I think internet debates, on this forum or other social media, are pretty circular because they're public and nobody's laying down any stakes. With strict moderation, the forums are a better solution to aggregating more accurate information, but the normal objectives and deliverables of debates are kind of not there, for the most part. People just want to be heard or vent. It takes a special situation to tackle a problem with contrasting viewpoints, and I don't think it can be found until people come together with an underlying foundation of agreement.
...what deliverables do you think that debates among actual real people in this age actually produce?
Even in Ancient Greek times debates were just a way to sway the people to your side, not a way to pursue truth.
I think internet debates, on this forum or other social media, are pretty circular because they're public and nobody's laying down any stakes. With strict moderation, the forums are a better solution to aggregating more accurate information, but the normal objectives and deliverables of debates are kind of not there, for the most part. People just want to be heard or vent. It takes a special situation to tackle a problem with contrasting viewpoints, and I don't think it can be found until people come together with an underlying foundation of agreement.
...what deliverables do you think that debates among actual real people in this age actually produce?
Even in Ancient Greek times debates were just a way to sway the people to your side, not a way to pursue truth.
The deliverable is democracy, though what worked for Ancient Greece does not work for us. Back then you had a physical stake in argument - you couldn't escape by logging off or just not posting. There's a similar stake in political debates, where even if things aren't going your way, you have to stay there to see it through.
In modern times, when we have the capability to just check out, we must have different stakes and different goals. What makes us play ball is a shared problem, and the stakes are personal investment. You lay down reputation or money or something to keep you from logging out. The goal is a solution to the problem that works, achieved either by consensus - which is becoming rarer these days - or whittling down enough barriers that one side reaches an actionable solution threshold.
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.
I'll note that just encountering people that aren't like you is an incredibly good way to rethink beliefs. When someone you know mentions that they're trans, that's when identity becomes not just a abstract concept, but a core part of someone you know. Having a specific thread on a topic is irrelevant; what matters is to have an environment where people are willing to be open about who they are, with the confidence that this isn't going to make them a target. I know I ended up re-examining a lot of stuff I once believed, simply because of people I encountered online.
It's also something that a Facebook style social network doesn't enable. If you're just interacting with people you know in real life, all you're going to be confronted with is the knowledge that your uncle is a lot more racist than you thought. There needs to be a mixture of people that would otherwise never interact, with enough modding that people are willing to be open.
Even with good modding, I'd advise against being too open on a public forum where everything is perpetually recorded and search indexed for the whole world to see. It's not safe.
Paladin on
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.
I thought this forum kinda just gave up on people being able to debate or discuss particular topics, because people were totally incapable of not pretty much putting people's basic humanity up for discussion.
Yeah, even though this is a forum full of left-leaning people, there are still some topics that people want to talk about that usually are discouraged by members of other left-leaning spaces with social pressure rather than mod edicts, as they are here.
For another example, I know we had a thread a few years back that debated whether the standards set by the US military for infantry were sexist against women and needed to be modified to let more women into the military or if they were really the bare minimum (or perhaps too low already) and that only women who met them should be accepted.
I thought this forum kinda just gave up on people being able to debate or discuss particular topics, because people were totally incapable of not pretty much putting people's basic humanity up for discussion.
Yeah, even though this is a forum full of left-leaning people, there are still some topics that people want to talk about that usually are discouraged the members of other left-leaning spaces with social pressure.
For another example, I know we had a thread a few years back that debated whether the standards set by the US military for infantry were sexist against women and needed to be modified to let more women into the military or if they were really the bare minimum (or perhaps too low already) and that only women who met them should be accepted.
Gender essentialism still falls under the umbrella of "the validity of trans folx is not up for debate," even if that gender essentialism is conducted to support the troops or whatever.
I thought this forum kinda just gave up on people being able to debate or discuss particular topics, because people were totally incapable of not pretty much putting people's basic humanity up for discussion.
At least for a while there, D&D wasn't allowed to have trans/genderqueer threads, right?
I remember when it happened, and I remember how happy it made me. It was not pleasant to see my existence dissected like some thought experiment even though the majority was pro trans people.
I am pretty sure the one right before the moritorium hit gave me a full on panic attack
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Gab's CEO deliberately courted and invited anti-Semites to join. Not that anyone here would be surprised that the "free speech Twitter" was only about the freedom to have hate speech; they made that pretty obvious even more the hacks laid out the history.
