Slashdot Mirror
Google Explains Why It Banned the App For Gab, a Right-Wing Twitter Rival (arstechnica.com)
AmiMoJo shares a report from Ars Technica: When right-wing trolls and outright racists get kicked off of Twitter, they often move to Gab, a right-wing Twitter competitor. Gab was founded by Andrew Torba, who says it's devoted to unfettered free expression online. The site also hosts controversial right-wing figures like Milo Yiannopoulos, Andrew 'weev' Auernheimer and Andrew Anglin, editor of the neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer. On Thursday, Gab said that Google had banned its Android app from the Google Play Store for violating Google's ban on hate speech. The app's main competitor, Twitter, hosts accounts like the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, and the virulently anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church, yet the Twitter app is still available on the Google Play store. Apple has long had more restrictive app store policies, and it originally rejected the Gab app for allowing pornographic content to be posted on the service -- despite the fact that hardcore pornography is readily available on Twitter. In an email to Ars, Google explained its decision to remove Gab from the Play Store: "In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people. This is a long-standing rule and clearly stated in our developer policies. Developers always have the opportunity to appeal a suspension and may have their apps reinstated if they've addressed the policy violations and are compliant with our Developer Program Policies."
Good on ya, Google
Link?
APK
Doesn't the google play store host apps dedicated to browsing and posting on 4chan?
Considering that Whatsapp and Telegram are both on the Play Store, who is lying, Whatapp/Telegram developers or Google?
From Dr. Strangelove:
Admiral Randolph: Try one of these Jamaican cigars, Ambassador. They're pretty good.
Ambassador de Sadesky: Thank you, no. I do not support the work of imperialist stooges.
Admiral Randolph: Oh, only commie stooges, huh?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
They can explain all they want, but the Google that claimed "A free and open world depends on a free and open Internet." cannot without contradiction ban an app from its store for the crime of _not censoring its users sufficiently_.
test
Now it's more like, "Don't be the wrong kind of evil."
Yeah, that's shitty PC Ars Technica reporting all right.
Sounds like the place you wanna be on a Friday night.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ok, this is a bit to far. Why does Google or Apple give a shit at all if an app has any sort of moderation? Who cares. It is the choice of the user to install and use that app. Just don't install it, don't like the content, delete it. Done. Even label them as "potential hate mongering apps" or what ever you want to warn someone ahead of time before downloading and checking it out. I can understand removing their websites from your service for violating the terms of the host. But there is zero basis to remove these apps.
Tinder, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter any and all messaging apps should be removed by this account. As they all can allow hate speech and pornography to spread. Honestly as much as I'd love to see every "white nationalist", nazi, kkk, "my race and only my race" racist sub-human fuckwit perish in a glorious ball of flames, this is to far. Either allow all apps (so long as they are not spreading viruses, malware, stealing information, etc) or don't allow any of them that have any sort of content or messaging capabilities.
Wait, I'm confused. Banning Nazi's is bad?? How did that happen?
They can explain all they want, but the Google that claimed "A free and open world depends on a free and open Internet." cannot without contradiction ban an app from its store for the crime of _not censoring its users sufficiently_.
Google is part of a corporation based on making a profit. They can and will lie cheat and steal as it suits them, just like the current US president. What irks me is the idiots who insist this is unfair despite wanting the government to not interfere with private affairs, which this is. It's a free market, so they are all free to fuck right off.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Fascism is characterized by "forcible suppression of opposition".
First Google fires a guy who brings up the fact that they are suppressing opposite views. Now they kill off an app for a site with opposite views.
Yup, Google is fascist.
Allowing calls for violence is not a free and open world.
Considering that both the far left and far right regularly advocate violence against the other on twitter and facebook, why aren't facebook and twitter removed as well under the same policy? Facebook also has some degree of soft-core pornography, as well as the various *chan browsers, twitter, imgur, reddit, and nearly every other social media site
Sounds more like targeted anti-right thought police to me... Denial of access to forums of speech that happen to lean politically the opposite of you is still targeted censure(silencing) of free speech, just by a different name. There is nothing illegal that has been done by hosting the app, and you cannot advertise your market as "open" when you take such action.
As long as it's hate directed towards conservatives, twitter is perfectly ok with it. Death threats, rape threats, misogyny, racism, bigotry, and so on is perfectly ok as long as it's against the "right people."
Corporations own everything now. I'm not against business. Hell. I'm a republican, but if we let them silence speech, no matter how vile when they control the public square, we will by default lose the right to free speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection, it's unpopular speech that needs protecting. Were it not for the first amendment the entire civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s wouldn't have happened.
