4 ms·

> Don't get me wrong, I'm not into the alt-righters You don’t need to be into alt-righters to to know that freedom can only exist if we all have it. I’d rathe

by KMnO4 4y ago

> Don't get me wrong, I'm not into the alt-righters You don’t need to be into alt-righters to to know that freedom can only exist if we all have it. I’d rather have a current-internet where people are free to host whatever controversial content they wish, than a future-internet where trillion dollar companies decide what opinions are valid.

tharne 4y ago
> You don’t need to be into alt-righters to to know that freedom can only exist if we all have it. More people need to understand this point. Folks don't realize that we're easily corrupted by power and that sooner or later it will be abused. It's not hard, for example, to imagine a future where Amazon and Google start labeling unions as extremist organizations and removing them from internet. That might sound far-fetched, but it would only take a handful of incidents of bad behavior by union members or organizations for tech companies to say, "Look, these organizations are inciting violence in their members."
- dhimes 4y ago
  Nothing sounds far-fetched after the last few years.
jfengel 4y ago
Certainly. Which is why people get very nervous when alt-righters insist on their freedom to deny freedom to other people. Society is all about resolving conflicts of rights. One of those ways is that privately-owned infrastructure belongs to its owners, who get to say who gets to use it. I'm all for them deciding to use it to chuck off those who want to use it for the explicit purpose of harming others, which is fundamental to the alt-right program. The bits and bytes of the Internet are a mishmash of private and public infrastructure, with no straightforward solution, but I'd agree that even hateful assholes deserve the ability to send and receive IP packets. But I have no problem with any private entities that refuse to help them do that.
- AbrahamParangi 4y ago
  The “privately owned” argument is bad and frankly it’s disingenuous. Nobody making this argument believes that “privately owned” entities should be able to discriminate against racial minorities, sexual minorities, religious minorities, or any other intersectional group. It is only their specific political opponents who are acceptable targets for discrimination.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    I think you missed read the previous poster so I'll repeat the important part of their post. > I'm all for them deciding to use it to chuck off those who want to use it for the explicit purpose of harming others, If your political identity is about harming others, then yes that poster thinks you should get booted from the internet. If your political identity is not about harming others then they're not talking about you or your political identity.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    I'm tired of this comparison of discrimination against speech to discrimination against protected classes. Please learn the difference between the two. The person isn't being banned. Their activities are. This is legal, and always has been. Without it, someone could disrupt religious services with obscenity or blasphemy and there would be no recourse, to take just one example. The above is entirely unlike discrimination against people on the basis of race or sex or orientation or religion because those are unchangeable characteristics.
dhimes 4y ago
Makes me nervous, but I agree. I'm not sure what the solution to negating organized disinformation campaigns is, though. Education doesn't seem to work. That strikes me particularly hard, because I've basically dedicated my life to education thinking it was the "Great Answer." Good thing it's Friday.

by KMnO4 4y ago

tharne 4y ago

> You don’t need to be into alt-righters to to know that freedom can only exist if we all have it. More people need to understand this point. Folks don't realize that we're easily corrupted by power and that sooner or later it will be abused. It's not hard, for example, to imagine a future where Amazon and Google start labeling unions as extremist organizations and removing them from internet. That might sound far-fetched, but it would only take a handful of incidents of bad behavior by union members or organizations for tech companies to say, "Look, these organizations are inciting violence in their members."

dhimes 4y ago
Nothing sounds far-fetched after the last few years.

jfengel 4y ago

Certainly. Which is why people get very nervous when alt-righters insist on their freedom to deny freedom to other people. Society is all about resolving conflicts of rights. One of those ways is that privately-owned infrastructure belongs to its owners, who get to say who gets to use it. I'm all for them deciding to use it to chuck off those who want to use it for the explicit purpose of harming others, which is fundamental to the alt-right program. The bits and bytes of the Internet are a mishmash of private and public infrastructure, with no straightforward solution, but I'd agree that even hateful assholes deserve the ability to send and receive IP packets. But I have no problem with any private entities that refuse to help them do that.

AbrahamParangi 4y ago
The “privately owned” argument is bad and frankly it’s disingenuous. Nobody making this argument believes that “privately owned” entities should be able to discriminate against racial minorities, sexual minorities, religious minorities, or any other intersectional group. It is only their specific political opponents who are acceptable targets for discrimination.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lesuorac 4y ago
  I think you missed read the previous poster so I'll repeat the important part of their post. > I'm all for them deciding to use it to chuck off those who want to use it for the explicit purpose of harming others, If your political identity is about harming others, then yes that poster thinks you should get booted from the internet. If your political identity is not about harming others then they're not talking about you or your political identity.
- triceratops 4y ago
  I'm tired of this comparison of discrimination against speech to discrimination against protected classes. Please learn the difference between the two. The person isn't being banned. Their activities are. This is legal, and always has been. Without it, someone could disrupt religious services with obscenity or blasphemy and there would be no recourse, to take just one example. The above is entirely unlike discrimination against people on the basis of race or sex or orientation or religion because those are unchangeable characteristics.

dhimes 4y ago

Makes me nervous, but I agree. I'm not sure what the solution to negating organized disinformation campaigns is, though. Education doesn't seem to work. That strikes me particularly hard, because I've basically dedicated my life to education thinking it was the "Great Answer." Good thing it's Friday.