Does this mean that only the alt-right have access to uncensored information?
But yes, the effect is pretty much that.
What could make me love the established media more than a narrative that 'uncensored truth' would turn me into some kind of QAnon zombie.
I simply cannot handle it.
As for the others on your list, non-alt-right people (cf. non-alt-right sites) might be more inclined to discuss (cf. host discussions about) these "facts" if their primary use wasn't to be woven into otherwise fictional narratives claiming to be coherent justifications of racism and homophobia.
So, the same thing mainstream society has been doing for the last 6 years, just for different races and groups?
If they criticized things like Outreachy (which literally discriminates people based on race and gender [1]) with the same energy that they criticize the "alt-right" then I would believe them. Otherwise it's just hypocrisy.
The challenge is that when they come into conflict, we know that humans tend to discard the facts before the world views.
There are also plenty of things that can't be discussed in alt-right places, only in proper free-speech places (which are rare and often heavily contaminated with alt-right due to them being kicked out of everywhere else). E.g. if you wanted to discuss whether "consensual child molestation" is actually harmful you'd get banned from any right-wing space.
Hate and stupidity breed more hate and stupidity. If we approach this situation from a generic perspective we can defend free speech and argue against censorship; but if we talk about speech such as antisemitism, homophobia or black people hate, we cannot defend it anymore.
While there is literally not an “Alt-Left” there are 100% Far-Left ideologies that a a hypothetical “Alt-Left” movement would most likely match to. The Left is the entire spectrum of the left, which is many things. [2]
Liberalism as a whole is not Centrism, . Social liberalism fits in Centrism which is a subset of liberalism.
Mind you also the Left-Right political spectrum does not equal the American Left and Right. It is a long history of observation including Alain’s reflections on the French Revolution and the study of international relations today. Hypothetically, the American Left could very well be on the Right and the Australian Left could be on the Left.
[1]: A mix of references from Timothy Snyder, and his book “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century” and George Hawley’s “Right-wing Critics of American Conservatism”
You complain about some sites being alt-right cesspools, as if being a cesspool is not bad on its own.
The reason you don't see a lot of "alt-left cesspool"s is because usually those people don't need to hide on alternative social media, as the mainstream ones are fine with alt-left people. Alt-right are the ones who are currently being fired if their opinion are being shared publicly.
Now I'm neither of those, and have no fists in the fight at all, but I also realize what the current climate is like, even though I'm hoping no one wins and eventually we can all be friends again.
There's no huge threat of people being fired for wanting less regulation on companies.
Since you are of a very black & white impression of a large swaths of people, I'm assuming you're in the same boat as me.
My point is not that alt-right opinions are wholesome, but rather that since they don't have a lot of places they can write their opinions without getting overrun by opposition, it's only natural they'll retract into properties where they can freely talk.
For example: If you're of the opinion that you don't think homosexuality should be legal, there is not a lot of places you could have a factual conversation about that with others, without it ending up in name-calling or huge troll wars.
Now I don't agree with that opinion at all (I'm bixsexual myself), but I do agree with the right for those people to hold that opinion and being able to talk with others about this opinion, without it ending up in huge fights and drama.
Guess I'm just so far in the "We can educate everyone" camp that the alternatives all seem so fucked up. Hiding people away in separate social medias just make things worse, and all this because people can't ignore others, they _have_ to say something.
Just as a quick reminder before people continue the discussion, from the guidelines:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
It's so much an opinion that a good chunk of the world makes it illegal one way or another : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_terr...
Russia even created new 'anti gay propaganda' laws recently, after allowing gay relations in 1993, so it's not even a 'it takes time to reach this stage' cultural milestone.
But even though I think we can both agree that LGBT rights are a good thing, you have to remember that all the advances that we saw on this front is precisely because LGBT people crossed 'the line' of acceptability of their time.
And they had to fight people that had the exact same kind of reaction against free speech. "Saying homosexuality should be legal isn’t an opinion, it’s heresy."
At the end of the day there are some viewpoints that "we" - general society - just deem to be wrong.
This shift has ever expanded the militarized zone of topics one can't even discuss and all for what purpose? It seems like the enclaves of bad and dangerous ideas now insulated from the very influence of better information. It this not just the worst of both worlds?
Exemplifying my point.
Opinions cannot be "invalid", just like a persons taste cannot be invalid.
