8 ms·
Not impossible. Insignificant in volume.
by sfifs 4y ago
Not impossible. Insignificant in volume.
- cguess 4y agoHe said on a platform that's controlled by any of those organizations.
- senorrib 4y agoThey certainly did not.
- cowtools 4y agoIt's controlled by Ycombinator, who uses the forum to showcase their own interests.
- drewrv 4y agoThe number of people here who claim to hate moderation blows my mind. If someone thinks far right content is reasonable and good it would be refreshing to hear that take. Instead people bend themselves into logical pretzels to oppose the idea of moderation for supposedly “content neutral” reasons. It’s tiresome.
- kortilla 4y ago“I’m flabbergasted these strawmen I’m attacking exist!”
- greesil 4y agoDo you have a link to these strawmen?
- revscat 4y agoEchoing the sibling to this, this is not a viewpoint I have seen expressed before. Do you have a link?
- greesil 4y agoA link to their own opinions? Huh?
- Karunamon 4y agoIt would be equally refreshing to see "moderation" advocates acknowledge that it's not just the "far right" being bullied and censored off of mainstream platforms. That straw man incinerated and replaced with "mainstream conservative content", you still are not going to get any examples because the one providing that will be voted/flagged into invisibility, or if not that, the resulting discussion will be derailed into quibbling about the specific example rather than the much more important general principle. It would be not at all honest to imply that this forum is anything but generally hostile to the American right, regardless of how extreme or not the take is. With that in mind, it is no surprise that specific positions are only ever mentioned indirectly, or negatively.
- cycomanic 4y agoYes no proponent of this law ever complained about ISIS recruiting accounts being banned by twitter.
- Karunamon 4y agoIt is definitely federally illegal on the grounds of sanctions [1], if not treason, to knowingly provide service to the Islamic State. Twitter's hands are tied. [1]: https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/Details.aspx?id=8759 https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/Details.aspx?id=8759
- cycomanic 4y agoSo I guess government restricting free speech is fine?
- indecisive_user 4y agoWhataboutism. Government passing laws on free speech is unrelated to internet platforms enforcing arbitrary rules depending on the outrage mob of the week.
- sfifs 4y ago
- treeman79 4y agoShould boys be allowed into a girls locker room. Ignoring feelings of the girls. That is now considered a far right questions. Should a million or two people be allowed to enter the country with no rules or oversight. Again, far right. Should parents have a say in child’s education. Far right question.
- greesil 4y agoAnd then I found the strawmen three, but not the original ones we were looking for.
- etchalon 4y agoAh yes, because it's the questions and not the answers that have ideological implications.
- drewrv 4y agoThese takes are all over social media so if they’re supposed to be banned then the real crime is how bad social media giants are at tracking down this nonsense. What mostly gets banned at big social media sites is spam and bots. The political speech that does get banned is overwhelmingly violent. The right gets banned more because there is no liberal equivalent of the Christchurch shooter, the Buffalo shooter, the El Paso shooter, the Charleston shooter, the Tree of Life shooter. The last president got kicked from Twitter because he tried to violently overthrow our government. Kiwifarms was finally taken down by cloudflare only because of immediate threats of violence. The right wing in the US has a violence problem. Culture war junk and social media moderation policies pale in comparison to this problem.
- tjpnz 4y agoI'm not sure why you're trying to link Kiwi Farms to the far right. I wouldn't consider myself a fan of the site, but from what I've seen it's very much apolitical and political views from either side are generally frowned upon. >Kiwifarms was finally taken down by cloudflare only because of immediate threats of violence. A single threat of violence originating from a long dormant account which had posted once, in 2018. It was reported multiple times and removed by Kiwi Farms moderators within 30 minutes. It wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there might've been shenanigans at play. Possibly by the same actors behind the DDoS campaign.
- greesil 4y agoBut not tiresome enough you keep engaging with the pretzly people :)
- cdash 4y agoIt is both reasonable and good.
- drewrv 4y agoIt would be refreshing to hear this take for once :)
- concordDance 4y agoI, for one, would like to hear far right takes just in case they're reasonable and good. I don't want to have to argue that any particular one is good without even being able to see them.
- evrydayhustling 4y agoSo free speech = free access to a high volume of people?
- infotogivenm 4y ago“I’ve been sending the Times a list of headlines to publish every week, and so far they’ve all been censored your honor!”
- cowtools 4y agoEmail and other Internet infrastructure is more analogous to the phone company than news publishing, because you do not need to "peer" with other newspapers to get published. Imagine if Bell was touchy about letting "undesirables" use their service.
- infotogivenm 4y agoOh I 100% agree, if this argument were about the ISPs, which control access to the infrastructure via local monopolies. It’s not. It’s about individual private publishers, of which there are potentially infinite. That is the beauty of the internet.
- cowtools 4y agoThe internet infrastructure is completely controlled via local monopolies and bureaucracies, and this extends beyond ISPs. The entire DNS and PKI system for example is simply a racketeering scheme for registrars and CAs. In general the internet (from the hardware to application-level) is structured in such a way that is weak to sybil attacks, and this requires central (usually corporate) entities to discriminate on traffic. EMail is one such example: there is no meaningful way to filter spam, so the peering relationships between mail providers break down unless they each implement some sybil-proofing on their own side. The end product is that everyone is forced to use a provider like Google, and play a corporate-political game to stay in good favor with their peers. This is because there is no spam-resistance on Email application level We've seen a similar situation this week with a controversial forum called KiwiFarm taken down by DDoS. They need to maintain a political relationship with their DDoS-protection provider, CloudFlare, who also controls a massive chunk of the internet infrastructure. This is all so that there can be a central entity that discriminates on the traffic, as there's no spam resistance features on IP level. https://secushare.org/broken-internet https://secushare.org/broken-internet
- scarface74 4y agoYou mean like Truth Social?