I don't think ISPs need bother with a court system to delist sites cause net neutrality no longer exists. It's really up to service providers and media companies to determine what we're exposed to from now on.
That being said, I kind of disagree in the path of least resistance, knowing the fringe chat apps I have to troubleshoot for my parents and relatives because they refuse to use well coded networking apps that actually don't bloat their memory with cache files that are an unbelievable pain to delete. As long as their friends are on it, they'll use it and make me deal with the IT support. I'm the one that uses one password and cares about things like accessibility, form factor, and input efficiency. I'm the one who researches the value and issues with apps and products before choosing one. They're the stubborn ones who will break their phones just trying to log in to the one app.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Something that tends to get missed in these discussions, is that people seem to think these assholes want something like youtube, facebook, twitter, tiktoc etc., but what they really want is access those very platforms because that's where the people are. It's not just a case of there shit platforms like parler having fuck all in the way of interesting content, it's also that the user base is significantly smaller and is likely the choir. They want a platform that gives them easy access to new recruits and that can try to normalize their shitty, shitty views. So bumping them off those platforms is a huge blow.
Then we get into how once they can't use those platforms. Well they start losing people because people, like nature, want to use the lowest amount of energy. Though to give another analogy using streaming services, unless someone is hellbent they want a very niche streaming service, they aren't going to pony up money for it, even if their favorite show migrates there because they rather only pay one subscription and deal with one password on something like Hulu or Netflix. Also since the Nazi platforms offer very little, anyone that isn't specifically looking for them isn't going to go find them intentionally. Not to mention if they find them unintentionally, they likely aren't going to stay once it becomes apparent it's not the thing they were looking for, some do, but most move on fairly quickly because after finding said thing, not many want to bother making an account or bookmarking.
That said, there are things the search engines and the ISPs can do here. Search engines can start figuring out the names of these sites and having the search never display them, even if someone goes 99 pages down into the results. Also they can start to figure out what terms these people use to get to these things and give them results to sites that offer professional help for de-Nazification. ISPs could, assuming they get court approval or go though some regulate process, not allow traffic to such sites or throttle the fuck out of them. Want to be careful with this last one, I don't want ISPs messing with internet traffic for most things, but I'd be fine if we had a blacklist of known hate sites.
Also don't think them being in social limbo is that terrible. Rehabilitation services would be nice, but I do believe there have been plenty of cases where some of these people get better on their own once they get cut off. Humans are social animals, so some of these people will turn back to old friends and family that they had cut off and that could be a path to rehabilitation. The other thing is that the fucking Nazis don't offer viable solutions or even the truth on what is really going on, so once people are unplugged, they might realize that they weren't being given solutions and in fact were being lied to and that gets them to move away from these sorts of things.
It's sad that it's been such a fight to get social media to ban these fuckers because social media doesn't need them. Almost the entire user base will continue to stay after the Nazis have been banned because many of them didn't go to the big sites to find Nazis. They went to those sites to find things like cat pictures, connect with friends & family or to watch the posts their favorite celebrities submit. The fascist absolutely need mainstream social media to give them a platform because they can't really gain the numbers to be a threat to society as a whole without those platforms.
They wouldn't even lose most of the nazis. If Facebook had a strict policy of banning nazis, there would still be nazis on the platform. They would just not post nazi shit, because they don't want to get banned. Facebook cannot look into someone's heart and discern their true nature. (Yet.) All they can do is look at people's actions.
+9
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
The right is definitely going to be split for a while between the hard contingent that demand a "No apologies, no moderation, no introspection, no appeasement, no consequences accepted" stance and the regular, respectable right-wingers that are concerned about public opinion. To the former group the punishments doled out by social media and major groups are unforgivable and evil (especially because they feel the left is responsible for burning at least five thousand US cities to the ground during the BLM summer and got away scot-free) since to them the coup was largely understandable and not that bad.