You don't have to debate, just don't engage and problem solved. Others are interested in discussions even around subjects they don't agree on, let us continue being able to use the internet for those discussions.
You seem to be thinking that tolerating bigotry is acceptable because the bigot who wants to infringe on other human beings basic rights is a valid opinion. It is not. Please read on the paradox of tolerance, because tolerating intolerance breeds intolerance and allows intolerance to take over from the tolerant.
Bigots do not deserve fair debate. Any opinion that is based off of infringing on others rights based off sex, gender, or skin color is invalid.
"noun: opinion; a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
Even if I disagree with the statement "The earth is flat", I cannot lie and say it's not an opinion, no matter how much I disagree with it. By invalidating peoples opinion by flat out saying "Your opinion is invalid", you miss any chance of having an honest conversation with them, maybe with a small chance of helping them understand a perspective they haven't considered before.
> Bigots do not deserve fair debate. Any opinion that is based off of infringing on others rights based off sex, gender, or skin color is invalid.
Let's say our conversation here was 40 years ago. Then with your mindset, "homosexuality should be illegal" would be what you would argue for, since that was the normally accepted opinion at the time. If I was to try to raise that conversation with you, you would have responded with "that's not a valid opinion, because I disagree so much with you". I'm saying, no matter how outlandish someones opinion sounds on the surface, it's always worth talking about, as otherwise we will never have any change in a good direction.
I can quote several other examples and many anecdotal ones too but I think this example is good enough.
When one has the "opinion" that a group of people should be locked up for simply being who they are, then yes you should expect some backlash for that.
Also there are huge sections of the population (some even on this very forum) that believe calls for deregulation, less government spending, reduction in social programs, etc are "violence"
Also people seem to bend over backwards to excuse the real and actual violence that occurs and is supported in authoritarian left circles, pushing the narrative as you have that violence only occurs on the right
To withdraw to identifying people with their world-views is to give up on having a meaningful relationship. We do it because we can't tolerate them. The conclusion of that train of reactions is violence.
I've been taking a stand in my own life with friends about having hard conversations and not just drinking the coolaid of every inflammatory headline.
Its been very difficult to discussing with some friends that their views are far more radical than they realize.
Some time these conversations can be agonizing because ultimately you may not care "what side is correct" just that there is an honest discussion about the facts of the matter and even going into the facts of the matter can cause repulsive reactions.
Its strange the world we live in, in terms of discussions of ideas.
That aphorism has never really been true. If it's "fire" in the sense of projectile weapons, then of course you can. If it's "fire" in the sense of "forest fire," a controlled or prescribed burn is an oft-used technique to cut off a forest fire by creating an unburnable zone around it... The fire can't find fuel in an already-burned area, so it can no longer feed itself and dies out.
“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, 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 unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and 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.”
― Karl Raimund Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
----
But anyway, IMHO it's not for websites to police free speech, that's what the judiciary is for.
I'm not sure whether I consider the new EU terrorist content regulation to be good or bad, it's going to depend on what "competent authority" giving the removal orders means.
The "specific measures to protect [...] against dissemination to the public of terrorist content" just seem like usual moderation tools, but again, it's left to be seen what is going to happen in practice.
Most dramas on Twitter or Reddit involve some one- or two-digit number of people that get enormous publicity.
Wait, did Whirlstah! get taken down too?
But actually liveleak did become an alt-right cesspool.
Back before they made comments hidden to non-members, it was WALL-TO_WALL <insert-your-favorite-right-wing-kook-faction> a-holes mixed in with classic misogynists, anti-semites, racists, conspiracy theorists, and unclassifiable awful nihilistic basement-dwellers.
While I would have liked to think that the operators simply listened to their conscious, I am sure making the comments non-public was done strictly because they feared having a nut perform a mass-killing as a "liveleak exclusive".
WARNING WARNING DO NOT ENTER
theync, crazyshit
I mean, I'd like to try, except he didn't actually give us any of those reasons.
Rest in peace, LiveLeak. You were a beacon of reality that shone through the propaganda, the bullshit, and the sugar-coating. Your demise means that people who want to see something like a shooting that's been removed from mainstream platforms will be forced to visit darker corners of the internet. Now if someone asks me "Hey where can I go see that thing that was taken off of Youtube" I don't have a ready answer that isn't an alt-right cesspool.