, and terrorists" is a pretty good rule to have, and that after getting caught with their pants down twice, perhaps they should adopt it.

    2) I don't think I am ignoring anything. If you want to debate free speech we can go to the free speech thread. But in this thread, I do think there is something worth noting about who should be expected to make decisions on content. Should comcast be in charge of deciding what content is good and bad, and take active steps towards removing content it sees as unfit? Because that seems like a terrible idea to me.

    Wherever you stand on free speech vs regulated speech, I don't think I want Comcast or CloudFlare to be the arbiters. The same way I wouldn't want say a private but regulated electrical company to try to remove a business by refusing to provide electricity. It's not the right avenue.

    First off, a free speech argument doesn't magically become not a free speech argument just because it's in the Internet Policy thread. But beyond that, why is it a bad idea for Comcast, CloudFlare, or any business to have a policy of "we will not condone or work with Nazis, bigots, or terrorists" (like this very website that you're posting on)? And don't extrapolate - that's just jumping down the slippery slope and expecting others to follow you. If you think it's a bad idea for Comcast or CloudFlare to not work with hate, you need to defend that specific point, because that's what people are asking for. And I think that the fact that you've repeatedly jumped to extrapolate shows that you don't actually have an argument there, so you move the goalposts and hope nobody notices.
    3) Points 2 and 3 are separate points to me. Specifically, I am saying, that even if I agreed with you that CloudFlare should be refusing to host websites based on content, I still think consistency and transparency in how the approach it are essential. And before you say you are totally fine with them consistently banning Nazi's, this is the original quote I was responding too:
    As the saying goes, foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. The rule of law, to be just and legitimate, must serve and protect the people under it.

    I simply take exception to the quote because I think it trivializes the importance of consistency. It seems like you're saying if the laws don't get you what you want, then you should just ignore them and do whatever you want. In this case we are talking about CloudFlare's TOS instead of an actual law, and the ignoring would be CloudFlare ignoring their own TOS and banning sites whenever they felt "justified."

    That seems like a bad idea to me. I think we should fight to change their TOS, not demand they ban whatever site we want regardless of their TOS. Maybe this is a bit pedantic, but I think it is an important distinction.

    No, the quote is aimed at putting consistency above everything else, hence why the first word is foolish. If you argue for consistency while people are being hurt, it should be no surprise when you get viewed as foolish rather than principled. Besides, this isn't the first time CloudFlare has been here, and the nature of 8chan is not some secret. Matthew Prince doesn't win any points for being consistent about "we have to work with Nazis, bigots, and terrorists because freedom", because it's a fucking goosey position.

    On the consistency point I don't think there is much more to debate. I think we agree that there is a right way and a wrong way to seek change, and we both agree CloudFlare should change their TOS if the want to target Nazis, rather than just banning sites with no additional information other than a two word announcment of "fuck Nazi's."

    If you want to argue that you were not implying that consistency is always bad, just "foolish consistency" which puts consistency above doing the right thing, then that's fine. It's not what I read from you're original post but if that is what you meant, then as I have already said, I agree you should not value consistency above doing the right thing.

    But I will just leave it out there (not as a direct comment towards anyone specific) that consistency does have value and we should be aware of that when structuring our complaints of a companies actions.

    As for the free speech part, my point is that it doesn't matter where you want to draw the line about free speech vs regulated or banned speech. Even if you want a massive amount of bans for a wide range of speech (which does not apply to anyone here, probably), there is a legitimate question about who would be best equipped to make the site by site judgement calls in a fair and equitable manner. In that sense it's not really about free speech or slippery slopes. It's about the transparency of execution, transparency of rule generation, and ease of control (by which I mean the ability to affect change in the rules) by affected parties. All of those things seem like they will be done poorly by a private company and done at least better by government or someother neutral third party.

    You can certainly disagree that private companies can't or shouldn't be the arbiter, but it's not about the fucking place where you draw the line for what is and isn't free speech. We need not even mention Nazi's at all to have that debate.

