Originally posted by pal666
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Facebook, Twitter Proposing CentOS Hyperscale SIG With Newer Packages + Other Changes
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by coder View PostThat's a mis-characterization. Those companies' legal protections don't protect them from allowing their platforms to be used for illegal content. And incitement & conspiracy to commit violent or seditious acts are very much illegal.
So, to the extent they're legally obligated to do anything, they are obligated to remove that content.
This is not about banning groups and opinions they simply dislike or find socially corrosive, or there would have been a lot more bans going on for a lot longer.
And the bans have been going on for the past few years and they're ramping up more and more. Anything deemed "extremist" or "immoral" risks a ban. And you have to remember that it used to not be that way. Providers weren't responsible for what was posted. Phoronix wasn't responsible or legally culpable for me and my actions. They used child diddlers and music pirates to get that changed and now they're using those laws to enforce acceptable speech. First they came for the pedos, and no one said a word because they're pedos. Then they came for the pirates and only the EFF said a thing because "they're thieves" even though distributing a game from an out-of-business company isn't necessarily thievery so now I can't even download Linux isos over bit torrent because my ISP blocks torrent traffic. No shit. And now they're coming for "extremists" and "terrorists" and no one wants to say a word because you look like a MAGA Coup Tard due to the current political climate.
The problem is one person's terrorist is another person's hero. Take the shot heard round the world. Half the world heard a terrorist and the other half heard a freedom fighter. We won so the freedom fighter story is the one we tell.
One person's extremist is another person's realist. Take medicinal marijuana. That was extremist talk in the past. Ever hear of the Red Scare? Lots of people became "extremists" and put on lists simply because they had views that were disagreeable to the norm.
I love how MAGA folks storm the Capitol, in a literal coup-attempt, and it's somehow the fault of the left. This is the sort of insane reality-twisting that right-wing extremists use to turn everything into a grievance, which makes them feel justified in perpetrating such outlandish acts.
The fault of the left is their after-the-fact censorship. Can't wait to see what starts getting banned in the future as the dominoes start falling as Silicon Valley is given the ability to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech.
I'd have respected them a lot more if they'd have censored Trump and the MAGA folks years ago. They were clearly breaking established rules of the platform, but they were also driving clicks and ad revenue so they were written off as conspiracy theory idiots and given a free pass. But doing it like this: after-the-fact, knee-jerk reaction; that's just bullshit and I fear the ramifications that presents. Long-term, it isn't a good precedent to set in what is supposed to be a freedom-based society.
Something pissed off society? Time to drop the ban hammer. Shitty precedent to set when there were clear and obvious violations to begin with. A precedent of "Damn the rules until there's a problem because we're making good money" is, well, just as immoral and ignorant as the actions and tweets of the people in the coup.
And how many millions were slaughtered under the rainbow flag? Oh, none? Well, then maybe that's a bad analogy.
I'm not even trying to defend The Left, as there's stuff I don't like, either. But you need a sense of proportionality, here.
My post might have been censored, and I'm not sure why, but at least Michael straight up deleted it from the start versus letting things go on for years before all hell breaks loose and then doing something about it. I posted something disagreeable, someone flagged it, the platform deleted it. Trump or MAGA Idiot tweets something disagreeable, someone flagged it, the platform promotes it. There's a big difference in those two scenarios if y'all wanna call hypocrisy on my stance. I'm for proactive; I'm against reactive.
I feel like the tech companies are playing stupid about leaving so much objectionable content up for so long:
I honestly feel like they're George Costanza pulling a "Was That Wrong?". Yes it was, but the money it brought in was so good that they didn't care until there were actual real world consequences to their actions and that they're only doing something now because of political pressure...that's fascism. What the majority of Trump and those people were saying were both illegal and against the platform and no one did a damn thing until after the fact because it was good for business.
I fear that the platforms are about to become very, very proactive in response. I'm in a weird spot about all of this. It's hard position being accepting of agreed-to censorship while fearing extreme fascism levels of censorship like China provides.
Also, I find it very, very ironic that we're discussing censorship that originated from a quoted censored post.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 9Strike View PostWtf is wrong here today?
https://www.amazon.de/IBM-Holocaust-...0519972&sr=8-3
Originally posted by ThoreauHD View PostI'd rather not get involved in krystalnacht corporations. And judging by their stock price drops, others aren't fond of it either.