An advertiser friendly world is a totalitarian hell hole whereeverything has to work as a billboard for skittles and Budweiser. Fuck that.
Twitter was running #AssainateTrump same day Google pulled gab. And Gab is not the dark web google pretends it is. Gab bans child porn, doxing, criminal activity,
Saying gab has "sufficient level of moderation" isn't fooling anyone, it's some of the people using Gab Google doesn't like. But those people are everywhere.
Twitter hosts ISIS and other offensive speech and that's allowed in its TOS.
Facebook has kill Isreali groups, kill Republican groups, kill police groups.
Cloudflare protecting over 40 ISIS accounts according to Anonymous.
Google youtube pushing violent TYT on its trending page and specifically demonizing FCC approved content like Louder with Crowder and restricting PragerU (and many other non-left groups)
Silicon Valley pretending one groups offensive speech is acceptable and other isn't is hypocritical. This is political.
Same goes with not calling out ALT-LEFT violence. This is an ideology war, left vs right. Silicon Valley is just picking its side.
the Internet can be free and open without google. Just ask Richard Stallman. Gab is free to continuing running their site. And so long as Net Neutrality survives their packets get treated the same as everybody else's. What they're not free to do is continue having google host their app. That's because google also happens to have freedoms. In this case freedom of association.
Now, when the federal government or even a common carrier like the ISPs cracks down on them without cause (cause being stuff like inciting violence, which includes turning a blind eye when a significant portion of their users incite violence) we'll talk about free speech. Until then you're just blowing smoke.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
twitter is now officially "too big to fail".
I'm so pleased that Google will kick facebook and twitter apps, where there are accounts by BLM white genocide promoters, Antifa members and islamists. Thanks Google!
So n1ggerz can fuck SJW's white girlfriends!
I liked it better when internet companies just sold services and didn't get involved in politics. These companies are monopolies now and as such they should be forced by government regulators to respect free speech and free association.
Can they get their damn ass back into China now that they've decided censorship is ok? Gab didn't even violate any laws; meanwhile in China there are actual laws requiring censorship, so I don't see how they can possibly square this.
I believe that political affiliation is a protected class in California. It isn't a protected class at the federal level or in most states.
It happened a couple of days ago, if you've been watching the idiotic alt-right (nazi sympathizers) on YouTube. It started when trump threw them their next meme to bounce off their echo chamber walls: "alt-left".
Yes, and now opposing right wing extremists, nazis, and white supremacists is considered to be an "alternate" viewpoint.
SJW-infested tech companies interpret censorship as cock, and fellate it.
The censorship has begun.
This is just the start.
Do not say you were not warned.
This is a step further down the slippery slope. Now Google is not only treating its employees questionably its injecting itself into into how other companies handles its users. As for everyone who repeats the refrain that 'its a private business they can do what they want' I'm surprised how quickly there seems to be an outburst of support among leftists for corporate rights. I guess you're for monopolies and against net neutrality and internet and universal healthcare access too?
How brave of you to label an entire platform as Nazis. Really adds weight to your babble about moral and ethical obligations
Burning witches is bad?
I trust they are going to kill Twitter clients and web browsers on Android as well, then? Because both Twitter and the web are full of hate.
It's not the who, but the concept. While most will agree that Nazi propaganda is vile, it becomes a very slippery slope when we start banning things based on unpopular (or at least unpopular to a vocal group) speech. Who is being anointed as the judge and jury? Who's to say that tomorrow it's not a legitimate political group that gets silenced because of the loud, vocal voice of SJWs that label anyone that disagrees with them as Nazi and racists despite no such connection?
While I typically favor private companies being able to make their own decisions, when it comes to very large, near monopolistic entities that have the ability to essentially control what the vast majority of the populace can see and do on the internet, they have a moral obligation to support freedom of speech and expression. That includes the unsavory. For some of what might be unsavory today, could lead to a better tomorrow. Imagine if the civil rights movement were happening in the modern era and the then unpopular concept of black equality were silenced because mainstream culture found it repulsive? I'm in no way equating malice against others to wanting equality, but for good change to have the freedom to percolate and thrive, you need to allow the bad as well.
You cannot promote change for good if all expression currently deemed unpopular is silenced. Debate and sensibilities will work their magic as humanity reflects. But you need to have a society that is open to debate and not afraid or scared to have their ideas challenged. Safe spaces and suppression of thought will destroy the very methods that allow us to move forward and evolve as a society.
Clearly it's not the case here.
