5 ms·

This isn't a problem, it's a feature. You seem to be in a scarcity, learned helplessness mindset: if you're worried about being dependant on companies that you

by loceng 6y ago

This isn't a problem, it's a feature. You seem to be in a scarcity, learned helplessness mindset: if you're worried about being dependant on companies that you don't believe or trust will govern well then the solution is simple, start your own company so you're the governor; so long as the internet as a platform stays relatively neutral you can do that. If you don't think this is an option, please explain why.

ttt0 6y ago
It's not an option, because of the banking, which is a gray area. It's privately owned, but it's not really a free market either. The problem is that Visa and Mastercard is blacklisting people, just because the angry mob complained on the internet. The social media is just a tip of the iceberg.
- smeej 6y ago
  There's an entire ecosystem of decentralized money that has been invented and has been growing for the last 13 years to combat precisely this problem. The value of the units of those currencies are exploding right now, in part for this reason. If this seems to you to be one of the deepest root causes of the problem, that people can't compete due to centralized monetary control systems, and you want to help make the world better by uprooting that critical power, you may consider digging deeper into these projects.
  - loceng 6y ago
    So to be clear - you want to allow people who are openly calling for violence to be able to transfer money freely via Bitcoin et al? This question usually gets ignored, avoided, because pro-Bitcoiners don't want to be accountable to the consequences of such system - likewise with fiat currencies and the current system you can have mechanisms like the Magnitsky Act to try to dissuade known bad actors via economic means before it reaches physical violence. So to be more clear - you're okay with removing this layer of protection? And yes, it could be abused but then that's where actual work and getting in place an intelligent and accountable government with sound policy is the path, not taking down walls so to make it easier for bad actors to function within the system; not caring about it, concerning yourself with it, and externalizing the cost of the purposeful ignorance is a very bad idea. "Bitcoin is almost as bs as fiat money" - Elon Musk, I look forward to Elon eventually voicing his full thoughts on this and not just his summization; he of course has to be careful due to the growing "army of HODLers" who are all financially aligned, all financially incentivized to promote Bitcoin et al to increase their value in the decentralized, global Ponzi-Pyramid. There are issues in the system, they can be course corrected by educating people on the right policies, Bitcoin et al is certainly the impetus for this to occur.
    - smeej 6y ago
      Yes, I very much do. And I want it to be recorded right out in public, on a bright, shiny public blockchain where everybody can see it, recognize them for the violent crazies they are, and dissociate from them. If you are EXTREMELY knowledgeable and careful, you can transact with Bitcoin anonymously. Less than 0.01% of the people who make a bunch of noise on Twitter or who stormed the Capitol are going to know how to be able to figure it out correctly.
    - smeej 6y ago
      Do you appreciate the vulnerability of the other stance? As in, do you know how absurdly lucky it is that people with a controlling stake in these payment processing companies happen to agree with you and aren't in Trump's pocket? Imagine it were the other way around, and suddenly Twitter and Facebook just couldn't use banks anymore, or cards. Centralized control of money is too dangerous for everyone. Whatever power exists could someday be wielded against you. Why do you think the rioters are so afraid and angry? They were fine with Trump's making up executive powers that don't actually exist anywhere. Now they're seeing the other edge of the sword, and they're so afraid they're losing their minds. Learn from them. Don't become like them when your view falls out of favor. Don't create a power so great your life would be ruined if your enemy came to wield it.
- loceng 6y ago