    You're basically echoing Prince's position, and given how it's now blown up twice in his face, that should be a signal that it's not working. "We shouldn't be picking who gets heard" turns out to be a poor excuse for defending working with hate.

    The Atlantic just published a piece about the whole matter, and there was one part that seems emblematic of the whole problem:
    In 2017, Prince worried that, by taking the first step along the road of moderating vile but legal content at all, it would be “harder for us to argue against a government somewhere pressuring us into taking down a site they don’t like.” This weekend, he cited regular requests from Middle Eastern governments to take down the sites of an LGBTQ support group because they are “corrupting the children.” Companies might feel justified in rejecting such requests on human-rights grounds. But especially in less clear-cut cases, who is Matthew Prince to determine from San Francisco the legitimacy of a government’s insistence that something is harmful a world away? How can he justify his decisions as more than arbitrary? This is no doubt why he wants someone else—legislators, legal scholars, an independent oversight board, somebody—to provide a framework.

    The source of this is the same as the problems at Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc. - leadership is unwilling to take a stand, so they desperately ask for others to do it for them. Prince wants the power that being CEO of CloudFlare gives him - but he refuses to accept the responsibilities that go along with it.

    As was pointed out above, CloudFlare has done business with 8chan for five years now, and it is only now that they see them as "lawless". This is a failure on their part, and it is long past time for Prince to accept and acknowledge his failure.

    Social media has blown up in people's faces for lots of reasons. Most of the time for terrible reasons. I don't take that as a convincing argument of anything.

    At some point we are just going to have to agree to disagree I think, because I read that atlantic piece and Prince's point is a very good one. Why the fuck would I want some rando deciding what is and is not harmful, especially considering his incentives are going to be all kinds of fucked. Censuring/banning/deplatforming speech is something that we should be deciding as a community/society together, and honestly the only way that really works with an oversight community that is controlled by society (like governments that get voted in).

    Let me note that you're talking on a site where what is and isn't allowed is dictated by three "randos" (specifically Mike, Jerry, and Tube,) and the result has been that this forum has become a more inclusive place because of their decisions. Conversely, you have places like Reddit where the owners have given that decision over to the community, and the result has been a continuous struggle with hate and white supremacy (there was a point where Reddit was the largest white supremacist website because of the number of white supremacist subreddits.)

    Again, Prince has been working with and turning a blind eye to 8chan for five years, and their nature has changed little over that time. What did change was the willingness of people to treat Prince's argument as legitimate.

    Let us not pretend like this forum is so inclusive outside of a certain set of forum culture supported ideas and positions entirely separate from advocating white supremacy or racism. There is a pretty narrow political culture fostered here which is situated pretty strongly in the center left space with a few specific policy preferences pulled from SocDems, and loudly and proudly shouts down and dismisses out of hand anyone to the right or left as either racist or antagonizing troublemakers. You can see it unfold in real time in any of the political threads.

    This forum is INCREDIBLY inclusive. More so than anywhere I've ever seen. It just so happens that if you come here supporting GOP policy, odds are that you are supporting bad policy and are told such in no uncertain terms. You also have to be arguing in pretty bad faith to support a lot of GOP policy which is also frowned upon.

    I like that you jumped directly to talking about the GOP in order to ignore both the rest of the comment and the larger point of the comment.

    That's cause I kind of disagree with that too.

    I see all sorts of varying shades of left on this forum.

    That or I don't really understand what your complaint is =p

    There are "varying shades of left" within a very narrow slice of "the left" which constitutes the generally accepted political culture here. Generally that just means how little or much a given poster supports one of the few SocDem adjacent policies that have been deemed acceptable. And on the outskirts of that are some center-right or closer to center center-left posters and some further left posters who either are brow beaten into not talking about ideas outside of said accepted political culture or are treated like antagonistic trouble makers and agitators.


