3 ms·

The internet has been like this forever. Don't like the stuff someone says on my irc server? gline. Don't like a comment on a forum? banned. Heck, we removed sw

by neom 6y ago

The internet has been like this forever. Don't like the stuff someone says on my irc server? gline. Don't like a comment on a forum? banned. Heck, we removed swaths of users from DeviantART back in the day for simply being rude. At least from as long back as I can remember (1996/7), the interneting has mostly been privately owned stuff run by real people who get to choose what happens on their lawn.

seneca 6y ago
I've got a handful of years on you, and I disagree that this is anything like how the internet has always been. Unless you've got your head in the sand, you can see that tech companies have been steadily ratcheting up the use of their moderation policies to silence political speech they don't like. The last week is just a feeding frenzy now that they feel like they have a strong excuse. I'm speaking generally here, and more about companies like Twitter. I don't know whether that wider trend is what is happening here with GoDaddy.
JasonFruit 6y ago
The difference here, as I see it, is that it's not being banned for the usual reasons, but because it's political speech the resource owner doesn't agree with. There's been a huge uptick in that over the last several months, and with the disgusting episode in Washington, it kicked into high gear these past few days. It's affecting people who have very little in common with the people who engaged in illegal acts there, too. There are topics that correlate with disfavored political views but are not directly related to politics that have practically been eliminated from Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms. It's probably not illegal, but it's disturbing to watch.
- na85 6y ago
  >The difference here, as I see it, is that it's not being banned for the usual reasons, but because it's political speech the resource owner doesn't agree with. Oh please. It's political speech, all right, but the difference here is that it's political speech in the wake of a bunch of guys with knives, bombs, and zip ties trying to storm the US Senate to subvert the democratic process, and the political speech is advocating more of the same. This isn't just someone saying odious things, it's calls to make a second attempt at armed insurrection.
  - JasonFruit 6y ago
    You don't have to defend speech that everyone likes. It's when it's unpopular and you could make an argument for banning it that it's most important to make arguments against banning that speech. If we let people we don't agree with be silenced, how long until those precedents silence us?
    - na85 6y ago
      That's missing the forest for the trees. Instigating a mob to attack the Senate with knives and zipties is not the kind of free speech that needs to be protected.
- devmunchies 6y ago
  nah, biggest difference is increased centralization of internet powers enabling the ability to mass censor with few switches.
postalrat 6y ago
Your talking about actions within a system. These days we are taking down systems.
shard 6y ago
Before the internet was so centralized, it was difficult to deplatform people. For example, you can't really ban anyone from IRC, or from Usenet, where I spent a large amount of my forum time until the early 2000s. We dealt with trolls and hateful people like we always did, we just ignored them. And that worked fine. I suppose the difference nowadays is the sheer volume of noise that can be generated just due to the number of people online, which makes shifting through the noise difficult enough that the noise can start to seem like consensus.

by neom 6y ago

seneca 6y ago

I've got a handful of years on you, and I disagree that this is anything like how the internet has always been. Unless you've got your head in the sand, you can see that tech companies have been steadily ratcheting up the use of their moderation policies to silence political speech they don't like. The last week is just a feeding frenzy now that they feel like they have a strong excuse. I'm speaking generally here, and more about companies like Twitter. I don't know whether that wider trend is what is happening here with GoDaddy.

JasonFruit 6y ago

The difference here, as I see it, is that it's not being banned for the usual reasons, but because it's political speech the resource owner doesn't agree with. There's been a huge uptick in that over the last several months, and with the disgusting episode in Washington, it kicked into high gear these past few days. It's affecting people who have very little in common with the people who engaged in illegal acts there, too. There are topics that correlate with disfavored political views but are not directly related to politics that have practically been eliminated from Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms. It's probably not illegal, but it's disturbing to watch.

na85 6y ago
>The difference here, as I see it, is that it's not being banned for the usual reasons, but because it's political speech the resource owner doesn't agree with. Oh please. It's political speech, all right, but the difference here is that it's political speech in the wake of a bunch of guys with knives, bombs, and zip ties trying to storm the US Senate to subvert the democratic process, and the political speech is advocating more of the same. This isn't just someone saying odious things, it's calls to make a second attempt at armed insurrection.
- JasonFruit 6y ago
  You don't have to defend speech that everyone likes. It's when it's unpopular and you could make an argument for banning it that it's most important to make arguments against banning that speech. If we let people we don't agree with be silenced, how long until those precedents silence us?
  - na85 6y ago
    That's missing the forest for the trees. Instigating a mob to attack the Senate with knives and zipties is not the kind of free speech that needs to be protected.
devmunchies 6y ago
nah, biggest difference is increased centralization of internet powers enabling the ability to mass censor with few switches.

postalrat 6y ago

Your talking about actions within a system. These days we are taking down systems.

shard 6y ago

Before the internet was so centralized, it was difficult to deplatform people. For example, you can't really ban anyone from IRC, or from Usenet, where I spent a large amount of my forum time until the early 2000s. We dealt with trolls and hateful people like we always did, we just ignored them. And that worked fine. I suppose the difference nowadays is the sheer volume of noise that can be generated just due to the number of people online, which makes shifting through the noise difficult enough that the noise can start to seem like consensus.