Don't hide behind fake tech terms - the mission of the management of that "platform" is to enable the spread of radical racism and organizing hate to act to hurt the innocent.
looks like slashdot are using captcha to sensor oppositional opinions, you made your bed and now you must lie in it, stop blaming the righteous for your own misery.
Are they banning antifa?
These kids have spent too much time in their bedrooms fake shooting people to understand the moral and ethical obligation to destroy Nazism and all of its sympathizers.
I will defend to the death your right to free speech, unless I don't like you. Then I'll shoot you my own damn self and say good riddance to bad ideas.
You're a retard for implying that allowing someone else free speech has become illegal.
With the current ideological environment amongst the 15-30yo demographic and people like you, I'm sure it won't be long before the first amendment is amended.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I will, so don't try another putsch if you don't want to end up like your hero; dead by suicide after absolute defeat from the very people he claimed inferior.
Wait, I'm confused. Banning Nazi's is bad??
Yes, banning Nazis is bad. Everyone should have the right to express themselves. The First Amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law respecting abridging the freedom of speech unless you are a Nazi". In addition to the principle of freedom of expression, there is also the practical argument: Sunlight is a good disinfectant. It is better for extremism to be discussed and confronted openly rather than festering in the shadows.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." --H. L. Mencken
If you oppose what the Nazis stand for, then you should support their right to speak.
I will, so don't try another putsch if you don't want to end up like your hero;
I have no idea what "hero" you seem to be referring to. I made no such reference. What I did was make a clear reference to an old saying about people who support the right to free speech, just twisting it to match your own statements about destroying the people who support nazism.
It shows the dichotomy between what people use to think about free speech and what the current meme is. You feeling justified in destroying them for their thoughts is a bit extreme, I think. And it clearly leaves no room for a rational discussion about the issue, as your response shows.
Not seen Google or twitter ban the left wing hate groups... oh wait, they support hate speech when it comes from Democrats.
Assault is a crime. Many today seem to have not been taught what it is. It is a purely verbal crime. It's battery when it gets physical.
It is not enough to just ban people who threaten the person or welfare of others often due to factors out of their control such as their genetic heritage.
If someone verbally, whether in voice or writing, threatens another person or group with harm, the offended need to just start calling the police and pressing the charges. Enough is enough.
It became bad when I started to classify everyone who does not adhere to my ideology and my moral values as a Nazi. Oh, and since I'm pretty sure you will not adhere to my ideology and my moral values, it means you are a Nazi, and therefore you should not be allowed to speak. We live in a very sad world when people like you can express their opinions.
Seriously, when did people forget that we must allow everyone to speak, including Marxists and Nazis, in order to explain to them why they are wrong (or to realize why we are wrong)? When did people forget that if people can't speak, their only solution will be to use violence?
Google is just the R+D arm of the NSA. Both the NSA and GCHQ store their extraordinary records of the planet's intercepted electronic communications on computer facilities using the same hardware and software designs as 'civilian' Google. Google software translates and converts to text all NSA/GCHQ audio intercepts, for mining and indexing.
But recently the vile Google has gone much much further in its efforts for the military industrial complex. Google has purchased most of the military robotic research, development and manufacturing companies (Google this fact if you don't believe me) and is designing the drone tank weapons Google hopes the USA can use to invade Iran and similar 'difficult' targets. Google's various 'AI' programs are actually intended to perfect the systems used on the drone tanks. In Iran, Google doesn't care if a 'bug' causes one of its tanks to roll over a school bus full of kids.
Meanwhile Google is engaged in public facing social engineering- and getting the sheeple of the USA to accept the definition of 'free speech' used in Europe is goal number one. Europe sez 'free speech' is the right to express government approved ideas and thoughts- and nothing else.
Google's owners have their origins with the zionist scum who controlled the USSR at the height of Stalin's power. There, typewriters couldn't be owned by ordinary people- cos how could you 'moderate' what such a person might type. The same excuse Google uses to ban 'unmoderated' comunication apps on Android.
Google's 'burn the witch- so long as you 'prove' the witch is a witch' propaganda ploy works very well with the hard of thinking, and certainly pleases the sick crowd that voted for war criminal Clinton (the mass murdering psychopath who boasted about her murder of Libya, and her support and funding of neo-nazis in Ukraine). Most people voted for Trump because of his anti-war rhetoric on the campaign trail. On the other hand, Clinton- with Google's explicit support- promised a Libya style extermination of secular Syria, and an immediate war on Iran.
Now Google is banning anti-war activity on Youtube under the 'excuse' of 'violent' video content. NATO/wahhabi/zionest pro-war material on Youtube is positvely rewarded.