    The threads in which the more left leaning forumers here are constantly berated for arguing in bad faith, implicitly told (and sometines explicitly) that they need to shut up and vote for the candidate which fits within that accepted political culture if they want to be taken seriously, and candidates outside of that accepted political culture are held to a different standard than "acceptable" candidates etc. are not filled with people spouting GOP talking points or even slightly center of right posters. And then those same forumers retreat off site to shit all over them.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    I guess I don't really see all that

    sorry you have that happen

    kimeEncschussThawmusEinzelFANTOMASautono-wally, erotibot300LoisLane
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    It's like a funhouse mirror.

  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I guess I don't really see all that

    sorry you have that happen

    It does not happen to me, my politics do not align with the further left forumers. It is based on my observation and participation in political threads. And my observation of forumer activities on platforms outside of this forum on which they discuss the forum.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I guess I don't really see all that

    sorry you have that happen

    It does not happen to me, my politics do not align with the further left forumers. It is based on my observation and participation in political threads. And my observation of forumer activities on platforms outside of this forum on which they discuss the forum.

    So is this place less or more inclusive than 4chan?

    Does Penny Arcade's moderation policies help or hinder a more tolerant discussion board than 4chan?

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Minorities and women have the perfect freedom to post on 4chan, but if they say anything controversial they will be be doxxed, stalked and swatted.

    Therefore 4chan is a pure and perfect bastion of free speech.

    Seriously though even 4chan is starting to get rules (like "nothing illegal") which is why an even Purer bastion of free speech, 8chan was created, where even crazed murderers can freely post their manifestos, as the Founding Fathers intended.

    MayabirdFANTOMASLoisLane
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I guess I don't really see all that

    sorry you have that happen

    It does not happen to me, my politics do not align with the further left forumers. It is based on my observation and participation in political threads. And my observation of forumer activities on platforms outside of this forum on which they discuss the forum.

    So is this place less or more inclusive than 4chan?

    Does Penny Arcade's moderation policies help or hinder a more tolerant discussion board than 4chan?

    It is less inclusive than an entirely anonymous forum, but so is every other forum which has set names and profiles as well as a de jure or de facto comment rating system. The moderation policies may make it more tolerant in that you are generally prohibited from levying personal insults, but that does not mean the forum culture is more tolerant of ideas which fall outside of the generally acceptable boundaries per that forum culture.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I guess I don't really see all that

    sorry you have that happen

    It does not happen to me, my politics do not align with the further left forumers. It is based on my observation and participation in political threads. And my observation of forumer activities on platforms outside of this forum on which they discuss the forum.

    So is this place less or more inclusive than 4chan?

    Does Penny Arcade's moderation policies help or hinder a more tolerant discussion board than 4chan?

    It is less inclusive than an entirely anonymous forum, but so is every other forum which has set names and profiles as well as a de jure or de facto comment rating system. The moderation policies may make it more tolerant in that you are generally prohibited from levying personal insults, but that does not mean the forum culture is more tolerant of ideas which fall outside of the generally acceptable boundaries per that forum culture.

    Penny Arcade is less inclusive than 4chan?

    Woosh, gonna strongly disagree there, but I'm not even sure how to start without saying things you've definitely already heard....

    PA HotS Group
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
    SleepMegaMekMartini_PhilosopherMoridin889CalicaTicaldfjamBullheadGnizmoEinzelLovelyForarMvrckHefflingFANTOMASSkeithMan in the MistsLoisLaneJazz
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I guess I don't really see all that

    sorry you have that happen

    It does not happen to me, my politics do not align with the further left forumers. It is based on my observation and participation in political threads. And my observation of forumer activities on platforms outside of this forum on which they discuss the forum.

    So is this place less or more inclusive than 4chan?

    Does Penny Arcade's moderation policies help or hinder a more tolerant discussion board than 4chan?

