• Deceptichum
    link
    fedilink
    92 years ago

    Except it’s more like a group of patrons at a bar talking about killing a trans person, and than the next day one of them actually does it.

    • 10A
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      What kind of absurd hyperbole is that? Nobody has called for murder. And certainly nobody has committed a murder based on a call for it.

        • @PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          He knows. That’s why he’s desperately trying to hold on to his little platform.

          Pick almost any mass shooter at random and look at their online history and you’ll find the same story over and over again; “progressively radicalised by social media”.

          They’re absolutely aware these domestic terrorists come from their midst. Find a far-right enough chat room and they openly celebrate it.

        • 10A
          link
          fedilink
          52 years ago

          I don’t condone murder under any circumstances. But using 56 murders as an excuse to silence anyone online is a disgrace to the principle of free speech.

          • czech
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            The principle of free speech, in America, has nothing to do with forcing people to tolerate hateful rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States.

            In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.

            As long as the government isn’t arresting you for your opinions then nothing going on here has to do with “free speech”. Individuals and corporations silencing you online is not a “disgrace to the principle of free speech”.

            • 10A
              link
              fedilink
              32 years ago

              You’re conflating the principle of free speech with the US 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment is predicated on the principle of free speech. The 1st Amendment is completely inapplicable here. The principle of free speech is 100% applicable here, as it is foundational to western civilization.

              • czech
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                You’re talking about a “free speech” that only exists in /r/conservative echo chambers. You are free to say what you want but you are not free from the consequences. We do not have to listen. And it’s not a “disgrace” that nobody cares to hear what you have to say.

                • 10A
                  link
                  fedilink
                  22 years ago

                  Up until a few years ago, it was widely held by people of all political persuasions to be one of the foundations of western civilization. As the far left has moved progressively further leftward, they abandoned it. The only reason you think of it as conservative is because it’s old-fashioned.

                  • czech
                    link
                    fedilink
                    12 years ago

                    Up until a few years ago, it was widely held by people of all political persuasions

                    <citation required>. You can’t just make shit up.This is only exists in your echo chambers.

              • danhakimi
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                the principles of free speech do not guarantee you a platform upon which to spread hatred. They do not give you the right to force others to serve your positions over the internet.

                there might be something to be said about “platform neutrality,” but it’s still a competition of rights that doesn’t really justify forcing a platform—especially a small platform like kbin—to host content it views as extremist, or especially likely to result in violence. Maybe you can argue that we should have higher scrutiny in the case of a monopoly or similar large social network due to the power of strong network effects, but… I don’t know how much scrutiny would you need to apply to say “aha, this company is banning terfs for insidious reasons!” no, they’re obviously banning terfs because their bigotry is dangerous and hurtful and giving them a platform just feels incredibly shitty.

                A while back, I thought—well, I still do think—that platform neutrality should be used to frame the issue of large social media sites that ban talk about their competitors, like when Twitter deprioritized Substack (facebook messenger has banned competitors as well). I’d also argue this principle could be used to ban, for example, Facebook from manipulating its algorithm overtly (expliciltly, specifically) to favor a particular political party or an advertiser (outside of the ad itself—that one is already illegal, ads need to be disclosed as ads). But applying such a rule to general political standards and where you think the norm or neutral position should be is dangerous and stupid.