8 ms·

Who is going to deplatform Facebook and Twitter? After all plenty of shooters have used them too. Before the usual: " But 8chan is a cesspool of bla bla" Probab

Who is going to deplatform Facebook and Twitter? After all plenty of shooters have used them too. Before the usual: " But 8chan is a cesspool of bla bla" Probably it is, but, either the users are doing something ilegal in the site and you close it if the owners refuse to comply with a legal request, or they are not doing anything illegal so they have to be left alone. For the "Free Speech is freedom from government prohibition and this is a private company" brigade. I dont want to live in a world where colored people is being prohibited to enter a night venue, or gay people cannot order a simple cake, or YES, dudes who think their race is more superior being able to blabber their nonsense online as long as it is nothing illegal. After all similar sentiments are expressed (veiled or openly) from many powerful spheres and nobody does nothing.

mcny 7y ago
> For the "Free Speech is freedom from government prohibition and this is a private company" brigade. I dont want to live in a world where color people is being prohibited to enter a night venue, or gay people cannot order a simple cake, or YES, dude who think their race is more superior being able to blabber their nonsense online as long as it is nothing illegal. After all similar sentiments are expressed (veiled or openly) from many powerful spheres and nobody does nothing. > Nothing illegal I think at some point it goes up against the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" exemption of free speech. There are more fundamental fish to fry. 1 Violation of terms of service should categorically be NOT a criminal matter. 2 I strongly believe possession (given we meet safe storage provisions) should never be illegal. ... I also agree with you that people blabber all the time but when multiple unrelated people take the next step seemingly after reading...
- cambalache 7y ago
  I see your point, but violation of TOS has to be a very clearly defined situation and it is rarely is, at the end it can be ambiguously interpreted to kick anyone if you have the right lawyers, so we are back to step 1.
  - elliekelly 7y ago
    I suspect GP was referring to Computer Fraud & Abuse Act where 1 ToS violation is a federal crime.
    - cambalache 7y ago
      Ah OK, My bad then, thanks!
- chroma 7y ago
  > I think at some point it goes up against the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" exemption of free speech. You know where that phrase came from? It was coined in Schenck v. United States[1], where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr convicted the defendant for publishing pamphlets opposing the draft in the first world war. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
  - mcny 7y ago
    I'll admit. I didn't know the origin. I don't know whether I'd have supported or opposed this verdict but I can't support the administration's supposed vigorous enforcement. I think laws are not absolute. We frequently allow prohibited acts because common sense and decency. If you're at a light and it turns yellow, you should stop but not if there's a car close behind you and you're more likely to get in a wreck by stopping rather than speeding up. I oppose the draft as it exists. It is wrong and immoral to have a draft of only "able-bodied" people of one gender. The draft, if one exists, should be for everyone. No body gets an exemption regardless of their personal belief or body condition. They don't all have to fight. There are plenty of opportunities (I'd imagine) to serve without ever being in a hand to hand combat. Either have a draft of all adults regardless of any other exemptions or don't have one at all. I'll try to avoid the phrase going forward.
- thephyber 7y ago
  > I think at some point it goes up against the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" exemption of free speech. I would like to point out (not necessarily to parent) that this was an example of speech that was not protected by 1A in a case where a man was prosecuted by the government for trying to tell young Americans that they don't need to join the draft for WW1. Also important: yelling fire in a crowded theater is entirely protected speech if you don't believe it to be false.
abootstrapper 7y ago
People of color, and LGBT are demographics. White supremacy is an ideology (a reprehensible one at that). People choose their ideology, not their race, or sexuality. They are not the same thing. Third party businesses should not feel any obligation to do business with "dudes who blabber" about the murdering and hate of others.
- cambalache 7y ago
  What about communists, anarchists, marxists, mormons, people who believe there are genetically based cognitive differences based on sex/race. What about people who are against abortion, against weed legalization, what about people who consider cops to be a civilian death squad used by the rich to oppress the poor. What about people who think the US Army is an occupation force in every place but America. Is OK to discriminate some of them? All of them? None? Are you going to manage the API so the apps can be built to see who is worthy or not?
  - ausbah 7y ago
    I think it's okay to discriminate or moderate against a set of beliefs if you can show that the spread beliefs lead to the widespread harm of others.
    - shard972 7y ago
      I think Zionists are the same as white nationalists and yet they are a protected class....
    - 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
      Doesn't almost every religious group fall under it then?
      - ausbah 7y ago
        No, I wouldn't equate the teachings of ISIS with my neighborhood mosque. Religions have many variations under the larger umbrella.
turk73 7y ago
Before you excoriate 8chan, I will point out that I have found all kinds of interesting information on there that isn't some salacious nature. For example, someone posted "confidential" FBI documents outlining that all conservatives are now considered white nationalists/ fascists/white supremacists and how they are a huge terrorism threat and how to rate them. It's not surprising to see it, but there it was in black and white what our government's real intentions for its own people are. Folks, if you can't see the bullshit that is going on right now, I can't help you. If you truly fear online speech, then why are you in technology in the first place? If technology isn't going to free us from statist coercion but rather further enslave us, what good is it?
agent00f 7y ago
Ah yes, the enlightened centrist who equates white supremacist not welcome at businesses to ethnic minorities not welcome at businesses. You guys sure are the real victims here.