  Indeed there are different layers and social media is just the tip, and that's a feature - and it's great because it's multiple barriers to entry; you don't want an angry mob who seeks violence to have fluidity. Also, cash exists as a payment option - yes, it's slower than digital transactions which is also a feature to limit and slow allocation and in this case, slow the allocation to people wanting to allow open calls for violence. With enough support they could also create their own credit card company, if they can find a government who will be supportive of open calls to violence.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    That's my point, the government. Banking is not a free market. So can we put this nonsense to sleep already? And since you don't seem to be too interested in the free market argument anyway, let me respond to the rest of your comment, including the other one. I don't know if you're aware of it, but your falling empire, the almighty America, is not the only country in the world. The censorship tactics that are deployed right now on the half of the population of the country that famously has the most free speech in the world, will be used against the people in other countries too. The willingness of the corporations to work with authoritarian governments, the obvious example being China, is not exactly a secret. These people hold no moral convictions, they use slave labor for God's sake, just so you can mindlessly consume more useless crap like a new iPhone every year or God knows how many pairs of Nike shoes, as they pander to you with rainbow flags and raised fists. People who are in the front lines against such governments, some of whom you might show "support" to regularly on your favourite social media website, are also being persecuted for the same reasons - calls for violence and terrorism. The people from my country were hailed as heroes after the WWII by the Western world. But today, in some places in the world, people who are doing the same thing and fighting for the same causes that we did are labeled as terrorists. People might belive one thing today and the complete opposite tomorrow. Which is whatever suits the people at the media industry and their employers at the time. And the bottomline is that you yourself might find yourself on the receiving end of the things you think are so great in the near future. The following weeks are not about the left vs the right. Or antiterrorism vs terrorism. Or morality vs lack thereof. Or however you want to frame it to feel good about yourself. It's about escalation or de-escalation. The right completely lost and the left had the upperhand. But for some reason, either stupidity or on purpose, they've chose to go about it in the worst possible way. Get petty, overblow the Capitol shitshow and seek revenge on the right. You might not even agree with that framing, but this is how the right perceives it. And that means escalation. Nothing might happen because of it or everything might happen. But the point is that you've turned the victory of the left into an uncertain future, that no one knows what holds. Sorry for getting carried away, I know this is not a place for my bullshit, but this is basically the only place where I can voice my meaningless opinions that no one cares about.
dash2 6y ago
I don't think it is very likely I'll be able to build my own mobile phone to replace Apple, who have banned Parler. Network effects and natural monopolies are real things.
- loceng 6y ago
  Competition and organizing individuals is also a real thing, arguably there are ~74 million Americans who voted for Trump - which is arguably a large enough market size to cater a product to, which is exactly what Parler has done under the guise of a "free speech" app - which it's not: 'Stop calling it a “free speech app”. Historically Parler is harsher on dissenting political views than any of their competitors. Just, ya know, against the “other side”.' - https://www.reddit.com/r/technews/comments/kts86k/comment/gio63jk https://www.reddit.com/r/technews/comments/kts86k/comment/gi... There's so much learned helplessness, victim mindset- and a sign of an unhealthy, non-critical thinking, more unreasonable population.
  - dash2 6y ago
    Even if Trump voters all supported the riots - the majority don't - they aren't going to buy a new mobile phone just so as to install Parler on it.
lightcatcher 6y ago
