6 ms·

This sounds like double speak. Can you elaborate?

germinalphrase 6y ago
Anyone can say whatever they want on the Internet, but if your violence words become violent deeds you’re at risk of being dropped. So - don’t be violent.
- ulucs 6y ago
  I hope the platforms remember this line of thought the next time US is going to bomb a country
cstejerean 6y ago
I think basically don’t use your platform to plan an insurrection and you should be fine. As soon as you start being used as the platform where violence is being organized all bets are off.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  So... are you talking about Twitter and Facebook? Your comment is short sighted and shows a possibly too eager willingness to accept the media and big tech narrative at completely face value. What if you are wrong? At one point saying “We shouldn’t own slaves”, or “the Indian has rights to the land they live on”, or “women should be allowed to vote”, or “no taxation without representation” were all insurrectionist comments. How do you propose we only stop “the wrong” insurrections? We should probably ask you first.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    > At one point saying “We shouldn’t own slaves”, or “the Indian has rights to the land they live on”, or “women should be allowed to vote”, or “no taxation without representation” were all insurrectionist comments. Uh, I don't know what you think "insurrectionist" means, but those are definitely not what it means. Actually, one of those comments was actually the law of the land at the time, as adjudicated by the Supreme Court--it was merely a popular politician who said that the Supreme Court had no actual power to enforce its will against him and did it anyways. In the interest of pedantry, it's worth pointing out that the anti-slavery comments weren't the ones made by the insurrectionists, and even in the states that seceded, the unwillingness of Northerners to uphold the Fugitive Slave Act was arguably the more pressing threat, since it is highly unlikely that the federal government would have been enable to effect mandatory abolition on unwilling states but removing any codes enforcing the return of runaway slaves would have been well within its remit. That said, there was one notable abolitionist who provides half the cases in US history of people tried for treason against an individual state.
CryptoGhost 6y ago
You must decouple in person interactions from site content. So you can have a site filled with philosophy, historical analysis, generalized activism tips, technical information, etc but not a site that directly facilitates in person meetups or calls to action or plans real world activities.

Anyone can say whatever they want on the Internet, but if your violence words become violent deeds you’re at risk of being dropped. So - don’t be violent.

ulucs 6y ago
I hope the platforms remember this line of thought the next time US is going to bomb a country

cstejerean 6y ago

I think basically don’t use your platform to plan an insurrection and you should be fine. As soon as you start being used as the platform where violence is being organized all bets are off.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
So... are you talking about Twitter and Facebook? Your comment is short sighted and shows a possibly too eager willingness to accept the media and big tech narrative at completely face value. What if you are wrong? At one point saying “We shouldn’t own slaves”, or “the Indian has rights to the land they live on”, or “women should be allowed to vote”, or “no taxation without representation” were all insurrectionist comments. How do you propose we only stop “the wrong” insurrections? We should probably ask you first.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > At one point saying “We shouldn’t own slaves”, or “the Indian has rights to the land they live on”, or “women should be allowed to vote”, or “no taxation without representation” were all insurrectionist comments. Uh, I don't know what you think "insurrectionist" means, but those are definitely not what it means. Actually, one of those comments was actually the law of the land at the time, as adjudicated by the Supreme Court--it was merely a popular politician who said that the Supreme Court had no actual power to enforce its will against him and did it anyways. In the interest of pedantry, it's worth pointing out that the anti-slavery comments weren't the ones made by the insurrectionists, and even in the states that seceded, the unwillingness of Northerners to uphold the Fugitive Slave Act was arguably the more pressing threat, since it is highly unlikely that the federal government would have been enable to effect mandatory abolition on unwilling states but removing any codes enforcing the return of runaway slaves would have been well within its remit. That said, there was one notable abolitionist who provides half the cases in US history of people tried for treason against an individual state.

CryptoGhost 6y ago

You must decouple in person interactions from site content. So you can have a site filled with philosophy, historical analysis, generalized activism tips, technical information, etc but not a site that directly facilitates in person meetups or calls to action or plans real world activities.