Gab's CEO deliberately courted and invited anti-Semites to join. Not that anyone here would be surprised that the "free speech Twitter" was only about the freedom to have hate speech; they made that pretty obvious even more the hacks laid out the history.
It also doesn't help that we live in a culture where allowing hate speech is seen as defending free speech.
Gab's CEO deliberately courted and invited anti-Semites to join. Not that anyone here would be surprised that the "free speech Twitter" was only about the freedom to have hate speech; they made that pretty obvious even more the hacks laid out the history.
It also doesn't help that we live in a culture where allowing hate speech is seen as defending free speech.
That doesn't really have anything to do with Gab. It was obvious from the start it the only reason it exists is to be a right wing bullshit stew, this is just another stick on the pile. This isn't a techbro being ignorant, this is someone who deliberately cultivated the userbase he got, and not for any free speech reasons.
Gab's CEO deliberately courted and invited anti-Semites to join. Not that anyone here would be surprised that the "free speech Twitter" was only about the freedom to have hate speech; they made that pretty obvious even more the hacks laid out the history.
It also doesn't help that we live in a culture where allowing hate speech is seen as defending free speech.
That doesn't really have anything to do with Gab. It was obvious from the start it the only reason it exists is to be a right wing bullshit stew, this is just another stick on the pile. This isn't a techbro being ignorant, this is someone who deliberately cultivated the userbase he got, and not for any free speech reasons.
And he was able to in part because we live in a culture where he's able to defend creating a safe space for bigots and white supremacists under the veneer of free speech. This is part of the point that Sartre was making in his piece about antisemites and other bigots - they will use your ideals against you if you let them, because while they don't give a shit about them, they know that you do.
I wouldn't really call the most hacked, breached, and doxxed social media platform a safe space
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.
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Gab's CEO deliberately courted and invited anti-Semites to join. Not that anyone here would be surprised that the "free speech Twitter" was only about the freedom to have hate speech; they made that pretty obvious even more the hacks laid out the history.
It also doesn't help that we live in a culture where allowing hate speech is seen as defending free speech.
That doesn't really have anything to do with Gab. It was obvious from the start it the only reason it exists is to be a right wing bullshit stew, this is just another stick on the pile. This isn't a techbro being ignorant, this is someone who deliberately cultivated the userbase he got, and not for any free speech reasons.
And he was able to in part because we live in a culture where he's able to defend creating a safe space for bigots and white supremacists under the veneer of free speech. This is part of the point that Sartre was making in his piece about antisemites and other bigots - they will use your ideals against you if you let them, because while they don't give a shit about them, they know that you do.
Gab's CEO deliberately courted and invited anti-Semites to join. Not that anyone here would be surprised that the "free speech Twitter" was only about the freedom to have hate speech; they made that pretty obvious even more the hacks laid out the history.
It also doesn't help that we live in a culture where allowing hate speech is seen as defending free speech.
That doesn't really have anything to do with Gab. It was obvious from the start it the only reason it exists is to be a right wing bullshit stew, this is just another stick on the pile. This isn't a techbro being ignorant, this is someone who deliberately cultivated the userbase he got, and not for any free speech reasons.
And he was able to in part because we live in a culture where he's able to defend creating a safe space for bigots and white supremacists under the veneer of free speech. This is part of the point that Sartre was making in his piece about antisemites and other bigots - they will use your ideals against you if you let them, because while they don't give a shit about them, they know that you do.
No, not really
Which part you actually disagree with?
And on what basis?
Not sure what we're actually arguing here; freedom of assembly has existed for quite a while
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.
Not sure what we're actually arguing here; freedom of assembly has existed for quite a while
For the people with right opinions maybe.
Quite often those who do not agree with how things are, find that freedom in quite a short supply.
I think we're still in the top 25% of countries in terms of upholding the concept. Maybe better.
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.
Not sure what we're actually arguing here; freedom of assembly has existed for quite a while
For the people with right opinions maybe.
Quite often those who do not agree with how things are, find that freedom in quite a short supply.
I think we're still in the top 25% of countries in terms of upholding the concept. Maybe better.
Even if true, i have no data on that, considering how terrible lot of places are about it, i'm not sure top 25% is something to boast about.
Especially when fucking nazi's have better access to freedom of assembly than people who would like the police to stop murdering them.