mcny 7y ago

> For the "Free Speech is freedom from government prohibition and this is a private company" brigade. I dont want to live in a world where color people is being prohibited to enter a night venue, or gay people cannot order a simple cake, or YES, dude who think their race is more superior being able to blabber their nonsense online as long as it is nothing illegal. After all similar sentiments are expressed (veiled or openly) from many powerful spheres and nobody does nothing. > Nothing illegal I think at some point it goes up against the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" exemption of free speech. There are more fundamental fish to fry. 1 Violation of terms of service should categorically be NOT a criminal matter. 2 I strongly believe possession (given we meet safe storage provisions) should never be illegal. ... I also agree with you that people blabber all the time but when multiple unrelated people take the next step seemingly after reading...

cambalache 7y ago
I see your point, but violation of TOS has to be a very clearly defined situation and it is rarely is, at the end it can be ambiguously interpreted to kick anyone if you have the right lawyers, so we are back to step 1.
- elliekelly 7y ago
  I suspect GP was referring to Computer Fraud & Abuse Act where 1 ToS violation is a federal crime.
  - cambalache 7y ago
    Ah OK, My bad then, thanks!
chroma 7y ago
> I think at some point it goes up against the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" exemption of free speech. You know where that phrase came from? It was coined in Schenck v. United States[1], where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr convicted the defendant for publishing pamphlets opposing the draft in the first world war. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
- mcny 7y ago
  I'll admit. I didn't know the origin. I don't know whether I'd have supported or opposed this verdict but I can't support the administration's supposed vigorous enforcement. I think laws are not absolute. We frequently allow prohibited acts because common sense and decency. If you're at a light and it turns yellow, you should stop but not if there's a car close behind you and you're more likely to get in a wreck by stopping rather than speeding up. I oppose the draft as it exists. It is wrong and immoral to have a draft of only "able-bodied" people of one gender. The draft, if one exists, should be for everyone. No body gets an exemption regardless of their personal belief or body condition. They don't all have to fight. There are plenty of opportunities (I'd imagine) to serve without ever being in a hand to hand combat. Either have a draft of all adults regardless of any other exemptions or don't have one at all. I'll try to avoid the phrase going forward.
thephyber 7y ago
> I think at some point it goes up against the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" exemption of free speech. I would like to point out (not necessarily to parent) that this was an example of speech that was not protected by 1A in a case where a man was prosecuted by the government for trying to tell young Americans that they don't need to join the draft for WW1. Also important: yelling fire in a crowded theater is entirely protected speech if you don't believe it to be false.

abootstrapper 7y ago

People of color, and LGBT are demographics. White supremacy is an ideology (a reprehensible one at that). People choose their ideology, not their race, or sexuality. They are not the same thing. Third party businesses should not feel any obligation to do business with "dudes who blabber" about the murdering and hate of others.

cambalache 7y ago
What about communists, anarchists, marxists, mormons, people who believe there are genetically based cognitive differences based on sex/race. What about people who are against abortion, against weed legalization, what about people who consider cops to be a civilian death squad used by the rich to oppress the poor. What about people who think the US Army is an occupation force in every place but America. Is OK to discriminate some of them? All of them? None? Are you going to manage the API so the apps can be built to see who is worthy or not?
- ausbah 7y ago
  I think it's okay to discriminate or moderate against a set of beliefs if you can show that the spread beliefs lead to the widespread harm of others.
  - shard972 7y ago
    I think Zionists are the same as white nationalists and yet they are a protected class....
  - 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
    Doesn't almost every religious group fall under it then?
    - ausbah 7y ago
      No, I wouldn't equate the teachings of ISIS with my neighborhood mosque. Religions have many variations under the larger umbrella.

turk73 7y ago

Before you excoriate 8chan, I will point out that I have found all kinds of interesting information on there that isn't some salacious nature. For example, someone posted "confidential" FBI documents outlining that all conservatives are now considered white nationalists/ fascists/white supremacists and how they are a huge terrorism threat and how to rate them. It's not surprising to see it, but there it was in black and white what our government's real intentions for its own people are. Folks, if you can't see the bullshit that is going on right now, I can't help you. If you truly fear online speech, then why are you in technology in the first place? If technology isn't going to free us from statist coercion but rather further enslave us, what good is it?

agent00f 7y ago

Ah yes, the enlightened centrist who equates white supremacist not welcome at businesses to ethnic minorities not welcome at businesses. You guys sure are the real victims here.