Look at the agendas Tony Blair and Hilary Clinton support, and you'll see they perfectly match the agenda of Google (and slashdot). Go read 1984 and Animal Farm to see how their methods play out.
When those who speak do so to end everyone else, literally, they get no protection.
So... We're justified in killing Muslims?
You sound far more like a Nazi than anyone I've heard from the right.
I am justified in killing those who are terrorists and who increase violence through radical racism and hate.
You claimed the ethical duty to destroy sympathizers. That is a very large, poorly defined group, often doing nothing more than having thoughts that you do not like. You almost certainly include me in that group simply because I question your right to kill people just because they think differently than you do.
Look up the catechism of the 5th commandment.
Ahh, a Holy Crusade. Amongst your weaponry is ... You, sir, give Catholics a bad name.
As I expected, there is no rational discussion on this matter with you. You accept the ethical duty to kill others who think wrong, and do so in a zealous and unforgiving manner. Goodbye.
GOOGLE IS ESTABLISHMENT
Sure it can. They aren't preventing people from using the app on their phones, they just aren't carrying it in their store.
It's like saying Barnes and Noble is against free speech because they don't stock every book in print.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
CTRL-Left
The easiest way to combat that isn't to ban it through any measure, ensure it hides away in the dark recesses that are hard to find. The easiest way is to leave it out in the open so it's easier to discuss the ideas and ridicule them when they're so blatantly bad.
And who gets to define what's true?
Is it me?? It's, me isn't it!?!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Speech that everybody agrees with doesn't need defending. The test of whether we have free speech or not is the tolerance of speech you don't agree with. The answer to hate speech has always been more free speech. Drown them out.
Whether it's "accurate and true" makes no difference. Who determines if it is or not? You? Me? The government? Exactly who? See, there's the flaw in your idea.
You must be one of those 15 - 30 year old know-it-alls who has no real education. Read any books lately?
Probably not because it appears in this modern world it is ok to be a hating, violent nutjob if you are "in the right." In other words, antifa is all good and can go advocate form mobs to beat down anyone who isn't on their side, maybe even lynch a few.
I think people are confusing the two. Despite some think, Google can set its own guidelines for its play store without contradiction. A free and fair internet is through your ISP, and you can still search for Gab using Google's very own search engine. If they blocked Gab from search results, then you can go around yelling hypocrisy. Wither it is good or bad idea is the area of contention, but it's not hypocritical to "a free and fair internet" if they restrict it on their personal store.
I don't read AC
Just remember that the laws you create to oppress your enemies today will be used against you tomorrow.
Just ask this guy.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"Nazi" is the term they use to describe all opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood. Notice the pattern. The people they ban second are the atheists and nonconformists who oppose fundamentalist Islam: Milo Yiannopoulos, Sargon of Akkad, SyeTen, Dennis Prager, Bunty King, etc. These are not Nazis by any stretch of the imagination. The people they ban first are anyone who points out that there is politically motivated censorship going on. Example #1, the Gamergaters. The FBI investigated and proved that there was no harassment from that group, all they did was call out politically-motivated bullshit and censorship. They were banned everywhere just for pointing it out.
Google will also put your name on a Valley-wide blacklist and have people dig through your social media history to find something that could be considered offensive, and then have several people call your employer and his neighbours and family to say that his company employs a nazi sexual harasser and demand that you be fired. You may have heard that Google paid a quarter billion dollars toward initiatives to increase workplace diversity, Intel pledged $300 million, other corporations pledged more. This is what the money goes to.
Look into who is driving this. Someone has already done the work for you. Twitter is run by Saudis, Qataris, and a few Western useful idiots who have the multi-billion-dollar MacArthur Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation backing them. Google Ideas had people running around the Middle East helping the Muslim Brotherhood take power in Egypt and Libya before they started working with the American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood on automated tools for newspapers to moderate their comments sections. The rumor is that all of this is funded by the DHS and CIA as a "national security" program which is why Wikileaks can't do more than vaguely hint at it without breaking the law.
nice try, the haters, the racist, misogynistic people always apeal to the free speech protection.
Society does not think it's a good for the hate and violence to be spewed out of the sewer pipe that passes for a mind to poison kill hurt disenfranchis the groups that "you" hate
Wait, I'm confused. Banning Nazi's is bad?? How did that happen?
First they came for the Nazis, blah blah blah. And before anyone cries out "slippery slope fallacy!", it's not a slippery slope: banning speech because it's socially unacceptable is banning speed because it's socially unacceptable. There's no slope, just a flat level field.
