4 ms·

You worldview is incredibly foreign to me, but I'll try to engage fairly with it. > the US right wing looked like it was about to build a complete alternative

You worldview is incredibly foreign to me, but I'll try to engage fairly with it. > the US right wing looked like it was about to build a complete alternative internet for a while there This would seem to imply that the established internet, what we had before this relenting, was somehow left wing. Is that an accurate description of your view? When did this relenting take place? > they just partially marginalised when the censorship backed off. Is it your position that Truth Social (the social network started by the current president of the united states) is currently a marginalized space? > That isn't how feudal revolts work in my understanding; typically peasants just got squished by better armed, armoured and organised soldier classes. I think it's interesting that you posit this as a fight between the "peasants" and the "soliders". I'm assuming, to make sense of your analogy, that the "peasants" in this case is the current president of the united states and Elon Musk. the "soliders" would then be "Jeff Bezos" and "Sundar Pichai"

palmfacehn 1y ago
>This would seem to imply that the established internet, what we had before this relenting, was somehow left wing. I would omit the left-wing characterization as a debatable generalization. Perhaps it would be better described as the specific platforms being opposition partisans, rather than the Internet itself.
- delusional 1y ago
  > Perhaps it would be better described as the specific platforms being opposition partisans I'm sympathetic to such an argument, but it does beg the question: Which platforms? The original comments choices of singling out Rumble and Truth Social, would imply that YouTube and Twitter would at least be _among_ those "specific platforms" but neither of those platforms are, at least according to the left, particularly left wing. Both platform have repeatedly been criticized for creating and propagating structures that lead people down what was called "the alt-right pipeline" and has, historically, hosted some of the most active alt-right figureheads. That's not to say either platform is or was right-wing either. I'm not the one making an argument. Though I'm not convinced they were particularly left-wing or partisan before the creation of Rumble and Truth Social.
  - roenxi 1y ago
    Just to be clear, I never said anything about the left wing. I don't think they were involved in that one. Suppressing speech is generally opposed by the leftists.
    - gg82 1y ago
      Just compare X and Blue Sky. There may be some principled leftists who oppose suppressing speech, but in recent times, it has been the left that has been censoring/blocking peoples speech. Another comparison is what is actually censored. Of course there is a certain amount that would be censored by both sides - criticism of power.
roenxi 1y ago
> This would seem to imply that the established internet, what we had before this relenting, was somehow left wing. Is that an accurate description of your view? When did this relenting take place? No, the left wing wasn't really involved. It looked from the outside like a pocket of authoritarians settled in the US intelligence services. Given the priorities of the Trump establishment on starting Term 2 when they moved very quickly to gut the US propaganda services I think Trump's people came to a similar view. And the relenting came when it was obvious that the companies involved were going to start suffering commercial consequences. Or, in cases like Twitter, got bought out by prominent right-wing figures. > Is it your position that Truth Social (the social network started by the current president of the united states) is currently a marginalized space? Yeah. It isn't really operating on the same scale as Twitter and it only exists because Twitter felt the obvious way to construe "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." was as glorification of violence [0]. It's commercial wisdom is unclear. > I think it's interesting that you posit this as a fight between the "peasants" and the "soliders". I'm almost positing the opposite, NOT(it is a fight between peasants and soldiers). That is why I think the feudal meme is a mistake - this isn't a situation where the powers that be in the tech world can actually bring consequences down on a class of people. The people have freedom. [0] It was bizarre. I've kept a copy of Titter's announcement saved to disk as a reminder of how crazy groupthink can get. Anyone willing to state such a stupid theory in public has to believe it.
- conartist6 1y ago
  I have 0 trouble understanding why Twitter didn't want to be whipping up fury against democracy using their power to do so. Six days before that ban Trump had definitively crossed the line over to full-blown treason with the Reffensperger call. Two days before the ban he sat quietly, waiting and hoping a mob of his supporters whipped up by his verbal diarrhea would sieze power for him, ending democracy. Make no mistake, Twitter did exactly what they had every legal and moral obligation to do.
  - hedora 1y ago
    I’ll just add that the quote in the comment you replied to was one of the least offensive things Trump said during that incident (if he even tweeted that). The news ran a video of him inciting a riot, etc, etc.

palmfacehn 1y ago

>This would seem to imply that the established internet, what we had before this relenting, was somehow left wing. I would omit the left-wing characterization as a debatable generalization. Perhaps it would be better described as the specific platforms being opposition partisans, rather than the Internet itself.

delusional 1y ago
> Perhaps it would be better described as the specific platforms being opposition partisans I'm sympathetic to such an argument, but it does beg the question: Which platforms? The original comments choices of singling out Rumble and Truth Social, would imply that YouTube and Twitter would at least be _among_ those "specific platforms" but neither of those platforms are, at least according to the left, particularly left wing. Both platform have repeatedly been criticized for creating and propagating structures that lead people down what was called "the alt-right pipeline" and has, historically, hosted some of the most active alt-right figureheads. That's not to say either platform is or was right-wing either. I'm not the one making an argument. Though I'm not convinced they were particularly left-wing or partisan before the creation of Rumble and Truth Social.
- roenxi 1y ago
  Just to be clear, I never said anything about the left wing. I don't think they were involved in that one. Suppressing speech is generally opposed by the leftists.
  - gg82 1y ago
    Just compare X and Blue Sky. There may be some principled leftists who oppose suppressing speech, but in recent times, it has been the left that has been censoring/blocking peoples speech. Another comparison is what is actually censored. Of course there is a certain amount that would be censored by both sides - criticism of power.

roenxi 1y ago

> This would seem to imply that the established internet, what we had before this relenting, was somehow left wing. Is that an accurate description of your view? When did this relenting take place? No, the left wing wasn't really involved. It looked from the outside like a pocket of authoritarians settled in the US intelligence services. Given the priorities of the Trump establishment on starting Term 2 when they moved very quickly to gut the US propaganda services I think Trump's people came to a similar view. And the relenting came when it was obvious that the companies involved were going to start suffering commercial consequences. Or, in cases like Twitter, got bought out by prominent right-wing figures. > Is it your position that Truth Social (the social network started by the current president of the united states) is currently a marginalized space? Yeah. It isn't really operating on the same scale as Twitter and it only exists because Twitter felt the obvious way to construe "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." was as glorification of violence [0]. It's commercial wisdom is unclear. > I think it's interesting that you posit this as a fight between the "peasants" and the "soliders". I'm almost positing the opposite, NOT(it is a fight between peasants and soldiers). That is why I think the feudal meme is a mistake - this isn't a situation where the powers that be in the tech world can actually bring consequences down on a class of people. The people have freedom. [0] It was bizarre. I've kept a copy of Titter's announcement saved to disk as a reminder of how crazy groupthink can get. Anyone willing to state such a stupid theory in public has to believe it.

conartist6 1y ago
I have 0 trouble understanding why Twitter didn't want to be whipping up fury against democracy using their power to do so. Six days before that ban Trump had definitively crossed the line over to full-blown treason with the Reffensperger call. Two days before the ban he sat quietly, waiting and hoping a mob of his supporters whipped up by his verbal diarrhea would sieze power for him, ending democracy. Make no mistake, Twitter did exactly what they had every legal and moral obligation to do.
- hedora 1y ago
  I’ll just add that the quote in the comment you replied to was one of the least offensive things Trump said during that incident (if he even tweeted that). The news ran a video of him inciting a riot, etc, etc.