The speech situation in America is rightly fucked right now. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Shit on for deplatforming, and shit on by a different group for not deplatforming. How did we get here and how can we fix it?
This is people failing to understand that the problem was parler promoting itself for and refusing to moderate calls for violence, not just that such content was present.
Absolutely false. Parker removed threats of violence.
They did not remove free speech.
The problem is the definition of "violence" "incitement" "hate" etc has become SO broad (at the urging of one side who wants the other silenced, coincidentally) that anything can now be classified as one of those things, depending upon the political leanings of those doing the classifying.
The solution? Stop using definitions of things cooked up by academics in grievance studies departments and grifters whose livelihood depends upon finding offense around every corner and therefore have a vested interest in spreading fear thereof.
Who are they, dictating what's "safe" for me or what's not safe. What's their definition and standard/safe? why me, Apple or anyone mist agree with theirs?
Screw these American trends of deplatforming, and cancelling stuffs and peoples.
"a nonpartisan group that advocates for technologies and policies to remove extremist content from social media"
> Who are they, dictating what's "safe" for me or what's not safe. What's their definition and standard/safe?
They're not arguing for 'safe'. They want Apple to enforce its terms of service barring hate speech and incitement to violence. "anti-semitic ... racism ... bullying ..." Believe it or not, there are people who are hurt by that shit. Go figure.
In the US (I don't know about other places) there are rules in force about what swear words you can use on the radio. There are people listening who find them offensive. Then it was film. Then it was comic books. It's not about you and me, it's about them. Should there be NO standards? Of course not. So: where's the line? R.E.S.P.E.C.T.
These people will tell you that your free speech is violence, then the next minute tell you that silence is violence. I've literally seen it claimed that mispronouncing someone's name is violence.
We don't have to pay attention to these people. If you're offended by someone's speech, justt close your browser or app. It isn't as though aren't a billion other webpages or tweets one can look at, and modern apps have block/mute buttons - use them.
Instead of demanding someone else's speech be abrogated, consider just being an adult. And possibly reflect on how you came to be so fragile.
De-platforming these end to end encrypted apps is probably getting backed by fed gov because they cannot snoop everything as they do on all other communication apps
Telegram supports (not by default) end-to-end encryption in some contexts, but I wouldn't want to call it an end-to-end encrypted app lest someone get the wrong idea and try to use it for security.
12 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 35.9 ms ] thread[1]: https://t.me/durov/149
They did not remove free speech.
The problem is the definition of "violence" "incitement" "hate" etc has become SO broad (at the urging of one side who wants the other silenced, coincidentally) that anything can now be classified as one of those things, depending upon the political leanings of those doing the classifying.
The solution? Stop using definitions of things cooked up by academics in grievance studies departments and grifters whose livelihood depends upon finding offense around every corner and therefore have a vested interest in spreading fear thereof.
Who are they, dictating what's "safe" for me or what's not safe. What's their definition and standard/safe? why me, Apple or anyone mist agree with theirs?
Screw these American trends of deplatforming, and cancelling stuffs and peoples.
"a nonpartisan group that advocates for technologies and policies to remove extremist content from social media"
> Who are they, dictating what's "safe" for me or what's not safe. What's their definition and standard/safe?
They're not arguing for 'safe'. They want Apple to enforce its terms of service barring hate speech and incitement to violence. "anti-semitic ... racism ... bullying ..." Believe it or not, there are people who are hurt by that shit. Go figure.
In the US (I don't know about other places) there are rules in force about what swear words you can use on the radio. There are people listening who find them offensive. Then it was film. Then it was comic books. It's not about you and me, it's about them. Should there be NO standards? Of course not. So: where's the line? R.E.S.P.E.C.T.
These people will tell you that your free speech is violence, then the next minute tell you that silence is violence. I've literally seen it claimed that mispronouncing someone's name is violence.
We don't have to pay attention to these people. If you're offended by someone's speech, justt close your browser or app. It isn't as though aren't a billion other webpages or tweets one can look at, and modern apps have block/mute buttons - use them.
Instead of demanding someone else's speech be abrogated, consider just being an adult. And possibly reflect on how you came to be so fragile.
“Telegram says it ‘shut down hundreds of public calls for violence’ in US last week”
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25829448