    It is less inclusive than an entirely anonymous forum, but so is every other forum which has set names and profiles as well as a de jure or de facto comment rating system. The moderation policies may make it more tolerant in that you are generally prohibited from levying personal insults, but that does not mean the forum culture is more tolerant of ideas which fall outside of the generally acceptable boundaries per that forum culture.

    Do you want to try rephrasing that? Because right now what I'm hearing is you're saying that 4chan is more inclusive than Penny Arcade.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • DonnictonDonnicton Hey it's me, your old pal Movie Sonic - let me in. LEMME IN. Registered User regular
    I don't browse the deep political threads much, but every once in a while I'll still see the odd bald-faced agree-farm highroad post and I'll just roll my eyes and move on. That being said though, these forums are still way better than most contemporaries as although you'll naturally get people who loudly disagree with you as anywhere, you aren't immediately cannibalized by the entire community forever just for not saying the "correct" thing like you would on a more hateful set of forums like *chan.

  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited August 8
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I guess I don't really see all that

    sorry you have that happen

    It does not happen to me, my politics do not align with the further left forumers. It is based on my observation and participation in political threads. And my observation of forumer activities on platforms outside of this forum on which they discuss the forum.

    So is this place less or more inclusive than 4chan?

    Does Penny Arcade's moderation policies help or hinder a more tolerant discussion board than 4chan?

    It is less inclusive than an entirely anonymous forum, but so is every other forum which has set names and profiles as well as a de jure or de facto comment rating system. The moderation policies may make it more tolerant in that you are generally prohibited from levying personal insults, but that does not mean the forum culture is more tolerant of ideas which fall outside of the generally acceptable boundaries per that forum culture.

    So, entirely anonymous forums which are not safe spaces for minorities and the underprivileged are not more inclusive.

    lol, edit, left out a word there

    redx on
    This machine kills threads.
    MegaMek
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Why would being anonymous make a forum more inclusive? On PA we are able to use names and pictures that hide our real identity.

    MegaMekMartini_PhilosopherCalicaGnizmoMan in the Mists
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Well, they are more inclusive of conservatives, racists, and the verbally abusive. Which I assume is what he cares about in terms of this whinging.

    AngelHedgieQanamilCelestialBadgerMegaMekMartini_PhilosopherEinzelFANTOMASMan in the Mists
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Well, they are more inclusive of conservatives, racists, and the verbally abusive. Which I assume is what he cares about in terms of this whinging.

    Ah yes, the ever popular "if you disagree with me you are whining/whinging".
    Donnicton wrote: »
    I don't browse the deep political threads much, but every once in a while I'll still see the odd bald-faced agree-farm highroad post and I'll just roll my eyes and move on. That being said though, these forums are still way better than most contemporaries as although you'll naturally get people who loudly disagree with you as anywhere, you aren't immediately cannibalized by the entire community forever just for not saying the "correct" thing like you would on a more hateful set of forums like *chan.

    An anonymous format means you actually cannot be "immediately cannibalized by the entire community forever just for not saying the correct thing".

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Accessible and inclusive are not the same thing. Sure a trans black muslim woman can post on 4chan. I suspect she would get a variety of welcomes and a lot of those would actively discourage her involvement and/or continued existence.

    For some reason not many folks matching that description stick around 4chan.

    AngelHedgieredxCelestialBadgerMegaMekMartini_PhilosopherThawmusMrVyngaardDarkPrimusLovelySkeithMan in the Mistsautono-wally, erotibot300LoisLane
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    The culture of 4chan cannot be separated from its moderation practices, because what is, and is not, met with moderation dictates how a culture operates.

    Please, tell me again, is 4chan a more inclusive community than Penny Arcade?

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    An anonymous format means you actually cannot be "immediately cannibalized by the entire community forever just for not saying the correct thing".

    Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Those spaces are designed to create a consequence-free form of speech, specifically to advance speech that is aggressive and divisive and often used by those who wish active harm on others.

    Literally, the creators of this site own the name of the law about this: Gabriel's Internet Fuckwad Law.