Nyysjan on
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Gab's CEO deliberately courted and invited anti-Semites to join. Not that anyone here would be surprised that the "free speech Twitter" was only about the freedom to have hate speech; they made that pretty obvious even more the hacks laid out the history.
It also doesn't help that we live in a culture where allowing hate speech is seen as defending free speech.
That doesn't really have anything to do with Gab. It was obvious from the start it the only reason it exists is to be a right wing bullshit stew, this is just another stick on the pile. This isn't a techbro being ignorant, this is someone who deliberately cultivated the userbase he got, and not for any free speech reasons.
And he was able to in part because we live in a culture where he's able to defend creating a safe space for bigots and white supremacists under the veneer of free speech. This is part of the point that Sartre was making in his piece about antisemites and other bigots - they will use your ideals against you if you let them, because while they don't give a shit about them, they know that you do.
No, not really
Which part you actually disagree with?
And on what basis?
Gab (and Voat, and Parler) were all immediately and correctly denounced by literally the entire internet as Stormfront-adjacent shitholes, and no one who wasn't already fash-adjacent paid any attention to the free speech fig leaf
Not sure what we're actually arguing here; freedom of assembly has existed for quite a while
For the people with right opinions maybe.
Quite often those who do not agree with how things are, find that freedom in quite a short supply.
I think we're still in the top 25% of countries in terms of upholding the concept. Maybe better.
Even if true, i have no data on that, considering how terrible lot of places are about it, i'm not sure top 25% is something to boast about.
Especially when fucking nazi's have better access to freedom of assembly than people who would like the police to stop murdering them.
I'm hedging cause there might be some social media utopia somewhere where everyone is given fair access to assembly or only the good groups are allowed to assemble - I doubt it. As far as giving nazis better access to freedom, I don't think they're being given quite the prime level of service for their social media infrastructure. Maybe in other modalities they get a good deal, but that's not what the thread's about. I don't particularly care if gab was actively recruiting nazis - nobody here sings the praises of gab, and it's a crap service and liability. The embarrassing lack of organization in the coup attempt versus the pretty good infrastructure of BLM protests suggests that perhaps where it counts, there's practical social media support to protect the freedoms of people fighting for equality. They just don't idiotically flaunt it.
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.
Not sure what we're actually arguing here; freedom of assembly has existed for quite a while
For the people with right opinions maybe.
Quite often those who do not agree with how things are, find that freedom in quite a short supply.
I think we're still in the top 25% of countries in terms of upholding the concept. Maybe better.
Even if true, i have no data on that, considering how terrible lot of places are about it, i'm not sure top 25% is something to boast about.
Especially when fucking nazi's have better access to freedom of assembly than people who would like the police to stop murdering them.
I'm hedging cause there might be some social media utopia somewhere where everyone is given fair access to assembly or only the good groups are allowed to assemble - I doubt it. As far as giving nazis better access to freedom, I don't think they're being given quite the prime level of service for their social media infrastructure. Maybe in other modalities they get a good deal, but that's not what the thread's about. I don't particularly care if gab was actively recruiting nazis - nobody here sings the praises of gab, and it's a crap service and liability. The embarrassing lack of organization in the coup attempt versus the pretty good infrastructure of BLM protests suggests that perhaps where it counts, there's practical social media support to protect the freedoms of people fighting for equality. They just don't idiotically flaunt it.
Are the cops shootin at the nazis when the gather to march? No?
Then they have better access to freedom of assembly than people who would prefer cops stop shooting at them.
Like, this is not about there being some utopia out there, USA has an extremely spotty history on how, accessible, it's core freedoms are, and by history, i mean present.
Being better about public gatherings than the US is not a high bar to clear, and that US might be in top 25% world wide, is a fucking depressing thought.
Gab's CEO deliberately courted and invited anti-Semites to join. Not that anyone here would be surprised that the "free speech Twitter" was only about the freedom to have hate speech; they made that pretty obvious even more the hacks laid out the history.
It also doesn't help that we live in a culture where allowing hate speech is seen as defending free speech.
That doesn't really have anything to do with Gab. It was obvious from the start it the only reason it exists is to be a right wing bullshit stew, this is just another stick on the pile. This isn't a techbro being ignorant, this is someone who deliberately cultivated the userbase he got, and not for any free speech reasons.