Last edited by qarium; 13 January 2021, 02:44 AM.Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia
Comment
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostAnd I'm not trying to defend the right. Frankly, I think the worst thoughts imaginable about people in red hats because of the past four years. It doesn't change that what those companies are doing is just knee-jerk, after-the-fact, fascist censorship. They had rules. Those rules were broke. They didn't enforce them because money. Now they are because political pressure. That's fascism in action.
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostProviders weren't responsible for what was posted.
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostPhoronix wasn't responsible or legally culpable for me and my actions.
And what's this past-tense business? The law hasn't changed since 1996.
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostThe problem is one person's terrorist is another person's hero. Take the shot heard round the world. Half the world heard a terrorist and the other half heard a freedom fighter. We won so the freedom fighter story is the one we tell.
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostThe fault of the left is their after-the-fact censorship.
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostCan't wait to see what starts getting banned in the future as the dominoes start falling as Silicon Valley is given the ability to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech.
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostI'd have respected them a lot more if they'd have censored Trump and the MAGA folks years ago.
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostSomething pissed off society?
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostTime to drop the ban hammer. Shitty precedent to set when there were clear and obvious violations to begin with. A precedent of "Damn the rules until there's a problem because we're making good money" is, well, just as immoral and ignorant as the actions and tweets of the people in the coup.
Also, you equate banning people they hadn't banned before as "just as immoral and ignorant as the actions and tweets of the people in the coup". Really??? So, that's as bad as killing and injuring people, looting and destroying federal property, and threatening our democracy? Wow, you and I have extremely different value systems.
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostGive it time. We're only on the precipice of change. That's why my image was 12 years into the future.
How about we try to deal with the current crisis? Maybe there will be some mistakes, but this is a first (like 9/11). As and when a new threat becomes clear, then we can try to deal with it. But the idea that social media platforms can't ban insurrectionists because the bans could go too far and cause some collateral damage just strikes me as misplaced priorities.
With that being said, I'm not a fan of the big social networks. I don't use them and I think the idea of regulation needs to be revisited and carefully considered.
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostI honestly feel like they're George Costanza pulling a "Was That Wrong?". Yes it was, but the money it brought in was so good that they didn't care until there were actual real world consequences to their actions and that they're only doing something now because of political pressure...
- Likes 1
Comment
-
coder For all our sakes I won't quote that.
My problem is there were clear and obvious violations of all the different platforms from high level individuals and they did nothing to stop them or moderate them until this. What's the point of rules if they don't matter for those in power and those that generate clicks?
Sorry, I thought I had more time to respond but I have things to do. I'll get back to you later if you want.
Comment
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post[
My problem is there were clear and obvious violations of all the different platforms from high level individuals and they did nothing to stop them or moderate them until this. What's the point of rules if they don't matter for those in power and those that generate clicks?Last edited by torsionbar28; 13 January 2021, 01:39 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by coder View PostThose companies' legal protections don't protect them from allowing their platforms to be used for illegal content. And incitement & conspiracy to commit violent or seditious acts are very much illegal.
So, to the extent they're legally obligated to do anything, they are obligated to remove that content.
Comment
-
Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Postanyone who believes in a free and open internet should be terrified by the Orwellian shutdown tactics we just witnessed.
The irony of your statement is that the only way to prevent this sort of censorship is to have more regulation of the internet -- not less. At a superficial level, this would seem to be antithetical to a free and open internet, but I don't really see another way.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by coder View PostMy belief in a free and open internet is why I don't use those platforms.
The irony of your statement is that the only way to prevent this sort of censorship is to have more regulation of the internet -- not less. At a superficial level, this would seem to be antithetical to a free and open internet, but I don't really see another way.
We do need more regulation. All this has shown is yet another example of how Capitalists don't follow their own rules if it has the potential to hurt their bottom line. For that matter, the pandemic itself has shown that American police selectively enforce laws. I can't count the number of news shows I've watched about random sheriff departments not enforcing COVID restrictions. Riot squads show up minutes into a BLM movement every time. No riot squads to be found during a MAGA Coup. This shows that we need more regulation on and off line.
Free and open is all and good, but how free and open should it really be? Should it be so free and open that it is full of illegal content? Should people be free to call each other names everywhere they post? Should we have to deal with assholes on every site? Should it be so regulated that things like Tor and Bit Torrent don't work? There has to be some sort of middle ground; free to live in peace laws and regulations.
Comment
Comment