    CelestialBadgerDarkPrimusGSMMan in the Mists
  • DonnictonDonnicton Hey it's me, your old pal Movie Sonic - let me in. LEMME IN. Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Donnicton wrote: »
    I don't browse the deep political threads much, but every once in a while I'll still see the odd bald-faced agree-farm highroad post and I'll just roll my eyes and move on. That being said though, these forums are still way better than most contemporaries as although you'll naturally get people who loudly disagree with you as anywhere, you aren't immediately cannibalized by the entire community forever just for not saying the "correct" thing like you would on a more hateful set of forums like *chan.

    An anonymous format means you actually cannot be "immediately cannibalized by the entire community forever just for not saying the correct thing".

    They can if they decide to dox you, which I would say is - to understate it - a markedly less likely thing to happen around here.

  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    Accessible and inclusive are not the same thing. Sure a trans black muslim woman can post on 4chan. I suspect she would get a variety of welcomes and a lot of those would actively discourage her involvement and/or continued existence.

    For some reason not many folks matching that description stick around 4chan.

    Yeah, to some extent this may be a language problem.

    I don't really know what NSDFRand believes inclusivity means, but it's a term with fairly specific meaning in progressive circles.

    probably something along the lines of:
    Largely creating an environment where a wide variety of people can feel welcome and safe and where it is incumbent on the community to moderate themselves in a manner that ensures that.

    This machine kills threads.
    CalicaKayne Red RobeFANTOMASLoisLane
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    Accessible and inclusive are not the same thing. Sure a trans black muslim woman can post on 4chan. I suspect she would get a variety of welcomes and a lot of those would actively discourage her involvement and/or continued existence.

    For some reason not many folks matching that description stick around 4chan.

    Yeah, to some extent this may be a language problem.

    I don't really know what NSDFRand believes inclusivity means, but it's a term with fairly specific meaning in progressive circles.

    probably something along the lines of:
    Largely creating an environment where a wide variety of people can feel welcome and safe and where it is incumbent on the community to moderate themselves in a manner that ensures that.

    I'm not sure that the last clause is necessary?

    PA HotS Group
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    The definition is literally the practice or policy of including people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those who have physical or mental disabilities and members of minority groups.

    PA takes a stance of ensuring those who might be excluded are safe and have a voice here. What PA doesn't do is ensure those who advocate for policies, people, and passions that specifically focus on excluding people or harming people to retain a voice. And, even then, they have a pretty solid shot of speaking their mind on these topics without sanction assuming they phrase their shit the right way. What they don't have is the right to not get called out on those policies being what they are.

    Again: everyone can join the party up to the point they try and exclude someone else. An addendum might be: also those who verbally or physically harm someone else, though that should be implied by the first part.

    Enc on
    MegaMekXaquinKayne Red Robeautono-wally, erotibot300
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I don't think we're not inclusive of Republicans, persay. But those self-identified Republicans are essentially RINO if they don't agree with the decisions and policies of the Republican lawmakers currently in power, which begs the question of why they still wish to label themselves Republican, if no one representing the party in an official capacity is catering to their wishes.

    These sorts of lines of questioning that may be appropriate when it comes to one's self-identified political affiliations, however, are not appropriate when it comes to being a person of color, or a Muslim, or being LGBTQ+, or being a woman, or, or, or... and we all already intrinsically understand why.

    So I'm not a fan of equivocating being a Republican with being a member of an actual minority/outgroup.

    Without at all trying to say that it's a valid or rational stance, most people identify themselves in part by their beliefs, including political beliefs, and the standard response to having one's beliefs attacked is often the mental version of the flight-or-fight response that people get when physically threatened.

