15 ms·

“Just because private company is allowed to do something, doesn’t mean they should” - so then put that up for public debate. I think we did, Section 230 in the

• Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  > Not when you have millions deluded, angry, violent and ready to use any means to incite violence, take down gov, threaten governors That's exactly what our tyrannical Russian government says about those who don't like Putin being in power for 20+ years. Thus, they limit our rights for free speech online, prosecute for extremism, deny us rights to peacefully gather and protest. If you Americans go down this path any further, you'll too find yourself living under the tyrannical dictatorship no better than ours. Oh, unfortunately, unlike you, we don't have 2nd amendment rights, so actually rebelling is harder. So I suggest you clinging to your guns as strong as you can: all points that you are going to need them.
  • dash2 6y ago
    I find the whole argument that 2nd amendment rights support rebellion a bit weird. (UK speaker here.) The US government has marines, tanks, and advanced weaponry. Even the police are tooled up to the 9s, partly because of those very 2nd amendment rights. Is there any case of a citizen militia successfully using force to overthrow a modern state with a well-equipped, loyal army?
    • hiram112 6y ago
      See insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now assume half the military itself is sympathetic to the “rebels” and the government would have a difficult time containing any real insurgency. The US government has made a lot of enemies over the decades, many of whom would be more than willing to provide modern weapons and explosives to the insurgents. Though the US overwhelmed the Iraqi military quickly and decisively, it was a decade of constant roadside bombs, made with materials easily smuggled into the country and implemented with minimal training, that eventually wore down US morale and willingness to fight. Finally, the US military is such a big business here, a good percentage of the population has had professional military training and combat experience.
    • names_are_hard 6y ago
      I don't know how it would play out, but it's worth noting that to overthrow someone stronger than you you don't always need a bigger gun. You need to be more willing to use your gun than they are. The US government has nukes, but they still got their asses handed to them in Vietnam and struggled in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's true that if the feds truly want to squash an uprising they have the means to do it. But do they have the will to do it? At what cost? I can imagine a scenario where they'd be willing to use enough force to subdue unarmed citizens by not enough to subdue an armed uprising, which could escalate to civil war. In short: there exists a scenario in which the second amendment enables the citizens to resist the government to an extent that they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Whether this is a good or bad thing is something you can decide for yourself.
      • 8note 6y ago
        The unarmed civilians were repressed over summer, sure, but the government still largely capitulated in the end.
    • throwaway316943 6y ago
      Fat lot of good that did when fighting uneducated and untrained rice farmers and goat herders. Morale, knowledge of territory, civilian support and a conviction that you are fighting to defend your land and people will keep the fight going longer than even the most highly trained and funded military can.
  • NicoJuicy 6y ago
    This isn't the same. I'd compare it with Putin having lost in the election and trying to prep his base to overturn the votes using lies and propaganda. ( Belgian opinion)
    • Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      Umm, no. That is not comparable, because censorship is done by the winning side. The comparison you made would be valid if it was Trump who did the censorship, blocking Biden/Antifa/etc and purging them from all major news networks.
      • cycloptic 6y ago
        He is doing the censorship in areas where he has control, e.g. his own party: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2021/01/09/opinion-after-heinous-assault-time-reckon-reality/6599593002/ https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2021/01/09/opinion...
        • Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
          You may mostly forget about Trump, he'll be out in a fortnight. The problem now is your tech overlords, who have shown that they are very willing to silence and deplatform their political opponents, and who seems closely aligned with your new government. Good luck voting them out next time.
          • cycloptic 6y ago
            >The problem now is your tech overlords No, it really isn't, and this fear-mongering rhetoric is extremely unhelpful. There is bi-partisan support for antitrust actions towards these companies. If trump's (former?) followers are serious about breaking up big tech, they should stop repeating trump's baseless lies about how big tech is some sort of satanic radical leftist communist conspiracy, and get it on these bi-partisan lawsuits.
            • 6y ago
  • matwood 6y ago
    > deny us rights to peacefully gather and protest. The protest wasn't the issue. Storming the capitol is the problem. > If you Americans go down this path any further, you'll too find yourself living under the tyrannical dictatorship no better than ours. In this case, we are trying to prevent a tyrannical dictator. I do agree though that we are possibly entering a damned if we do, damned if we don't territory.
    • waheoo 6y ago
      Portland has been storming government buildings for months. Where do you think these people got the idea from? Andy gno and timcast IRL has been streaming news on these attacks and riots for just as many many months. The people that did this have been ignored for a very long time and been watching government do nothing while their lives get ripped apart by a virus and a mob of people calling them racist for being white. You people dont seem to understand you are just as bubbled as the right is.
      • Steltek 6y ago
        Don't you dare equate BLM with the Right. BLM is responding to the very recent history of murder, oppression, and disenfranchisement by the police and government. It was captured repeatedly on brutal video this very year. And that's not even going back decades to the true horrors of history. Whatever delusional "wrongs" the Right feels they've suffered from the government doesn't come close to comparing to that. In a true Godwin's Law type fashion, even attempting a comparison might be enough to end the argument.
