Eh. I don’t use bsky, and think most current ICE staff should be imprisoned for terrorism for the rest of their lives, but I don’t want any communications services to decide which entities should and shouldn’t be verified.
The goal should be an open protocol where users/orgs can sign messages cryptographically (like PGP) and every other user can decide which users, feeds, or algos they subscribe to without censorship. Like, if I subscribe to my friends and family, or friends of friends, I don’t want any form of moderation between them and me, but the freedom to sub to moderated topics is also necessary for public feeds/comms.
On one hand I see your point. On t’other, we’ve tried complete neutrality and it failed, maybe it’s time for a communications platform where we hold people to a standard?
We haven’t, really. Our “complete neutrality” is infested with troll farms, where people are employed to make hundreds of accounts to spread propaganda.
I’m thinking the answer is to implement a huge barrier for troll farms, but a small speed bump for real people.
It could be oauth with Steam or your cell provider, where you can make an account if you’ve spent over $250 with them. Actual credit history would work. You can combine these and allow any of them, which might let one person make 3-4 accounts, maybe, but that’s still limited enough to make things difficult for troll farms.
There is an issue where billionaires that want to influence us have absolutely absurd resources, and maybe paying $1000 per account isn’t enough of a barrier for them. But at least it gives us a chance for the bans to stick significantly more than they do now.
Nah, misinterpretation.
Censorship doesn’t stop shit.
Suppression of intolerance means stopping it through coercion or criminalization.
we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force
we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal
Moreover, intolerance doesn’t mean the baby-brained notion on the internet of espousing offensive, exclusionary views.
The nonviolent & noncoercive are still tolerant.
Intolerance means rejection of rational discourse through appeal to force: coercive/violent action or incitement of it to overthrow a tolerant society.
for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism, and it’s extremely moronic to pretend it does.
Well that’s fucking stupid when we know deplatforming works. Also you’re using specific definitions to deliberately misunderstand the paradox of tolerance so this is a stupid argument in the first place. If you allow those that break the social contract to remain in society, they will cause society to break down as that is their express and explicit goal. A fucking high school intellect wrote that garbage article. Also, fuck pacifism, that’s a tool of fascists.
as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion
Yeah we’re well past that point and have been definitely since alternative facts got normalized in discourse. This is a post-truth society. And next time use your own words instead of a gpt.
Wake up. Ice, being government, it’s already legitimized enough in real life.
What difference would it make in the social media. Better if they are out in the open in social media instead, at least they get responsible for what they post, officially.
Apparently you slept through the part where mainstream social media did try to censor, ban, and deplatform that dictator’s supporters, and it backfired.
I mean, Twitter literally banned Donald Trump, and he just started his own Twitter clone. Mainstream social media banned COVID disinformation and now we have an anti-vaxxer running the US Department of Health. Probably hundreds of thousands of people got deplatformed for claiming the 2020 elections were stolen, and more people now believe Trump won in 2020 then they did in 2021.
Biden pressured big social media to censor ideas he didn’t want spreading. The ideas spread anyway. All Biden did was show he was afraid of those ideas and make some of the worst people in the world look like martyrs.
I really can’t think of a better example of how “deplatforming Nazis” doesn’t work than the last five years of American history.
Like the white house, department of homeland security, and others before them, the account will get no traction and be ignored. It is currently working really well on bluesky.
When they mandate visibility a la Twitter, that is the problem. But they don’t.
they’re platforming and subsequently legitimising them.
You could make that argument about them being allowed to have an account at all, but simply marking that account in such a way that informs the userbase that it’s not a troll/parody account or something, but the actual organization?
That doesn’t “platform” them, they’re already on the platform at the time this happened. And confirming that something asserted to be true, is in fact true, is a good thing.
You know that the problem isn’t that they’re verifying the gestapo, it’s that they’re platforming and subsequently legitimising them.
Eh. I don’t use bsky, and think most current ICE staff should be imprisoned for terrorism for the rest of their lives, but I don’t want any communications services to decide which entities should and shouldn’t be verified.