    That also can include their "version" of what that group/belief is supposed to mean. I grew up in a family that leans Republican, and the version I was around might love guns and distrust the government, but was also disgusted with (most) racism and couldn't care less who other people slept with or how they dressed or what they did to their bodies as long as it didn't affect them. Finding out that the racists that my family looked down on were closer to the norm than the exception was something of a suprise that took a while to reckon with.

    steam_sig.png
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    So you all don't see any inherit problem with the idea of somewhat under half the electorate and half the politicians of the country being excluded from the Internet?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So you all don't see any inherit problem with the idea of somewhat under half the electorate and half the politicians of the country being excluded from the Internet?

    Because they refuse to see the other half as human? No, not really. You're making the same argument that Twitter did when it refused to act against white supremacists.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Thawmusdestroyah87MorganVMoridin889QanamilXaquinDarkPrimusIncenjucarEinzelMartini_PhilosopherHefflingMan in the MistsLoisLane
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So you all don't see any inherit problem with the idea of somewhat under half the electorate and half the politicians of the country being excluded from the Internet?

    Because they refuse to see the other half as human? No, not really. You're making the same argument that Twitter did when it refused to act against white supremacists.

    Not even a practical one when they control most of the government?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So you all don't see any inherit problem with the idea of somewhat under half the electorate and half the politicians of the country being excluded from the Internet?

    Because they refuse to see the other half as human? No, not really. You're making the same argument that Twitter did when it refused to act against white supremacists.

    Not even a practical one when they control most of the government?

    Unless every single Republican is not only racist, but consciously and irredeemably so I'm not sure how combating racism on the internet would require half the country getting banned.

    steam_sig.png
    kimeMan in the Mistsautono-wally, erotibot300LoisLane
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So you all don't see any inherit problem with the idea of somewhat under half the electorate and half the politicians of the country being excluded from the Internet?

    Because they refuse to see the other half as human? No, not really. You're making the same argument that Twitter did when it refused to act against white supremacists.

    Not even a practical one when they control most of the government?

    Unless every single Republican is not only racist, but consciously and irredeemably so I'm not sure how combating racism on the internet would require half the country getting banned.

    I thought the concensus was that supporting Trump was inherently racist?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    Like Reagan could post here just fine and he was an incredible racist and overall horrible person. Fuck, most commentary about kicking sites off hosting centers on 8chan and Stormfront.

    So unless you're positing that half the population can't A. Stop being such racists assholes that they get multi-million dollar judgements against them and B. Not Inspire multiple terrorist attacks

    I don't think we have to worry about half the population being kicked off the internet. Being made to feel unwelcome and/or banned in some places, sure.

    Phoenix-D on
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So you all don't see any inherit problem with the idea of somewhat under half the electorate and half the politicians of the country being excluded from the Internet?

    Because they refuse to see the other half as human? No, not really. You're making the same argument that Twitter did when it refused to act against white supremacists.

    Not even a practical one when they control most of the government?

    Unless every single Republican is not only racist, but consciously and irredeemably so I'm not sure how combating racism on the internet would require half the country getting banned.

    I thought the concensus was that supporting Trump was inherently racist?

    Hense the conditional "consciously."

    Edit: Supporting Trump may mean supporting his racist actions, but I doubt all who do are aware of, much less accept that argument. Not because they are dogwhisling or someone who believes it's okay to call blacks the N word as long as said blacks can't hear them, but because their brain short-circuits itself halfway through that chain of thought to protect them from the idea that they are racist, or as least supporting of racism.

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So you all don't see any inherit problem with the idea of somewhat under half the electorate and half the politicians of the country being excluded from the Internet?

    Because they refuse to see the other half as human? No, not really. You're making the same argument that Twitter did when it refused to act against white supremacists.

    Not even a practical one when they control most of the government?

    Unless every single Republican is not only racist, but consciously and irredeemably so I'm not sure how combating racism on the internet would require half the country getting banned.

    I thought the concensus was that supporting Trump was inherently racist?

    Hense the conditional "consciously."

    Edit: Supporting Trump may mean supporting his racist actions, but I doubt all who do are aware of, much less accept that argument. Not because they are dogwhisling or someone who believes it's okay to call blacks the N word as long as said blacks can't hear them, but because their brain short-circuits itself halfway through that chain of thought to protect them from the idea that they are racist, or as least supporting of racism.