Parler is the right starting their own company in response to Twitter censoring/banning some of their discussions. Parler's current deplatforming indicates that "start your own company so you're the governor" is a borderline unrealistic point of view, since the internet and especially mobile phones are run by mega-corporations that don't support an open platform. If we look at Parler being dependent on other companies, there are 3 dependencies that bit them in the last few days: (A) running servers on AWS (B) distributing Android app through Google Play Store (C) distributing iPhone app through Apple Store Parler could and should have avoided the dependency on AWS by hosting with a company more aligned with their views or outside of the US. However, I cannot in good faith say "Parler should have written their own mobile OS if they want people to use their platform from their phones". I believe Android supports app installation without Google Play. It's a little inconvenient, but I think an extra minute or two of clicking around is an ok price to pay for access to unpopular speech. However, as far as I know there's no way to have an app on iPhones without Apple's approval. This is a strong point for "even if you start your own company, you're not the governor - 45% of America's phone users can only access your service at the mercy of Apple".
- loceng 6y ago
  It's not unrealistic. This is the point and value of having competition. If at each layer of the system they won't stand for your beliefs that violence is okay, for example, then you'll have to create the infrastructure at each layer if you meet resistance at each layer. If they're serious enough and organized enough and the rest of society isn't willing to budge, and if the "offenders" aren't willing to reason and adapt their ways to not be violent - and to have open critical thinking dialogue, if they can be un-brainwashed from Trump et al's lies and the lies perpetuated by the duopoly - both sides harmful but the treasonous Republicans (that's not all of them) who are willing to incite violence is obviously the worst of the two - then friction and physical conflict will occur. This will either turn into a civil war, where both sides will need to create the infrastructure including arms and readying defense, or if these people can be reached and government policy be put in place to break apart the duopoly, re-enact things like the Fairness Doctrine so news legally must present both sides of the story to their viewers, along with the core policy proposals of Andrew Yang - Democracy Dollars, Journalism Dollars, Ranked Choice Voting, Freedom Dividend/UBI, etc - then the quality of life of everyone will improve, stress will go down, and dialogue and conversation will become more nuanced and diverse again, not merely the echo chambers of the two narratives of the duopoly that's been captured by industrial complexes and bad actors for many decades extracting as much from society as they can, suffocating everyone slowly but surely. If you want the convenience afforded by the technology of private companies then you will have to follow their rules; if you show that you're racist while a guest in my house, I'm going to ask you to leave and if you refuse I'm going to call the police to have you removed. Android does allow side-loading of apps, and Apple has the ability to prevent already installed apps from working. I think ultimately this is a question of whether you want your opponents/"enemies" - those who aren't aligned with you - to have access to the same level of technology as you: is it a good idea to level the playing field or to have an advantage? Arguably it's only good if the owners/controllers of that technology are on a more right/good path than the "other." I assume in part Parler expected or wanted this deplatforming to happen as free marketing and to rally individuals to the platform, rallying the energy of people feeling persecuted - because enough of them were openly calling for violence and moderators weren't removing those comments/users from the platforms - but they don't seem to be having that sane/reasonable conversation to calm and quell the angry mob - and any "outsider" who attempts to reason with them gets ban/blocked, so it's inevitable it will spillover into the physical world. I feel and think it's good to slow this mob down however possible, even if it angers some of them more - they were already substantial open calls for violence, so it's not like deplatforming was the cause, the cause is Trump et al's lies and propaganda to incite violence; where's Trump ingenuine call for "law and order" after the Capitol was stormed? Answer: Trump told people to go to the Capitol.

