7 ms·
Right, what do you mean by that? That Americans aren't using it because they prefer censorship, or that they aren't using it because they're dumb, or some third
by bavent 4y ago
Right, what do you mean by that? That Americans aren't using it because they prefer censorship, or that they aren't using it because they're dumb, or some third or fourth points? I'm not sure what you mean.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago> Right, what do you mean by that? That Americans aren't using it because they prefer censorship, or that they aren't using it because they're dumb, or some third or fourth points? I'm not sure what you mean. This is pretty obtuse as a response to the comment above you: >>>>>> You have at least one alternative. You, the freest people in the world, are not using it. Not enough censorship there. What could "Not enough censorship there" mean other than that people want more censorship than Gab provides?
- throwaway29812 4y agoPeople prefer sanitized spaces.
- MikePlacid 4y agoI prefer sanitized spaces too. I just want to have a sanitizing tool in my own hands - sanitizing what I personally read. But my tool should have no influence on what you will see and read. Moderation is probably needed. But it should be decentralized.
- throwaway29812 4y agoDecentralized moderation is a fantasy. Do you want to clean every public bathroom before you enter it ? Uncover every troll personally on Twitter every time you log on? Malign activity (bots and trolls) are organized and at scale, the only way to fight back is at the same scale. Individual users would be helpless.
- brigandish 4y agoNot if they were given the same power i.e. moderation tools that Twitter et al have behind the scenes. Why can't I, for example, set a filter that removes bots based on some confidence value? Or that orders my feeds in the order of my choosing? Right now I have to use ridiculously blunt instruments and trust in moderation that is well known to be biased and, frankly, useless.
- throwaway29812 4y agoFair points, but I would argue you aren't describing decentralized moderation so much as centralized moderation tools being made available to users in a transparent way. Which sounds good to me.
- MikePlacid 4y agoUhm. I can only guess why we Americans are not using Gab. But I thought I’ve made my guess pretty explicit: yes, I can clearly see and with great uneasiness that Americans prefer censorship. May be I was wrong - what is your thought, what Gab should do with these suprematists? And my guess is based on some observations. I named one - GOP branch deleting their account. Here’s the second observation, if you wish. Even more bothering to me. Not so long a go there was a mass protest at SF medical center. About a thousand of hospital workers were demanding that Zuckerberg’s name (paid by him at $25 mln) was removed from the plates. Reason - he is not doing enough to censor Facebook posts. I was born and grown up and have a nice “living experience” in a totalitarian country. This popular demand for more censorship looks to me like people asking authorities to hang them - and bringing their own ropes and soap to the execution site. Not a nice picture to watch.
- bglazer 4y agoThe key difference between being banned from Facebook and being hanged by the government is that in one case you die and in the other case you are mildly inconvenienced. Like you said, you can always go to Gab.
- thrown_22 4y agoFirst they came for the facebook posts, I did not speak out because I didn't use facebook. Then they came for the internet registrars, I did not speak out because I didn't have a website. Then they came for the payment processors, I did not speak out because I didn't have an online business. When they came for my bank account there was no where left to speak.
- jonathankoren 4y agoJust to be clear. The “They” coming for the Facebook posts is Mark Zuckerberg, owner of Facebook. Give me your car. I want to key some stuff into the side of it. If you don’t you’re censoring me.
- 4y ago