And he was able to in part because we live in a culture where he's able to defend creating a safe space for bigots and white supremacists under the veneer of free speech. This is part of the point that Sartre was making in his piece about antisemites and other bigots - they will use your ideals against you if you let them, because while they don't give a shit about them, they know that you do.
No, not really
Which part you actually disagree with?
And on what basis?
Gab (and Voat, and Parler) were all immediately and correctly denounced by literally the entire internet as Stormfront-adjacent shitholes, and no one who wasn't already fash-adjacent paid any attention to the free speech fig leaf
Yet they are, to my limited understanding, publicly available services for people who are promoting genocide.
If we lived in a society where promoting genocide was not as, permissible, as it is, gab and the like would need to be less easily available.
Not sure what we're actually arguing here; freedom of assembly has existed for quite a while
For the people with right opinions maybe.
Quite often those who do not agree with how things are, find that freedom in quite a short supply.
I think we're still in the top 25% of countries in terms of upholding the concept. Maybe better.
Even if true, i have no data on that, considering how terrible lot of places are about it, i'm not sure top 25% is something to boast about.
Especially when fucking nazi's have better access to freedom of assembly than people who would like the police to stop murdering them.
I'm hedging cause there might be some social media utopia somewhere where everyone is given fair access to assembly or only the good groups are allowed to assemble - I doubt it. As far as giving nazis better access to freedom, I don't think they're being given quite the prime level of service for their social media infrastructure. Maybe in other modalities they get a good deal, but that's not what the thread's about. I don't particularly care if gab was actively recruiting nazis - nobody here sings the praises of gab, and it's a crap service and liability. The embarrassing lack of organization in the coup attempt versus the pretty good infrastructure of BLM protests suggests that perhaps where it counts, there's practical social media support to protect the freedoms of people fighting for equality. They just don't idiotically flaunt it.
Are the cops shootin at the nazis when the gather to march? No?
Then they have better access to freedom of assembly than people who would prefer cops stop shooting at them.
Like, this is not about there being some utopia out there, USA has an extremely spotty history on how, accessible, it's core freedoms are, and by history, i mean present.
Being better about public gatherings than the US is not a high bar to clear, and that US might be in top 25% world wide, is a fucking depressing thought.
Social media isn't physical public gatherings though. It's still freedom of assembly and can be used to support organization for in-person gatherings, but directly it's a different domain. The best social media support in the world isn't going to stop cops shooting at you - but it will be able to broadcast these events to a global audience, which is a sign of functional social media. There are examples all around this forum and the greater internet.
I mean, you could argue that we actually don't have freedom of assembly, therefore we shouldn't pretend like it's something we have to preserve and just give up on it and enact whatever law we need to quell bad actors, but I don't think that's what you're saying. I think you mostly want our words to match up with our actions. That has to go beyond social media, which is only words.
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.
"Freedom of assembly" on social media platforms is a complete red herring, because these social media platforms are not operated by the government.
It's not a red herring if we want the government to do anything about it, also if we want the government not to restrict us from doing anything about it. Gab is allowed to create Gab how it wants currently, and inviting anti-semites is part of that. Can we really change that? Not really, force will be limited because the government won't touch it (due to freedom of assembly issues) and unilateral applications of force, like hacking or whatever, will be prosecuted under the law if criminal (which could be related to freedom of assembly issues). If you're okay with that detente, then yeah, this 15 post discussion is a red herring.
Or maybe we'll pull an Australia and the government will have to get involved, and then we'll have a real discussion on varying first amendment issues.
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.
Freedom of speech, and the reasonable limitations on it, including the implementation of anti-hate speech laws, has already been a GST of much vociferousness.
I'm not sure how the government is going to be able to do all that much about the proliferation of hate speech and misinformation on social media platforms without some sort of speech restrictions, and governmental intervention seems necessary because the platforms themselves have proven themselves not just unwilling to do so, but actively working in ways antithetical to it.
I think the government can get involved without having to circle jerk sofa king hypothetical situations on 1st amendment rights. Breaking up the monopolies and forcing them to allow cross platform interaction, like we did with cell phones and numbers, would go a long way to addressing core problems without having to get wade down in that cesspool of masturbation.
I think the government can get involved without having to circle jerk sofa king hypothetical situations on 1st amendment rights. Breaking up the monopolies and forcing them to allow cross platform interaction, like we did with cell phones and numbers, would go a long way to addressing core problems without having to get wade down in that cesspool of masturbation.