The right DO demand moderation. If you go to one of their sites and spout leftie opinions you will find yourself quickly moderated!
The classic joke on Reddit is that r/conservative is in near permanent flaired mode (meaning only certain, approved users can post), and they ban anyone and everyone who strays even an inch out of line with the preferred groupthink. But posters in there will continually decry safe spaces and snowflakes without a hint irony or self reflection.
The right DO demand moderation. If you go to one of their sites and spout leftie opinions you will find yourself quickly moderated!
The classic joke on Reddit is that r/conservative is in near permanent flaired mode (meaning only certain, approved users can post), and they ban anyone and everyone who strays even an inch out of line with the preferred groupthink. But posters in there will continually decry safe spaces and snowflakes without a hint irony or self reflection.
I quit Reddit a few years back because you couldn't express a political opinion without being downvoted by Nazis. I went back recently and it seems a much more pleasant place now.
The right DO demand moderation. If you go to one of their sites and spout leftie opinions you will find yourself quickly moderated!
The classic joke on Reddit is that r/conservative is in near permanent flaired mode (meaning only certain, approved users can post), and they ban anyone and everyone who strays even an inch out of line with the preferred groupthink. But posters in there will continually decry safe spaces and snowflakes without a hint irony or self reflection.
I quit Reddit a few years back because you couldn't express a political opinion without being downvoted by Nazis. I went back recently and it seems a much more pleasant place now.
Funny you mention that. Whenever anyone asks about r/conservative's safe space, like clockwork some conservative poster will show up with a riff on the comment below:
Because the population of reddit is 90% liberal. Whenever an r/conservative post has enough upvotes to show up on the front page or gets cross linked to some other popular sub it gets flooded with those liberals commenting and upvoting each other until a left-wing echo chamber typical of most other political subs. Since the whole point of that particular sub is to be a discussion forum for conservatives the mods restrict those posts to avoid the inadvertent brigading from the leftist majority on the rest of the site piling in from r/all.
Turns out though, that the actual people who were brigading and invading other subs to shut down conversations were conservative subs like /r/thedonald. And once reddit finally banned them, in part because even after being warned multiple times to stop brigading other subs they kept doing it, a lot of that bad behavior went away. And once again it was a small contingent of very vocal, abusive users, enabled by lax to nonexistent moderation, causing the majority of trouble for everyone else. Though the bot spam still happens on some big political stories.
Tolerate everything but intolerance. A simple rule which solves all of these problems.
The problem is that we have, as a culture, taught tolerance of the intolerant under the guise of "free speech" for decades. Something so thoroughly taught needs to be thoroughly untaught, sadly.
There is no objective measure of what is hate speech and what is, say, legitimate criticism of a government. You can pretend that being okay with Amazon doing it this one time won't make it easier the next time China pressures Amazon to get rid of some app the regime doesn't like, but it will.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
There is no objective measure of what is hate speech and what is, say, legitimate criticism of a government. You can pretend that being okay with Amazon doing it this one time won't make it easier the next time China pressures Amazon to get rid of some app the regime doesn't like, but it will.
Parler users were openly planning assassinations and other violence. Miss me with this false equivalency crap.
Amazon doesn't care about free speech and will happily censor whatever it needs to censor to get access to the Chinese market. This is true of basically all corporations.
It's rather easy to distinguish between hate speech and criticism of an organization. One call for death and suffering, the other point out problems. That's why it's not a problem in all the many countries with hate speech laws. For example, the Conservative Party of Canada exists, and is not a criminal organization.
The thing about this idea that businesses have to support free speech is that banks cut people off for being in porn. If legal, non-hateful speech isn't protected at a business level why the hell would violent hate speech be.
Maybe we shouldn't give Amazon the "keys to the internet" then...
Relying on one private company to be the uber host for everyone and everything is a bad idea.
That said, it's still not censorship and the ACLU is off base here.
That's definitely a conversation that should be had because holy shit does amazon have way too much power over the internet. But maybe not on this particular instance or in this thread.