I'm sure someone's also going to point out "free speech only applies to the government!" Legally, yes, Google has the ability to ban whatever it wants. The question is a moral one, not a legal one, although sometime soon there absolutely needs to be a discussion about corporation's ability to banish speech. We're quickly approaching the point where a large corporation like Google can effectively entirely prevent you from speaking, and a right you cannot exercise is a right that's been infringed.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Nazi vs Stalinist - fight!
It would appear that they can.
I understand abandoning GMAIL is hard for most us, but I have been using Opera (I know it's Chromium) + DDC and they are both great.
This is a great example of what will happen when Republicans repeal Net Neutrality and now MSNBC owner Comcast doesn't feel comfortable letting you access your favorite alt-right website.
Enjoy!
I am justified in killing
those who are terrorists and who increase violence
Do you see where you fucked up?
There is no error - read the catechism fully.
Killing them all in a war they start is the best.
Fake news. Everybody knows that Poland shot first.
And by banning certain sites, Google abandons any claim to be a common carrier and can now be held liable for ANY infringing sites.
Around 1906. You sound like a person who likes to censor things you don't like. How long have you been a Nazi?
They added "zero" users in Q2. Now, it seems they measure in "millions of users", so they might have added under one million, I don't know. They did get 9M in Q1, which is their highest since Q1 2015...far better than q4 2015 when they actually lost 2M. Still, out of the estimated 4.77 BILLION mobile phone owners in 2017, A HREF="https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/">328 million users isn't even hitting 10%. Facebook is at 2 billion.
Not at all, free speech is about speaking your mind in criticing, exposing or offering an alternative. It's never about free to spew hate towards a subset of society. That's the law, that's societies view. That is how it is, love it lump it or leave to Antarctica and establish your we are awesome settlement
Buffoons like Jzanu think they'll always be on the same side as those in power... Until they aren't. Then they'll bawl and cry like the Nazi who the authorities want to talk to on YouTube, whom he no doubt laughed at.
So you say, I say that's the path to evil. They are evil thoughts, encourage evil and the acts of evil people. I say we don't want vulnerable people and the young to fall under the sway of these evil people who are trying to turn society on each other
I am justified in killing those who are terrorists and who increase violence through radical racism and hate. Look up the catechism of the 5th commandment. There is such a thing as Just War and it does require action from the righteous. Actually, read here.
Sieg heil! Ein Volk. Ein Reich. Ein Fuhrer.
You are so completely unaware of your own self that you have become that which you profess to hate. Except you are willing to murder for thought crime instead of ethnicity.
You don't know what free speech means. Encouraging hate, aiding acts of hate is illegal hence it's not protected in any free and democratic country
Wrong. Read more carefully, if you can.
" It's never about free to spew hate towards a subset of society. That's the law, that's societies view."
Son, that sure as fuck didn't stop Henry Anslinger and the Federal Government in criminalizing Cannabis. Wake the fuck up, go back to school, and pay some attention to real history.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
So why is hate speach not protected by the law ? Why are crimes with an element of racism, bigotry, religious hate receive additional punishment.
Because it is not "free speech"
Exactly. Make no mistake though, they want that "flat level" they want to use it against all right wingers, all moderates, all third parties, all people "not Left enough". Of course, that even means people on their own side. They won't admit to it NOW of course. But just watch how they talk about other people. Like how in a few discussions I participated in, Johnson and Stein supporters were declared "Nazis" because "they were responsible" for putting Trump into office.
Funny how one minute it's the Nazis responsible for Trump, then it's third parties, then it's moderates, then it's Russians. And all these people are the enemy. As one "Far Leftist" told me, "All need to be 'done away with'." Well... We can all guess what she meant can't we?
No no... I'd prefer that people are still allowed freedom of thought. If they become "dangerous", we don't go all vigilante on them, we arrest them, have a trial, and if they're convicted let the system deal with them.
OK, rather burn a mod point and not be able to comment, I'll comment. You are falling into the classic trap of "purity". By your measure, child porn - to use another extreme example - would be allowed. Likewise, ISIS beheading and recruiting videos... In the same way that I have the freedom to travel within America (leaving aside the 100-mile Customs area) at will, there are limits on routes, maximum speeds, seat-belt requirements, etc. to which I must adhere. According to your logic, any of those limits are "OH NO! My FREEDOM is GONE!!". Very stupid, mate.
The "radical" left (I won't use alt-left) is so up its own ass they cannot see straight. They should all watch the old Twilight Zone Episode Four O'Clock. It was written by Rod Serling himself, a liberal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_O%27Clock_(The_Twilight_Zone)
I must have missed that class, are you trying to say society wants to legalize marijuana and the law is against it?
There is another class that discusses vocal minority and silent majority that you may want to take a refresher on.