by loceng 6y ago

ttt0 6y ago

It's not an option, because of the banking, which is a gray area. It's privately owned, but it's not really a free market either. The problem is that Visa and Mastercard is blacklisting people, just because the angry mob complained on the internet. The social media is just a tip of the iceberg.

smeej 6y ago
There's an entire ecosystem of decentralized money that has been invented and has been growing for the last 13 years to combat precisely this problem. The value of the units of those currencies are exploding right now, in part for this reason. If this seems to you to be one of the deepest root causes of the problem, that people can't compete due to centralized monetary control systems, and you want to help make the world better by uprooting that critical power, you may consider digging deeper into these projects.
- loceng 6y ago
  So to be clear - you want to allow people who are openly calling for violence to be able to transfer money freely via Bitcoin et al? This question usually gets ignored, avoided, because pro-Bitcoiners don't want to be accountable to the consequences of such system - likewise with fiat currencies and the current system you can have mechanisms like the Magnitsky Act to try to dissuade known bad actors via economic means before it reaches physical violence. So to be more clear - you're okay with removing this layer of protection? And yes, it could be abused but then that's where actual work and getting in place an intelligent and accountable government with sound policy is the path, not taking down walls so to make it easier for bad actors to function within the system; not caring about it, concerning yourself with it, and externalizing the cost of the purposeful ignorance is a very bad idea. "Bitcoin is almost as bs as fiat money" - Elon Musk, I look forward to Elon eventually voicing his full thoughts on this and not just his summization; he of course has to be careful due to the growing "army of HODLers" who are all financially aligned, all financially incentivized to promote Bitcoin et al to increase their value in the decentralized, global Ponzi-Pyramid. There are issues in the system, they can be course corrected by educating people on the right policies, Bitcoin et al is certainly the impetus for this to occur.
  - smeej 6y ago
    Yes, I very much do. And I want it to be recorded right out in public, on a bright, shiny public blockchain where everybody can see it, recognize them for the violent crazies they are, and dissociate from them. If you are EXTREMELY knowledgeable and careful, you can transact with Bitcoin anonymously. Less than 0.01% of the people who make a bunch of noise on Twitter or who stormed the Capitol are going to know how to be able to figure it out correctly.
  - smeej 6y ago
    Do you appreciate the vulnerability of the other stance? As in, do you know how absurdly lucky it is that people with a controlling stake in these payment processing companies happen to agree with you and aren't in Trump's pocket? Imagine it were the other way around, and suddenly Twitter and Facebook just couldn't use banks anymore, or cards. Centralized control of money is too dangerous for everyone. Whatever power exists could someday be wielded against you. Why do you think the rioters are so afraid and angry? They were fine with Trump's making up executive powers that don't actually exist anywhere. Now they're seeing the other edge of the sword, and they're so afraid they're losing their minds. Learn from them. Don't become like them when your view falls out of favor. Don't create a power so great your life would be ruined if your enemy came to wield it.
loceng 6y ago
Indeed there are different layers and social media is just the tip, and that's a feature - and it's great because it's multiple barriers to entry; you don't want an angry mob who seeks violence to have fluidity. Also, cash exists as a payment option - yes, it's slower than digital transactions which is also a feature to limit and slow allocation and in this case, slow the allocation to people wanting to allow open calls for violence. With enough support they could also create their own credit card company, if they can find a government who will be supportive of open calls to violence.
- ttt0 6y ago
  That's my point, the government. Banking is not a free market. So can we put this nonsense to sleep already? And since you don't seem to be too interested in the free market argument anyway, let me respond to the rest of your comment, including the other one. I don't know if you're aware of it, but your falling empire, the almighty America, is not the only country in the world. The censorship tactics that are deployed right now on the half of the population of the country that famously has the most free speech in the world, will be used against the people in other countries too. The willingness of the corporations to work with authoritarian governments, the obvious example being China, is not exactly a secret. These people hold no moral convictions, they use slave labor for God's sake, just so you can mindlessly consume more useless crap like a new iPhone every year or God knows how many pairs of Nike shoes, as they pander to you with rainbow flags and raised fists. People who are in the front lines against such governments, some of whom you might show "support" to regularly on your favourite social media website, are also being persecuted for the same reasons - calls for violence and terrorism. The people from my country were hailed as heroes after the WWII by the Western world. But today, in some places in the world, people who are doing the same thing and fighting for the same causes that we did are labeled as terrorists. People might belive one thing today and the complete opposite tomorrow. Which is whatever suits the people at the media industry and their employers at the time. And the bottomline is that you yourself might find yourself on the receiving end of the things you think are so great in the near future. The following weeks are not about the left vs the right. Or antiterrorism vs terrorism. Or morality vs lack thereof. Or however you want to frame it to feel good about yourself. It's about escalation or de-escalation. The right completely lost and the left had the upperhand. But for some reason, either stupidity or on purpose, they've chose to go about it in the worst possible way. Get petty, overblow the Capitol shitshow and seek revenge on the right. You might not even agree with that framing, but this is how the right perceives it. And that means escalation. Nothing might happen because of it or everything might happen. But the point is that you've turned the victory of the left into an uncertain future, that no one knows what holds. Sorry for getting carried away, I know this is not a place for my bullshit, but this is basically the only place where I can voice my meaningless opinions that no one cares about.

dash2 6y ago

I don't think it is very likely I'll be able to build my own mobile phone to replace Apple, who have banned Parler. Network effects and natural monopolies are real things.