    Why Trump Supporters Hate Being Called Racists

    tl;dr: They're not racist; some of their best friends are black! It's just that the people they hate for reasons that have nothing to do with race all happen to be brown. (This isn't the article's conclusion, just the sentiment expressed by those interviewed.)

    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    CelestialBadgerMartini_Philosopher
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So you all don't see any inherit problem with the idea of somewhat under half the electorate and half the politicians of the country being excluded from the Internet?

    Because they refuse to see the other half as human? No, not really. You're making the same argument that Twitter did when it refused to act against white supremacists.

    Not even a practical one when they control most of the government?

    Unless every single Republican is not only racist, but consciously and irredeemably so I'm not sure how combating racism on the internet would require half the country getting banned.

    I thought the concensus was that supporting Trump was inherently racist?

    Someone can come in here and say they support Trump and they won't be banned.

    Now, that first statement will almost certainly garner questions, and if we go based on common sense, past experience, and empirical evidence of what it means to support Trump, they'll almost certainly be banned once they continue. But not just for saying they support Trump.

    PA HotS Group
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
    MegaMekMoridin889Kayne Red RobeMartini_PhilosopherMayabirdAistan
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    Calica wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So you all don't see any inherit problem with the idea of somewhat under half the electorate and half the politicians of the country being excluded from the Internet?

    Because they refuse to see the other half as human? No, not really. You're making the same argument that Twitter did when it refused to act against white supremacists.

    Not even a practical one when they control most of the government?

    Unless every single Republican is not only racist, but consciously and irredeemably so I'm not sure how combating racism on the internet would require half the country getting banned.

    I thought the concensus was that supporting Trump was inherently racist?

    Hense the conditional "consciously."

    Edit: Supporting Trump may mean supporting his racist actions, but I doubt all who do are aware of, much less accept that argument. Not because they are dogwhisling or someone who believes it's okay to call blacks the N word as long as said blacks can't hear them, but because their brain short-circuits itself halfway through that chain of thought to protect them from the idea that they are racist, or as least supporting of racism.

    Why Trump Supporters Hate Being Called Racists

    tl;dr: They're not racist; some of their best friends are black! It's just that the people they hate for reasons that have nothing to do with race all happen to be brown. (This isn't the article's conclusion, just the sentiment expressed by those interviewed.)

    That's kinda what I mean. There's strong consensus that racism is wrong, but very little on what racism is, beyond the most extreme and obvious examples... usually.

    And good luck convincing someone of a definition that would include things they have done. Even if they agreed with every other example.

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
    CelestialBadgerBlackDragon480Martini_PhilosopherCalicaDuke 2.0Man in the MistsLoisLane
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So you all don't see any inherit problem with the idea of somewhat under half the electorate and half the politicians of the country being excluded from the Internet?

    Because they refuse to see the other half as human? No, not really. You're making the same argument that Twitter did when it refused to act against white supremacists.

    Not even a practical one when they control most of the government?

    Unless every single Republican is not only racist, but consciously and irredeemably so I'm not sure how combating racism on the internet would require half the country getting banned.

    I thought the concensus was that supporting Trump was inherently racist?

    Someone can come in here and say they support Trump and they won't be banned.

    Now, that first statement will almost certainly garner questions, and if we go based on common sense, past experience, and empirical evidence of what it means to support Trump, they'll almost certainly be banned once they continue. But not just for saying they support Trump.

    What's more likely is that they'll get dogpiled and leave on their own.

    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    HamHamJNSDFRandOrcaMartini_PhilosopherKraintKaputa
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Calica wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So you all don't see any inherit problem with the idea of somewhat under half the electorate and half the politicians of the country being excluded from the Internet?

    Because they refuse to see the other half as human? No, not really. You're making the same argument that Twitter did when it refused to act against white supremacists.