"Our company does not believe a website or social networking site has the authority to censor what you see and post and hide information from you, stop you from seeing what your friends and family are posting," the email reads. "This is why with the amount of concerns, we have made this decision to block these two websites from being accessed from our network."
Censorship is bad, therefore censorship!
...classic.
+17
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Which will anger your customers more, doing nothing and being ignored so you still get paid, or fucking around and finding out as everyone leaves your shitty local service for much larger national competitors?
I looked at their website. They very well could have talked to every single one of their customers about this, which is probably a couple of rural businesses and a handful of boomers that signed up 20 years ago and never switched.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That's kind of an ambiguous headline. Are they banning Twitter/Facebook to stop people from defending the president? Or are they defending the president by banning Twitter/Facebook in protest? Though granted the actual news makes it more clear by saying "We don't like what Twitter/Facebook did, so we're banning them".
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
When done right? Competition for larger ISPs. We have two fiber providers here that have been building out all over southeastern Vermont and giving Comcast a bit of a panic. They're hopefully coming to my town in a few months and I can't wait.
There is no objective measure of what is hate speech and what is, say, legitimate criticism of a government. You can pretend that being okay with Amazon doing it this one time won't make it easier the next time China pressures Amazon to get rid of some app the regime doesn't like, but it will.
Parler users were openly planning assassinations and other violence. Miss me with this false equivalency crap.
And that should be handled by the relevant law enforcement agencies, not unilateral action by a megacorp.
The thing about this idea that businesses have to support free speech is that banks cut people off for being in porn. If legal, non-hateful speech isn't protected at a business level why the hell would violent hate speech be.
You're right, banks shouldn't be allowed to do that.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
There is no objective measure of what is hate speech and what is, say, legitimate criticism of a government. You can pretend that being okay with Amazon doing it this one time won't make it easier the next time China pressures Amazon to get rid of some app the regime doesn't like, but it will.
Parler users were openly planning assassinations and other violence. Miss me with this false equivalency crap.
And that should be handled by the relevant law enforcement agencies, not unilateral action by a megacorp.
The thing about this idea that businesses have to support free speech is that banks cut people off for being in porn. If legal, non-hateful speech isn't protected at a business level why the hell would violent hate speech be.
You're right, banks shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Parler exists for that. Hosting far right content is the only reason it's a thing. You're arguing to strip out a third of the first amendment for...reasons I guess? Boycotts are illegal now?
And nice job dodging the way you called what Parler was doing "hate speech" as a way to minimize why it actually got the boot.
There is no objective measure of what is hate speech and what is, say, legitimate criticism of a government. You can pretend that being okay with Amazon doing it this one time won't make it easier the next time China pressures Amazon to get rid of some app the regime doesn't like, but it will.
Parler users were openly planning assassinations and other violence. Miss me with this false equivalency crap.
And that should be handled by the relevant law enforcement agencies, not unilateral action by a megacorp.
The thing about this idea that businesses have to support free speech is that banks cut people off for being in porn. If legal, non-hateful speech isn't protected at a business level why the hell would violent hate speech be.
You're right, banks shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Why should Amazon be forced to do business with Parler? Last time I checked, right of association was a First Amendment right, and that goes for refusal of association as well.
There is no objective measure of what is hate speech and what is, say, legitimate criticism of a government. You can pretend that being okay with Amazon doing it this one time won't make it easier the next time China pressures Amazon to get rid of some app the regime doesn't like, but it will.
Parler users were openly planning assassinations and other violence. Miss me with this false equivalency crap.
And that should be handled by the relevant law enforcement agencies, not unilateral action by a megacorp.
The thing about this idea that businesses have to support free speech is that banks cut people off for being in porn. If legal, non-hateful speech isn't protected at a business level why the hell would violent hate speech be.