loceng 6y ago
Competition and organizing individuals is also a real thing, arguably there are ~74 million Americans who voted for Trump - which is arguably a large enough market size to cater a product to, which is exactly what Parler has done under the guise of a "free speech" app - which it's not: 'Stop calling it a “free speech app”. Historically Parler is harsher on dissenting political views than any of their competitors. Just, ya know, against the “other side”.' - https://www.reddit.com/r/technews/comments/kts86k/comment/gio63jk https://www.reddit.com/r/technews/comments/kts86k/comment/gi... There's so much learned helplessness, victim mindset- and a sign of an unhealthy, non-critical thinking, more unreasonable population.
- dash2 6y ago
  Even if Trump voters all supported the riots - the majority don't - they aren't going to buy a new mobile phone just so as to install Parler on it.

lightcatcher 6y ago

Parler is the right starting their own company in response to Twitter censoring/banning some of their discussions. Parler's current deplatforming indicates that "start your own company so you're the governor" is a borderline unrealistic point of view, since the internet and especially mobile phones are run by mega-corporations that don't support an open platform. If we look at Parler being dependent on other companies, there are 3 dependencies that bit them in the last few days: (A) running servers on AWS (B) distributing Android app through Google Play Store (C) distributing iPhone app through Apple Store Parler could and should have avoided the dependency on AWS by hosting with a company more aligned with their views or outside of the US. However, I cannot in good faith say "Parler should have written their own mobile OS if they want people to use their platform from their phones". I believe Android supports app installation without Google Play. It's a little inconvenient, but I think an extra minute or two of clicking around is an ok price to pay for access to unpopular speech. However, as far as I know there's no way to have an app on iPhones without Apple's approval. This is a strong point for "even if you start your own company, you're not the governor - 45% of America's phone users can only access your service at the mercy of Apple".

loceng 6y ago
It's not unrealistic. This is the point and value of having competition. If at each layer of the system they won't stand for your beliefs that violence is okay, for example, then you'll have to create the infrastructure at each layer if you meet resistance at each layer. If they're serious enough and organized enough and the rest of society isn't willing to budge, and if the "offenders" aren't willing to reason and adapt their ways to not be violent - and to have open critical thinking dialogue, if they can be un-brainwashed from Trump et al's lies and the lies perpetuated by the duopoly - both sides harmful but the treasonous Republicans (that's not all of them) who are willing to incite violence is obviously the worst of the two - then friction and physical conflict will occur. This will either turn into a civil war, where both sides will need to create the infrastructure including arms and readying defense, or if these people can be reached and government policy be put in place to break apart the duopoly, re-enact things like the Fairness Doctrine so news legally must present both sides of the story to their viewers, along with the core policy proposals of Andrew Yang - Democracy Dollars, Journalism Dollars, Ranked Choice Voting, Freedom Dividend/UBI, etc - then the quality of life of everyone will improve, stress will go down, and dialogue and conversation will become more nuanced and diverse again, not merely the echo chambers of the two narratives of the duopoly that's been captured by industrial complexes and bad actors for many decades extracting as much from society as they can, suffocating everyone slowly but surely. If you want the convenience afforded by the technology of private companies then you will have to follow their rules; if you show that you're racist while a guest in my house, I'm going to ask you to leave and if you refuse I'm going to call the police to have you removed. Android does allow side-loading of apps, and Apple has the ability to prevent already installed apps from working. I think ultimately this is a question of whether you want your opponents/"enemies" - those who aren't aligned with you - to have access to the same level of technology as you: is it a good idea to level the playing field or to have an advantage? Arguably it's only good if the owners/controllers of that technology are on a more right/good path than the "other." I assume in part Parler expected or wanted this deplatforming to happen as free marketing and to rally individuals to the platform, rallying the energy of people feeling persecuted - because enough of them were openly calling for violence and moderators weren't removing those comments/users from the platforms - but they don't seem to be having that sane/reasonable conversation to calm and quell the angry mob - and any "outsider" who attempts to reason with them gets ban/blocked, so it's inevitable it will spillover into the physical world. I feel and think it's good to slow this mob down however possible, even if it angers some of them more - they were already substantial open calls for violence, so it's not like deplatforming was the cause, the cause is Trump et al's lies and propaganda to incite violence; where's Trump ingenuine call for "law and order" after the Capitol was stormed? Answer: Trump told people to go to the Capitol.