You don't know what free speech means. Encouraging hate, aiding acts of hate is illegal hence it's not protected in any free and democratic country
Not in the US and A, free speech is protected.
The Internet is just as free and open as ever. What Google decides to put in their store or not has nothing to do with the Internet. The Internet is at risk of not being free and open from the same right wing nutjobs who vote for people who are actively trying to make the Internet only for the rich (via breaking net neutrality).
I don't respond to AC's.
Just move it to the iTunes app store.
Let's act like Nazis because we hate Nazis! Nazi for me, but not for thee!
Google makes me fucking sick. Kick every last un-American bastard in the company the fuck out of this country.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Which is nothing more than a license to kill all that disagree with you by calling them nazi's. And you just labeled obfuscant a nazi by implying he is a fan of HItler for speaking against you. That makes you the terrorist in my opinion as you resort to violence to counter ideas.
And I say that creating a culture where citizens are encouraged to give up their freedom to the State in the name of Security (physical and emotional) is evil.
Context matters - that is part of basic reading comprehension. You need to repeat primary school using a tutor.
Thus sez you ... a justified premeditated murderer! Thus I'm justified in butchering-out progressive Trotsky cunts like you, ASAP ... as you are morally bound to attack me. So pad're watch yo' yellow-bellied nibberizing back cause as matters arise I damned well intend to be there ....
One could argue that banning the Ba'athists after invading Iraq is, in hindsight, not a good idea, because it gave rise to ISIS.
Trump (or Putin) has shown that the conservative electorate has been brainwashed enough and the political landscape in the US has been skewed enough such that far right-wing candidates can get elected successfully. So it is not unreasonable to expect the armed, far-right to try to form a caliphate.
Have fun trying. I know how to fight and use a gunagainst people from thousands of hours of physical training in the Bundeswehr, as well as how to follow and give effective orders. You sound not only ignorant but like one who has done nothing with your life.
I think that hate and violent speech ought to be spewed out against progressive Trotsky sluts. I believe their faces ought to be smashed and teeth broken. Starting with you. Will none remove this nibberizing bitch-slut libcom pestilence from our culture ?
No, I think you are the one who needs to leave.
You are the moral successor of the killers of Socrates.
Killing Terrorists? Great idea!
So, when do we start hunting Antifa?
Gee, let me think for just a moment.
Two points.
1 - This is a whole 'right wing' discussion platform, some of the people there are Neo Nazis (note, there are no Nazis, the Nazi party is thankfully long gone), so you are promoting banning a platform because of some of its content - and ignoring the fact that the same, and worse content exists on other platforms.
2 - You consider someone having a certainly political view as WORSE than child porn, which by definition involved the real physical sexual abuse of a child? Really?
I most certainly don't want to live in the world you're projecting with your fucked-up worldview. I can only assume you think child rape is ok.
Except in all countries with Free Speech.
See, free speech means ALL speech. If you only are allowed to speak what is popular and government approved, you don't have free speech. You have rampant censorship and totalitarian mind control. 1984's Big Brother was NOT a target goal, people.
Ah, the Bundeswehr!
I other words, you spent two years as a glorified clerk, and occasionally picked up a gun. If you were deployed, you ran and hid in bunkers at the first sign of combat.
Of course, you couldn't actually be deployed on your own, because Germany doesn't have any logistical tail and couldn't invade France again even if they wanted to because it's too far away.
But act tough there, oh glorified policeman. We here in the US, with our 400 million guns that we grow up using ("thousands of hours" *snerk*) will be entertained by your pussy posturing.
fuck off
Some evil People know they are evil others think they are doing the greater good, I care not which these ones are.
I genuinely think you are trying to make these evil people and their thoughts palatable to the general population to recruit and spread hatred thinking you are doing the right thing
Being a communist is an alternate viewpoint. There's still plenty of normal people not involved in either the "alt right" or "alt left" freaks. In fact you only hear from nazis, blm and antifa because they are the loudest retards.
Which this clearly is.
Then just switch your browsers search engine to DuckDuckGo.
Not hard, although in chrome not super easy (what a surprise!)
Go to the DuckDuckGo home page.
Click the "Here" button in step 1.
Click "OK".
Click on the settings icon on the upper right.
Scroll down to the Search section.
Hover over DuckDuckGo in the "Other Search Engines" section at the bottom.
Click "Done".
Very Wrong. Have fun with your toy rifles while the artillery rains down.