You're right, banks shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Why should Amazon be forced to do business with Parler? Last time I checked, right of association was a First Amendment right, and that goes for refusal of association as well.
Amazon is actually exercising their free speech here, paradoxically.
Nothing on the internet is a common carrier anymore, so Amazon can do what it wants whenever it wants with or without whomever.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And the thinkpieces arguing that "no guys, the real danger is that the tech industry refuses to do business with platforms that are used to coordinate violence by extremists" have begun to appear. This one is goosier than usual with its conclusion:
What we need is an actual content moderation improvement plan for all social media platforms, a plan that we, as users, can use to hold platforms accountable and to stop the largest, most powerful social networks from setting the terms of speech for everyone else. This may sound like an impossible, lofty goal, but most of us probably use a platform that is one of the largest experiments in democratized moderation on a daily basis: Wikipedia. Of course, Wikipedia is not perfect. But its global community of editors have the opportunity to debate fiercely and decide what information that makes it to a Wikipedia page is truthful, accurate, and able to be cited. This decentralized, democratized approach works, and others have called on similar approaches to be used for some moderation decisions in Big Tech as well. Perhaps then we could actually hold Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and even Parler accountable for all the ways their products have been used to incite violence online and in the real world.
Ah, yes, Wikipedia - which has well documented issues with bias and failed horribly when Gamergate worked to weaponize it. That's the model that will allow us to deal with violent extremists.
Even if net neutrality was still a thing the US government recognized Amazon could still do whatever it damn well pleased to a customer who was in drawn-out defiance of their insanely permissive terms of service and also shrugging off weeks of notifications about criminal activity they refused to touch.
Parler's ban is seriously uncontroversial in any legal sense. The only reason people are upset is because the criminals in question were Trump fans, which people seem convinced magically exempts companies from having to obey laws.
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Ironically, this was one of the worries about eliminating net neutrality. lolol
Ironically, this was one of the worries about eliminating net neutrality. lolol
Not really? If this was, oh, 2014 and a website was organizing terrorist activity in the open there'd be zero issue with service providers shutting them down.
Ironically, this was one of the worries about eliminating net neutrality. lolol
Not really? If this was, oh, 2014 and a website was organizing terrorist activity in the open there'd be zero issue with service providers shutting them down.
I think he means ISPs blocking Facebook and Twitter and such.
Honestly, a good question is what resources do countries have against social media manipulation. Is the same reason why Merkel and a good chunk of the EU has come against Trump's ban, is not about Trump per se, but about the likes of the Zucc having more power than a national government, and the EU has been spending a lot of effort in at least, cutting the power of social media companies over EU citizens.
"But they are private companies and blah blah". Don't care.
If you think social media is big enough that getting banned is an issue, there's a perfectly cromulant situation that already exists: anti trust.
Also if you only speak up when the fascist is being deplatformed cry me a river. Twitter bans people all the time. Either they are allowed to or they aren't. No special treatment just because he's president.
+26
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Honestly, a good question is what resources do countries have against social media manipulation. Is the same reason why Merkel and a good chunk of the EU has come against Trump's ban, is not about Trump per se, but about the likes of the Zucc having more power than a national government, and the EU has been spending a lot of effort in at least, cutting the power of social media companies over EU citizens.
"But they are private companies and blah blah". Don't care.
Posts
That being said, I kind of disagree in the path of least resistance, knowing the fringe chat apps I have to troubleshoot for my parents and relatives because they refuse to use well coded networking apps that actually don't bloat their memory with cache files that are an unbelievable pain to delete. As long as their friends are on it, they'll use it and make me deal with the IT support. I'm the one that uses one password and cares about things like accessibility, form factor, and input efficiency. I'm the one who researches the value and issues with apps and products before choosing one. They're the stubborn ones who will break their phones just trying to log in to the one app.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
They wouldn't even lose most of the nazis. If Facebook had a strict policy of banning nazis, there would still be nazis on the platform. They would just not post nazi shit, because they don't want to get banned. Facebook cannot look into someone's heart and discern their true nature. (Yet.) All they can do is look at people's actions.