We can talk about breaking up monopolies if you want, but I thought we were talking about Gab recruitment strategies and their relevance to the public perception of free speech and pragmatic exercise of lawful power. Gab isn't a monopoly of anything.
Oh, and if government intervention is necessary for change, then it's necessary for change. But unlike most other countries, when the government is involved, we're going to get in a huff, because then it's no longer the cultural perception of free speech, it's constitutional.
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.
I think the government can get involved without having to circle jerk sofa king hypothetical situations on 1st amendment rights. Breaking up the monopolies and forcing them to allow cross platform interaction, like we did with cell phones and numbers, would go a long way to addressing core problems without having to get wade down in that cesspool of masturbation.
We can talk about breaking up monopolies if you want, but I thought we were talking about Gab recruitment strategies and their relevance to the public perception of free speech and pragmatic exercise of lawful power. Gab isn't a monopoly of anything.
Oh, and if government intervention is necessary for change, then it's necessary for change. But unlike most other countries, when the government is involved, we're going to get in a huff, because then it's no longer the cultural perception of free speech, it's constitutional.
Other countries have freedom of speech enshrined in their constitution and still manage to have anti-hate speech laws.
Some countries even have explicit limits to the right to free speech enshrined in their constitution!
In light of South Africa's racial and discriminatory history, particularly the Apartheid era, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 precludes expression that is tantamount to the advocacy of hatred based on some listed grounds.[3] Freedom of speech and expression are both protected and limited by a section in the South African Bill of Rights, chapter 2 of the Constitution. Section 16 makes the following provisions:
16. Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
a. freedom of the press and other media;
b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
a. propaganda for war;
b. incitement of imminent violence; or
c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
In countries with anti-hate speech laws and similar restrictions on speech, social media platforms have had little difficulty implementing filters to block any of that content from showing up there.
I think the government can get involved without having to circle jerk sofa king hypothetical situations on 1st amendment rights. Breaking up the monopolies and forcing them to allow cross platform interaction, like we did with cell phones and numbers, would go a long way to addressing core problems without having to get wade down in that cesspool of masturbation.
We can talk about breaking up monopolies if you want, but I thought we were talking about Gab recruitment strategies and their relevance to the public perception of free speech and pragmatic exercise of lawful power. Gab isn't a monopoly of anything.
Oh, and if government intervention is necessary for change, then it's necessary for change. But unlike most other countries, when the government is involved, we're going to get in a huff, because then it's no longer the cultural perception of free speech, it's constitutional.
Other countries have freedom of speech enshrined in their constitution and still manage to have anti-hate speech laws.
Some countries even have explicit limits to the right to free speech enshrined in their constitution!
In light of South Africa's racial and discriminatory history, particularly the Apartheid era, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 precludes expression that is tantamount to the advocacy of hatred based on some listed grounds.[3] Freedom of speech and expression are both protected and limited by a section in the South African Bill of Rights, chapter 2 of the Constitution. Section 16 makes the following provisions:
16. Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
a. freedom of the press and other media;
b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
a. propaganda for war;
b. incitement of imminent violence; or
c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
In countries with anti-hate speech laws and similar restrictions on speech, social media platforms have had little difficulty implementing filters to block any of that content from showing up there.
I agree. When your constitution is built that way, you can make laws based on these exceptions.
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.
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
I think the government can get involved without having to circle jerk sofa king hypothetical situations on 1st amendment rights. Breaking up the monopolies and forcing them to allow cross platform interaction, like we did with cell phones and numbers, would go a long way to addressing core problems without having to get wade down in that cesspool of masturbation.
We can talk about breaking up monopolies if you want, but I thought we were talking about Gab recruitment strategies and their relevance to the public perception of free speech and pragmatic exercise of lawful power. Gab isn't a monopoly of anything.
Oh, and if government intervention is necessary for change, then it's necessary for change. But unlike most other countries, when the government is involved, we're going to get in a huff, because then it's no longer the cultural perception of free speech, it's constitutional.
Other countries have freedom of speech enshrined in their constitution and still manage to have anti-hate speech laws.
Some countries even have explicit limits to the right to free speech enshrined in their constitution!