    Not even a practical one when they control most of the government?

    Unless every single Republican is not only racist, but consciously and irredeemably so I'm not sure how combating racism on the internet would require half the country getting banned.

    I thought the concensus was that supporting Trump was inherently racist?

    Hense the conditional "consciously."

    Edit: Supporting Trump may mean supporting his racist actions, but I doubt all who do are aware of, much less accept that argument. Not because they are dogwhisling or someone who believes it's okay to call blacks the N word as long as said blacks can't hear them, but because their brain short-circuits itself halfway through that chain of thought to protect them from the idea that they are racist, or as least supporting of racism.

    Why Trump Supporters Hate Being Called Racists

    tl;dr: They're not racist; some of their best friends are black! It's just that the people they hate for reasons that have nothing to do with race all happen to be brown. (This isn't the article's conclusion, just the sentiment expressed by those interviewed.)

    That's kinda what I mean. There's strong consensus that racism is wrong, but very little on what racism is, beyond the most extreme and obvious examples... usually.

    And good luck convincing someone of a definition that would include things they have done. Even if they agreed with every other example.

    Also, racists have an extremely narrow definition of racism:
    1. A pointy white hat
    2. Slurs

    And they set an unreasonable expectation that all other dog whistles and exclusionary rhetoric be ignored.

    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
    MegaMekCelestialBadgerAngelHedgieMeeqeMillFoefallershrykeEncMartini_PhilosopherCalicaBigJoeMDuke 2.0Rhesus PositiveMan in the Mists
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    Calica wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So you all don't see any inherit problem with the idea of somewhat under half the electorate and half the politicians of the country being excluded from the Internet?

    Because they refuse to see the other half as human? No, not really. You're making the same argument that Twitter did when it refused to act against white supremacists.

    Not even a practical one when they control most of the government?

    Unless every single Republican is not only racist, but consciously and irredeemably so I'm not sure how combating racism on the internet would require half the country getting banned.

    I thought the concensus was that supporting Trump was inherently racist?

    Someone can come in here and say they support Trump and they won't be banned.

    Now, that first statement will almost certainly garner questions, and if we go based on common sense, past experience, and empirical evidence of what it means to support Trump, they'll almost certainly be banned once they continue. But not just for saying they support Trump.

    What's more likely is that they'll get dogpiled and leave on their own.

    Possibly, yes. But dogpiled here by people saying they disagree or you shouldn't support Trump or something. Dogpiled on 4chan by people telling you to go kill yourself.

    There's a distinct and important difference there. You are allowed to have an unpopular opinion. Other people are allowed to disagree. Everyone else is allowed to disagree with you. They are not allowed to attack, threaten, demean you, etc.

    PA HotS Group
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
    QanamilBlackDragon480Just_Bri_ThanksMegaMekDarkPrimusIncenjucarOrcaMoridin889Kayne Red RobeMartini_PhilosopherCalicaMayabirdMan in the Mists38thDoe
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    4chan uses all kinds of terrible slurs as ways to address other posters. Shit that would get me instabanned for repeating are thrown around because of the slightest disagreement... or even agreement!

    They refer to each other using slurs to indicate ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation constantly, regardless of what subject matter is being discussed. Whole slews of new, vile terms have been invented there, and propagated from there out into the wider world.

    Anything other than a cisgendered heterosexual white man is something to be referred to in demeaning and dehumanizing terms on that board.

    The message of all the casual bigotry and misogyny is clear to anyone that falls outside of that spectrum of cisgendered heterosexual white male: You are not welcome here. You are something to be reviled. Stay the fuck away.

    I'm not exaggerating anything in my descriptions. Those are the facts of the matter.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    AngelHedgieIncenjucarOrcashrykeMilldestroyah87CelestialBadgerKayne Red RobeMegaMekMartini_PhilosopherCalicaMayabirdRhesus PositiveSkeithMan in the MistsLoisLane
Sign In or Register to comment.