The classic joke on Reddit is that r/conservative is in near permanent flaired mode (meaning only certain, approved users can post), and they ban anyone and everyone who strays even an inch out of line with the preferred groupthink. But posters in there will continually decry safe spaces and snowflakes without a hint irony or self reflection.
I quit Reddit a few years back because you couldn't express a political opinion without being downvoted by Nazis. I went back recently and it seems a much more pleasant place now.
Funny you mention that. Whenever anyone asks about r/conservative's safe space, like clockwork some conservative poster will show up with a riff on the comment below:
Turns out though, that the actual people who were brigading and invading other subs to shut down conversations were conservative subs like /r/thedonald. And once reddit finally banned them, in part because even after being warned multiple times to stop brigading other subs they kept doing it, a lot of that bad behavior went away. And once again it was a small contingent of very vocal, abusive users, enabled by lax to nonexistent moderation, causing the majority of trouble for everyone else. Though the bot spam still happens on some big political stories.
The author is a reporter for the New York Times.
I am really tired of the argument that hate has to be included to have a "diversity of opinion".
The problem is that we have, as a culture, taught tolerance of the intolerant under the guise of "free speech" for decades. Something so thoroughly taught needs to be thoroughly untaught, sadly.
Parler users were openly planning assassinations and other violence. Miss me with this false equivalency crap.
It's rather easy to distinguish between hate speech and criticism of an organization. One call for death and suffering, the other point out problems. That's why it's not a problem in all the many countries with hate speech laws. For example, the Conservative Party of Canada exists, and is not a criminal organization.
Relying on one private company to be the uber host for everyone and everything is a bad idea.
That said, it's still not censorship and the ACLU is off base here.
That's definitely a conversation that should be had because holy shit does amazon have way too much power over the internet. But maybe not on this particular instance or in this thread.
Censorship is bad, therefore censorship!
...classic.
Stopdontcomeback.jpg
Lets find out.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This might be a decent strategy to grift off the GOP concern machine.
When done right? Competition for larger ISPs. We have two fiber providers here that have been building out all over southeastern Vermont and giving Comcast a bit of a panic. They're hopefully coming to my town in a few months and I can't wait.
And that should be handled by the relevant law enforcement agencies, not unilateral action by a megacorp.
You're right, banks shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Parler exists for that. Hosting far right content is the only reason it's a thing. You're arguing to strip out a third of the first amendment for...reasons I guess? Boycotts are illegal now?
And nice job dodging the way you called what Parler was doing "hate speech" as a way to minimize why it actually got the boot.
Why should Amazon be forced to do business with Parler? Last time I checked, right of association was a First Amendment right, and that goes for refusal of association as well.
Amazon is actually exercising their free speech here, paradoxically.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Ah, yes, Wikipedia - which has well documented issues with bias and failed horribly when Gamergate worked to weaponize it. That's the model that will allow us to deal with violent extremists.
Parler's ban is seriously uncontroversial in any legal sense. The only reason people are upset is because the criminals in question were Trump fans, which people seem convinced magically exempts companies from having to obey laws.
Not really? If this was, oh, 2014 and a website was organizing terrorist activity in the open there'd be zero issue with service providers shutting them down.
I think he means ISPs blocking Facebook and Twitter and such.
Honestly, a good question is what resources do countries have against social media manipulation. Is the same reason why Merkel and a good chunk of the EU has come against Trump's ban, is not about Trump per se, but about the likes of the Zucc having more power than a national government, and the EU has been spending a lot of effort in at least, cutting the power of social media companies over EU citizens.
"But they are private companies and blah blah". Don't care.
Also if you only speak up when the fascist is being deplatformed cry me a river. Twitter bans people all the time. Either they are allowed to or they aren't. No special treatment just because he's president.
The POTUS account still exists