The goal should be an open protocol where users/orgs can sign messages cryptographically (like PGP) and every other user can decide which users, feeds, or algos they subscribe to without censorship. Like, if I subscribe to my friends and family, or friends of friends, I don’t want any form of moderation between them and me, but the freedom to sub to moderated topics is also necessary for public feeds/comms.
On one hand I see your point. On t’other, we’ve tried complete neutrality and it failed, maybe it’s time for a communications platform where we hold people to a standard?
We haven’t, really. Our “complete neutrality” is infested with troll farms, where people are employed to make hundreds of accounts to spread propaganda.
I’m thinking the answer is to implement a huge barrier for troll farms, but a small speed bump for real people.
It could be oauth with Steam or your cell provider, where you can make an account if you’ve spent over $250 with them. Actual credit history would work. You can combine these and allow any of them, which might let one person make 3-4 accounts, maybe, but that’s still limited enough to make things difficult for troll farms.
There is an issue where billionaires that want to influence us have absolutely absurd resources, and maybe paying $1000 per account isn’t enough of a barrier for them. But at least it gives us a chance for the bans to stick significantly more than they do now.
Nah balls to that. This is simple paradox of tolerance shit, anti-social ideology doesn’t get a platform in the marketplace of ideas.
Nah, misinterpretation. Censorship doesn’t stop shit. Suppression of intolerance means stopping it through coercion or criminalization.
Moreover, intolerance doesn’t mean the baby-brained notion on the internet of espousing offensive, exclusionary views. The nonviolent & noncoercive are still tolerant. Intolerance means rejection of rational discourse through appeal to force: coercive/violent action or incitement of it to overthrow a tolerant society.
Karl Popper opposed censorship/argued for free inquiry & open discourse.
Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism, and it’s extremely moronic to pretend it does.
Well that’s fucking stupid when we know deplatforming works. Also you’re using specific definitions to deliberately misunderstand the paradox of tolerance so this is a stupid argument in the first place. If you allow those that break the social contract to remain in society, they will cause society to break down as that is their express and explicit goal. A fucking high school intellect wrote that garbage article. Also, fuck pacifism, that’s a tool of fascists.
Yeah we’re well past that point and have been definitely since alternative facts got normalized in discourse. This is a post-truth society. And next time use your own words instead of a gpt.
So you want a Nazi bar. Ok.
That’s a nice strawman you’ve built for yourself. What’s their name?
BlueSky
Wake up. Ice, being government, it’s already legitimized enough in real life.
What difference would it make in the social media. Better if they are out in the open in social media instead, at least they get responsible for what they post, officially.
Apparently you slept through a fascist dictator rising to power by manipulating desperate people, specifically on social media.
Apparently you slept through the part where mainstream social media did try to censor, ban, and deplatform that dictator’s supporters, and it backfired.
I mean, Twitter literally banned Donald Trump, and he just started his own Twitter clone. Mainstream social media banned COVID disinformation and now we have an anti-vaxxer running the US Department of Health. Probably hundreds of thousands of people got deplatformed for claiming the 2020 elections were stolen, and more people now believe Trump won in 2020 then they did in 2021.
Biden pressured big social media to censor ideas he didn’t want spreading. The ideas spread anyway. All Biden did was show he was afraid of those ideas and make some of the worst people in the world look like martyrs.
I really can’t think of a better example of how “deplatforming Nazis” doesn’t work than the last five years of American history.
I see what you’re saying and you make a good point honestly.
Like the white house, department of homeland security, and others before them, the account will get no traction and be ignored. It is currently working really well on bluesky.
When they mandate visibility a la Twitter, that is the problem. But they don’t.
You could make that argument about them being allowed to have an account at all, but simply marking that account in such a way that informs the userbase that it’s not a troll/parody account or something, but the actual organization?
That doesn’t “platform” them, they’re already on the platform at the time this happened. And confirming that something asserted to be true, is in fact true, is a good thing.