In light of South Africa's racial and discriminatory history, particularly the Apartheid era, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 precludes expression that is tantamount to the advocacy of hatred based on some listed grounds.[3] Freedom of speech and expression are both protected and limited by a section in the South African Bill of Rights, chapter 2 of the Constitution. Section 16 makes the following provisions:
16. Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
a. freedom of the press and other media;
b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
a. propaganda for war;
b. incitement of imminent violence; or
c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
In countries with anti-hate speech laws and similar restrictions on speech, social media platforms have had little difficulty implementing filters to block any of that content from showing up there.
Yes, they have
Nations with anti-hatespeech laws can't stop fascists from running for political office, let alone police social media for fash content
Paladin and I have shifted over to the Freedom of Speech thread for this tangent.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited March 2021
So here's an article link but just to keep it brief, Twitter has been banning people for Tweeting "Memphis" regardless of context. People were testing it and even just tweeting nothing but "Memphis" would result in a ban.
Meanwhile, Nazis getting away with shit all the time.
A number of accounts that Tweeted the word “Memphis” were temporarily limited due to a bug. It’s been fixed and the accounts have now been restored. We’re sorry this happened.
If anyone tweeted the word Memphis in a tweet they automatically bot received a 7 day ban from Twitter. In Football (Soccer) circles it was funny because there's a famous player named Memphis and resulted in some good memes. However on a serious note. It looks like the test for a service to be implemented in future.
If anyone tweeted the word Memphis in a tweet they automatically bot received a 7 day ban from Twitter. In Football (Soccer) circles it was funny because there's a famous player named Memphis and resulted in some good memes. However on a serious note. It looks like the test for a service to be implemented in future.
So nothing to do with Memphis at all, merely a test of functionality on Twitter's part?
Posts
...what deliverables do you think that debates among actual real people in this age actually produce?
Even in Ancient Greek times debates were just a way to sway the people to your side, not a way to pursue truth.
The deliverable is democracy, though what worked for Ancient Greece does not work for us. Back then you had a physical stake in argument - you couldn't escape by logging off or just not posting. There's a similar stake in political debates, where even if things aren't going your way, you have to stay there to see it through.
In modern times, when we have the capability to just check out, we must have different stakes and different goals. What makes us play ball is a shared problem, and the stakes are personal investment. You lay down reputation or money or something to keep you from logging out. The goal is a solution to the problem that works, achieved either by consensus - which is becoming rarer these days - or whittling down enough barriers that one side reaches an actionable solution threshold.
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.
It's also something that a Facebook style social network doesn't enable. If you're just interacting with people you know in real life, all you're going to be confronted with is the knowledge that your uncle is a lot more racist than you thought. There needs to be a mixture of people that would otherwise never interact, with enough modding that people are willing to be open.
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.
Yeah, even though this is a forum full of left-leaning people, there are still some topics that people want to talk about that usually are discouraged by members of other left-leaning spaces with social pressure rather than mod edicts, as they are here.
For another example, I know we had a thread a few years back that debated whether the standards set by the US military for infantry were sexist against women and needed to be modified to let more women into the military or if they were really the bare minimum (or perhaps too low already) and that only women who met them should be accepted.
Gender essentialism still falls under the umbrella of "the validity of trans folx is not up for debate," even if that gender essentialism is conducted to support the troops or whatever.
They don’t know who keeps inviting him
Yeah this has all the signs of a secure meeting system...
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
The system could be plenty secure, but if someone is willing to provide the audio, there’s not much they could do about that.
Like, I’m not some leet haxxor and I can think of a couple of easy ways to share a meeting I shouldn’t, if I were so inclined.
Ah. Didn't realize it was that kind of invitation.
I am pretty sure the one right before the moritorium hit gave me a full on panic attack
It also doesn't help that we live in a culture where allowing hate speech is seen as defending free speech.
That doesn't really have anything to do with Gab. It was obvious from the start it the only reason it exists is to be a right wing bullshit stew, this is just another stick on the pile. This isn't a techbro being ignorant, this is someone who deliberately cultivated the userbase he got, and not for any free speech reasons.
And he was able to in part because we live in a culture where he's able to defend creating a safe space for bigots and white supremacists under the veneer of free speech. This is part of the point that Sartre was making in his piece about antisemites and other bigots - they will use your ideals against you if you let them, because while they don't give a shit about them, they know that you do.
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.
No, not really
Which part you actually disagree with?
And on what basis?
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.
Quite often those who do not agree with how things are, find that freedom in quite a short supply.
I think we're still in the top 25% of countries in terms of upholding the concept. Maybe better.
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.