"It's never about free to spew hate towards a subset of society. That's the law, that's societies view. "
1. No, it's not the law.
2. Society's view is often wrong.
3. Spewing hate towards hate-spewers is still spewing hate towards a subset of society. But you dumbfucks don't seem to understand that at all.
when did people forget that we must allow everyone to speak, including Marxists and Nazis, in order to explain to them why they are wrong (or to realize why we are wrong)?
The people in question never believed that. That stuff was just a sales pitch -- a pretend argument for use only when it was beneficial. They have power now, so shut up.
When did people forget that if people can't speak, their only solution will be to use violence?
Violence is their goal. Look what it got them this week.
What about people who view YOU as a radical terrorist who uses violence and hate to get your way? Do they get to claim righteousness by destroying you?
This is what you are blind to. You advocate violence in the name of political doctrine you treat like a religion. To those of us who are calm and rational, you look like an extremist lunatic who needs a psychological evaluation.
In the USA, you are wrong. 1st amendment does indeed allow for "hate speech". It IS protected by law.
you are a god damn idiot
Wait, I'm confused. Banning Nazi's is bad?? How did that happen?
It always has been. We've generally understood that, until recently.
That's a way for you to redefine those who disagree with you as evil.
That is a great wrong you are doing. Psychologically damaging to you and harmful to society.
This is grounds for an antitrust complaint. Gab, please bring it.
Good, intelligent, sane people found out long ago that free speech was a cornerstone of a free society and that you don't fight evil by becoming it.
> These kids have spent too much time in their bedrooms
You're the child that doesn't understand anything.
You're projecting. You're really the basement dwelling child that plays FPS games and fancies himself comparable to the greatest generation.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I think it's a great idea to call Communists the "alt-left".
It is a great way to distinguish liberalism from the current nonsense for those of us that are liberals but not communists.
It's also a handy way to segregate those that don't really actually believe in liberal values.
You morons can stop hijacking the term now.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Fuck you Google.
"I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?' "
-Mike Godwin - Electronic Freedom Foundation
The above quote has been on the Freenet Project Page since it's inception in 2000. I find it disturbing that it's starting to come true.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
You better watch out because you won't be able to spew your hate for much longer. According to what you just said anyway.
Yeah, the new American generation that no longer supports free speech...just wait for your just desserts, fair play and all that. People have a right to hate other people and it isn't OK to just hate the right people, mock the people you've been taught to mock, ridicule those who your teachers implied it was OK to ridicule. That was brainwashing you experienced, so sorry. No, it's really not ok even if Teacher said so. Sure Racists of all colors are disgusting. Racists of all political parties are disgusting. Supremacists of every race, religion, ideologies who persecute other people are ALL disgusting to the free man. Hatred is your right and it's an ugly and disgusting right that people who live in FREE societies have. I want to keep living in a FREE society, yes a dangerous free society that also includes disgusting people. Or we can queue the thought police.
If you can hate them and spew vitriol for their beliefs and ideas then surely they have EXACTLY the same right to do so to you also. UNLESS we are entering a time when Americans are no longer equal under the law...a time where some animals are more equal than other animals. But I'm probably just throwing pearls before swine.
Faith: Belief in Truth. Superstition: Belief in Falsehood.
You are an evil person. You have betrayed your own values.
Says who? You? Google?
You said gamers were Nazis, worse than ISIS. Why should I believe you now?
morons can stop hijacking the term now.
If only they would.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
A "free and open Internet" means not banning for disagreement. Enjoy seeing exactly what Google allows you to see and never anything else. You didn't really want to choose for yourself anyway.
I will defend to the death your right to free speech, unless I don't like you. Then I'll shoot you my own damn self and say good riddance to bad ideas.
I think I may have found a new sig block...
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
Is anyone here calling for government intervention against Google?
Yes this is all profitable equity, so all good.
you are a fucking idiot
Of course killing millions of people to get rid of people you disagree with can only end well. Sarcasm.
A future where giant corporations totally control what is allowed speech will be as dark as what the Nazis built.
IN order to work as an educator in CA, you have to take an oath affirming the Constitution.
“Except as provided in this code, no certification document shall be granted to any person unless and until he has subscribed to the following oath or affirmation: ‘I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of the State of California, and the laws of the United States and the State of California.’
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/de...
Good-bye
Or perhaps you prefer #PresidentTweety's "many sides"? Let me address both:
Two sides: Good versus non-good
Many sides: Good versus bad versus unknown
Now how does that apply to apps on Google Play? What unifies that application with discussions on Slashdot?
