Dan_Sylveste
You have to ask yourself whether SF would have been 'let' to devolve if the type of people who support projects like this instead were active in the governance of their own city.
You might also ask yourself whether the devolution of SF is entirely organic; to me, some of the decisions being made there seem rather like deliberate sabotage.
I find the hubris of these people that just want to run off and do their own thing a bit disturbing; it's the 'you're standing on the shoulders of giants yet think you are seeing the answer with your own eyes alone' thing.
By and large I find the type of people that support these projects to be alarmingly lacking in any sort of empathy.
People always wanted to make money, but their sites still appeared in search results. Now search result positioning depends on the amount of ads you're prepared to host. So, the people who are optimizing for revenue are listed way above the people who aren't optimizing at all and are just creating.
There are times when I've searched for a tumblr page literally by the exact and totally unique name and still not found it on the 3rd page of results, all of which were unrelated garbage.
They've decided that they'd rather piss you off than lose money sending traffic to sites that won't pay to play. It's toxic.
Who knows what would be floating around our little world right now if that capacity to grab stuff out of orbit didn't exist, hmm?
The law in the state they operate _literally defines_ it as a common carrier system.
That's the basis of the case being argued here (that the ISPs blocking is literally unlawful due to the common carrier legislation which prevails in the state in which they're operating.)
Why do you assume this very consistent pattern of 'new forum overrun by [the material you've mentioned]' is anything other than a transparent attack on free discourse?
I mean, it's very consistent, isn't it? Everyone knows it happens, and it's a good way to scare people off even thinking about visiting those forums if they think that any day they could go there and have their browser history full of ick.
Good principles remain good regardless of exceptional circumstances.
> needed to change or else they collapse and don't function at all
Yeah, they changed _and_ they don't function at all. Now they just protect the causes their donors agree with while retaining the prestige of the name.
Personally I think a total collapse would have been preferable.
Because it's completely unproven. Their theory is that 'free speech advances the goals of [others whose views are contrary to our values]' but that's not proven, that's just their theory.
It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant parties allowed to discuss freely.
They _posit_ that this theory no longer holds true but they never seem to actually explain how they came to that conclusion. You, similarly, just say that is 'is right' but... how did you get there? What's your proof of concept? Do you have examples?
It seems very much to me like they've just turned around and said 'yeah actually free speech is bad because it helps the bad guys more than the good guys, trust us, it's no good' and left it at that.
> reasoning has always been sound
They've done a complete 180 on this position. By definition either their reasoning before was unsound or their reasoning today is unsound. Pick one.
The truth is that before the internet, there wasn't really any genuine public discourse. If you wanted any reach at all, you had to go through a gatekeeper of some sort.
Is that hyperbole or do you really believe it?
Implementation is the guys holding the shovels, not the guys saying where to dig.
This is the oddly standard wording used in defense of these newly-fashionable 'everything you've ever done ever can be used against you' contributor codes of conduct and I have to find it very disingenuous.
By and large nobody wants to exterminate anybody. People have legitimate differences of opinion and when they attempt to express them they're being told that even _thinking_ that opinion is tantamount to violence.
If you can't see it as anything other than a transparent attempt to restrict discourse I don't know what to tell you. It isn't like this is the first time this strategy has been used.
Since 2017, U.S. legislators and the Department of Justice have required multiple foreign-funded news organizations to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA)
https://cpj.org/2019/07/several-foreign-news-outlets-require...
We're just discussing how this may be applied to a 'broadcaster' such as TikTok which isn't covered by the legislation that covers legacy media.
You're literally Just Asking Questions here, and I absolutely hate that term.
I guess when it comes down to it I do believe that the platform should be open to all, but there may well be specific times (such as during active and extensive rioting) that strategic delays and slowdowns may need to be inserted to prevent bad actors from using it as a coordinating tool.
I find this regretful, but necessary.
Condemn me. It is of no importance. History will absolve me.
No media is being banned. The same content creators can create their content on another platform, or even the same platform, if that platform agrees to incorporate locally so as to be meaningfully under the control of legislation.
> So you’re okay with
Derail attempt ignored
> bring back Prohibition
Derail attempt ignored
A bipartisan committee will suffice.
> holding conservative media liable
The subject is foreign adversaries, not domestic strife. Let's not get derailed.
> the government banning Doom
The subject is foreign adversaries
> sue the gun manufacturers
The subject is foreign adversaries
> In no other area of society
Yes, we absolutely do. When companies bring out predatory sales techniques (such as lootboxes in video games) these techniques absolutely do attract oversight, sanctions and - in cases - outright bans. It's well recognised that people can be led astray and there are many legal avenues available to prevent significant impact.
I think if platforms habitually or consistently cause 'bad things' to go viral then the ownership and management of those platforms should be examined, and if it's determined that their ownership/management may be beholden to interests contrary to the welfare of the nation then sanctions should be applied, which may or may not include a ban.
There are well understood exceptions to free speech and freedom of association that apply to the ownership and control of companies that could significantly affect the welfare of the nation. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy
Please answer the questions that were put to you:
Approximately what dollar value of damage was done to schools as a result of the 'devious licks' viral videos trend from last year? And on what platform did those viral videos trend?
> socialist agenda?
There isn't a single country in the EU that's in any meaningful way 'socialist'.
Stop derailing.
As to your last point: approximately what dollar value of damage was done to schools as a result of the 'devious licks' viral videos trend from last year? And on what platform did those viral videos trend?
You can find these arguments made in any of the many court decisions related to the foreign funding of trade union groups and other activist entities. Take your pick, there's no shortage to choose from in almost every single anglosphere jurisdiction you can think of.
Anything that's relatively objective.
Pictures of structures, the more significant, the better. Bridges, for example. City halls, town halls, any 'grand' buildings in your town. Any buildings that seem unique or quirky.
Pictures that summarise a location: the average house, the average street, the average day.
https://www.shorpy.com/ has plenty of good examples of the type of 'documentarial' photos that would go over well.
I sense that this conversation will lead to a great deal of wordy justifications for the unjustifiable. I've already said that's part of the dissuasion process, I'm not interested in participating in it.