Even if true, i have no data on that, considering how terrible lot of places are about it, i'm not sure top 25% is something to boast about.
Especially when fucking nazi's have better access to freedom of assembly than people who would like the police to stop murdering them.
Gab (and Voat, and Parler) were all immediately and correctly denounced by literally the entire internet as Stormfront-adjacent shitholes, and no one who wasn't already fash-adjacent paid any attention to the free speech fig leaf
I'm hedging cause there might be some social media utopia somewhere where everyone is given fair access to assembly or only the good groups are allowed to assemble - I doubt it. As far as giving nazis better access to freedom, I don't think they're being given quite the prime level of service for their social media infrastructure. Maybe in other modalities they get a good deal, but that's not what the thread's about. I don't particularly care if gab was actively recruiting nazis - nobody here sings the praises of gab, and it's a crap service and liability. The embarrassing lack of organization in the coup attempt versus the pretty good infrastructure of BLM protests suggests that perhaps where it counts, there's practical social media support to protect the freedoms of people fighting for equality. They just don't idiotically flaunt it.
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.
Then they have better access to freedom of assembly than people who would prefer cops stop shooting at them.
Like, this is not about there being some utopia out there, USA has an extremely spotty history on how, accessible, it's core freedoms are, and by history, i mean present.
Being better about public gatherings than the US is not a high bar to clear, and that US might be in top 25% world wide, is a fucking depressing thought.
Yet they are, to my limited understanding, publicly available services for people who are promoting genocide.
If we lived in a society where promoting genocide was not as, permissible, as it is, gab and the like would need to be less easily available.
Social media isn't physical public gatherings though. It's still freedom of assembly and can be used to support organization for in-person gatherings, but directly it's a different domain. The best social media support in the world isn't going to stop cops shooting at you - but it will be able to broadcast these events to a global audience, which is a sign of functional social media. There are examples all around this forum and the greater internet.
I mean, you could argue that we actually don't have freedom of assembly, therefore we shouldn't pretend like it's something we have to preserve and just give up on it and enact whatever law we need to quell bad actors, but I don't think that's what you're saying. I think you mostly want our words to match up with our actions. That has to go beyond social media, which is only words.
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.
It's not a red herring if we want the government to do anything about it, also if we want the government not to restrict us from doing anything about it. Gab is allowed to create Gab how it wants currently, and inviting anti-semites is part of that. Can we really change that? Not really, force will be limited because the government won't touch it (due to freedom of assembly issues) and unilateral applications of force, like hacking or whatever, will be prosecuted under the law if criminal (which could be related to freedom of assembly issues). If you're okay with that detente, then yeah, this 15 post discussion is a red herring.
Or maybe we'll pull an Australia and the government will have to get involved, and then we'll have a real discussion on varying first amendment issues.
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.
I'm not sure how the government is going to be able to do all that much about the proliferation of hate speech and misinformation on social media platforms without some sort of speech restrictions, and governmental intervention seems necessary because the platforms themselves have proven themselves not just unwilling to do so, but actively working in ways antithetical to it.
We can talk about breaking up monopolies if you want, but I thought we were talking about Gab recruitment strategies and their relevance to the public perception of free speech and pragmatic exercise of lawful power. Gab isn't a monopoly of anything.
Oh, and if government intervention is necessary for change, then it's necessary for change. But unlike most other countries, when the government is involved, we're going to get in a huff, because then it's no longer the cultural perception of free speech, it's constitutional.
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.
Other countries have freedom of speech enshrined in their constitution and still manage to have anti-hate speech laws.
Some countries even have explicit limits to the right to free speech enshrined in their constitution!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#South_Africa
In countries with anti-hate speech laws and similar restrictions on speech, social media platforms have had little difficulty implementing filters to block any of that content from showing up there.
I agree. When your constitution is built that way, you can make laws based on these exceptions.
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.
Yes, they have
Nations with anti-hatespeech laws can't stop fascists from running for political office, let alone police social media for fash content
Meanwhile, Nazis getting away with shit all the time.
Edit - Even better, Twitter statement:
If anyone tweeted the word Memphis in a tweet they automatically bot received a 7 day ban from Twitter. In Football (Soccer) circles it was funny because there's a famous player named Memphis and resulted in some good memes. However on a serious note. It looks like the test for a service to be implemented in future.
So nothing to do with Memphis at all, merely a test of functionality on Twitter's part?