        • waheoo 6y ago
          > Don't you dare equate BLM with the Right. I didn't. You did. I specifically said Portland, and yes, many of the people there involved were acting under the pretense of BLM but imo it was mostly just black bloc antifa being antifa. Portland antifa groups have a known and consistent history of this behavior, they've exploited BLM to amplify their attacks and they've used the support they received for doing so to embolden their actions. They have literally stalked and murdered trump supporters in the street, they have shot people, and they have blinded and maimed anyone that gets in their way.
  • mr_toad 6y ago
    > That's exactly what our tyrannical Russian government says Tyrannical governments will always find a way to abuse the legal system. Most people would be in favour of laws against corruption, but corruption charges are one of the most common ways that autocrats use to suppress opposition.
  • ipiz0618 6y ago
    Agreed. All dictators say this to their opposition - that they are just out to disrupt "peaceful" society. In China, "being peaced" is an internet slang that means silencing opposition by the government.
• sterlind 6y ago
  I was more sympathetic towards Parler until I saw a screenshot of a post calling journalists "soft targets" that are "fair game" and to be "stopped by any means necessary." My understanding is that in Parler, posts are moderated by a jury of five peers. But if that jury is just as extreme as the poster advocating murdering journalists, what then? Section 230 doesn't provide a safe harbor for criminal speech like advocating or planning violence. There has to be a second moderation channel to keep that from happening, or Parler should be liable as an accessory for violent crimes planned in the open on its platform. I'd wash my hands of them if they're that negligent.
  • zadokshi 6y ago
    Was that screenshot legit or fake news? I don’t believe anything these days. If it’s legit, was the post taken down. That kind of text sounds actually illegal and against the Parler TOS
    • wilsynet 6y ago
      Parler does have the TOS that you speak of, but the Parler CEO also says that Parler is “just a neutral town square that just adheres to the law” and leaves moderation to volunteers and takes no responsibility for what’s posted. In other words, the TOS is effectively useless.
    • systemvoltage 6y ago
      I miss 5-6 years ago when "fake news" wasn't a thing and that term didn't exist in the mainstream conversation.
      • refurb 6y ago
        Are you suggesting "fake news" doesn't exist? That people shouldn't be skeptical of information regardless if it comes from the mainstream media?
        • thowawayyy 6y ago
• oliwarner 6y ago
  > This is how society progresses. Well, yes. That's why holding people accountable for the consequences of their speech is considered by many countries to be the right course of action... Not all progress is positive. I'm not going to have the argument that people have been having for hundreds of years about where to draw the line, but I will point at this QAnon nonsense, and suggest that it highlights how malleable downtrodden people are, and how dangerous allowing it might be.
  • toxik 6y ago
    Yes, progress is positive, it is otherwise called regress.
    • jowsie 6y ago
      It's not black and white, progress for one may seem like regress for another.
    • Fargren 6y ago
      You can move in a wrong direction without moving backwards. I agree progress is not the correct word here, the correct term is probably "change". Restricting Free Speech inhibits change, whether good or bad (it doesn't completely stop it either, obviously).
    • oliwarner 6y ago
      No, in the context of societal development, progress is usually just forwards. There's always someone who preferred the good old days, positive is subjective, or at least, subject to certain criteria, and even then, it's often multiple generations that pass before we know one way or another.
      • toxik 6y ago
        I did not argue the subject matter, simply that progress is positive contrasted with the negative regress. Call it forwards and backwards if you like, same thing.
  • 6y ago
• waheoo 6y ago
  > + Free Speech. Not when you have millions deluded, angry, violent and ready to use any means to incite violence, take down gov, threaten governors and are trigger happy to exercise 2nd amendment rights. I’m terrified of these people. As a non American coming back from the holidaysplaying catch up on all this, When did BLM/Antifa start liking to exercise their 2nd amendment rights by the millions? I know a lot of them were but I don't think it was anywhere more than thousands.
• clairity 6y ago
  our constitution specifically protects the ability to discuss its own overthrow (although of course we also have by far the largest military and intelligence operation in the world to suppress any real threats, which last week very much was not). the framers realized that this was a key and fundamental aspect of free speech, and exactly the method by which we can foster discussions of change rather than via violence. that is, your terror and mistrust are misplaced. let people talk, even disgustingly. let the world change (progress) in response. that's much better than bottled-up anger that explodes unpredictably and fractally.
  • Grimm1 6y ago
    It does I agree, but when talk changes to action (in the recent case violence) what do we do then? We've seen what happens when a minority fringe extremist group is able to take control of a country, on many occasions now. I in good conscience can't see a world where if we failed to stop it earlier I would be able to sleep with the consequences because we let them talk it out in protection of freedom of speech purism. Would it be right to let that happen and then spend years and lives having to re capture our government? Obviously these are all hypothetical scenarios and questions, but if the mob a few days ago had any aim and organization they would have clearly seized our government and they're being whipped into a frenzy by things like Parler to try it again on the 17th so I'm told.
    • clairity 6y ago
      the federal government isn’t a building or a group of congresspeople. it’s the power we collectively cast as a populace. there was no chance those few hundred people would overthrow our government that way. the real threat is the power concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. that’s how we go from democracy to oligarchy to dictatorship. that’s the threat model. stop fearing the disorderly and the disenfranchised like the powerful want you to (effectuated via the media gaze and political rhetoric), but rather focus on how to disperse power and wealth more widely (as the framers intended) to keep that primary threat at bay.
      • 6y ago