If people knew the reputation of the app, then good people would not choose to download or use apps with bad reputations. There are actually two obvious ways that this applies to Android apps. One is the personal reputation of the developers, and the other is the reputation of the financial model supporting the app. The financial model is easier to handle, and should be displayed on a "financial model" tab in the description of the app, which would include the google-side evaluation of the developer's description of the financial model. (In the app described in this article, the honest financial model would probably be something like "philanthropy of wealthy and reactionary conservatives to support propaganda campaigns".)
If people know the reputation of the authors of comments, then good people could choose not to read comments from people with bad reputations. This ties back to the personal reputation of the developers of an app.
People should have the freedom to decide. For example, some people might want to read comments from people with unknown reputations. I would not, but there are actually certain kinds of comments I might be willing to read from certain kinds of people with certain kinds of bad reputations. As things stand now, those freedoms of choice are being suppressed because the public reputations are ignored even though they are in theory right out there in public.
Time to close with one of my old jokes: Details available upon polite request. It shouldn't be a joke these days, but there was a time when the "collective mind" of Slashdot was not so narrow and closed. Long ago.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You're comparing apples to child porn, which is also really stupid, mate.
Child porn is illegal because it involves a minor who doesn't have the legal ability to choose to participate.
ISIS beheading and recruiting videos, last I checked, are not banned in the US.
Exceeding speed limits could critically physically injure or kill someone. That's a logical restriction on freedom of action, in the interest of preventing harm to someone else.
Words aren't bullets. They can't maim or kill you. Freedom of speech can't be equated to any of your examples.
Double standard.
Google can do what they want with their store, but the ISPs cannot do what they want with their infrastructure? Did you even think before you typed?
"I must have missed that class, are you trying to say society wants to legalize marijuana and the law is against it?"
No, I'm trying to say that plenty of hate was spewed BY THE LAW towards a subset of society, all for a political purpose. If you don't know who Harry (not Henry, derp) Anslinger is, I highly suggest you read up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
So wait... You're advocating for your own speech to be muzzled?
How much are the Russians paying you to spread hate and terrorist agitation?
Associating Antifa, BLM, and related SJH hate groups with communism, is hugely insulting to real communists.
Shut up you filthy fucking Nazi.
"Hate speech," which is Google's complaint here, doesn't exist. It has no definition and what little definition it has shifts to mean "things I personally find offensive and that target a group I feel should not be targeted."
There is no legal definition of such and it is protected by the first amendment -- and any laws against "hate speech" would be struck down under those grounds.
The only legal liability involved is Google screwing up and surrendering their Common Carrier status due to discriminating against Youtube channels and Google Play apps. They are now liable for every single youtube video and app on the google play store -- and anything anyone does with them. If someone gets an app on Google Play that breaks Wifi passwords, Google is now liable for damage, because they gave up their Common Carrier status.
Inaccurate and untrue speech is still protected by the First Amendment.
Wrong. There is no "hate speech" provision in the 1st amendment. To suggest otherwise shows:
1. A complete lack of understanding of American ideals.
2. A disgusting, horrifying level of illiberal authoritarianism, which makes me think you're some kind of arch Neo-Con on par with George Bush Jr or Hillary Clinton.
Like it or not, the most vile among us have the right to speak and assemble in public. This does not include having some hipster douchebags cosplaying as ISIS attacking them.
Now, you can make some argument about Google, Cloudfire, etc being private companies, but we're approaching the point where a handful of companies' decisions can have massive effects on citizen's free speech, which brings forth the idea that maybe, just maybe, the Government isn't allowed outsource censorship and oppression to corporations to do it for them -- in other words, that the 1st amendment prevents Google et all from discriminating like this.
Ding ding ding. Google is now liable for anything anyone does with any app on Google Play.
Gab.ai is not "Nazis." Grow up.
Gab is an alternative to Twitter, but since the Alt-Left / Tech-Left has control of Twitter's moderation team, they don't want people leaving, so their allies over at Google are harassing Gab.ai as much as they can.
Alt-left Completely Lib(ret)artds
It happened a couple of days ago, if you've been watching the idiotic alt-right (nazi sympathizers) on YouTube. It started when trump threw them their next meme to bounce off their echo chamber walls: "alt-left".
Yes, and now opposing right wing extremists, nazis, and white supremacists is considered to be an "alternate" viewpoint.
Meet Eric Clanton, an Antifa -- Alt Left -- icon.
He's a professor at Berkeley. He teaches ETHICS.
He tried to murder 7 people with a Bike lock during the Berkley riots. Here's a video of one of his attacks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Note that there are two female Alt-Left domestic terrorists that provide a distraction and point his victim out to Eric. Note that the other ISIS cosplaying losers protect Eric by opening a hole in the wall so he can attack and then preventing anyone from restraining Eric for the police.
Eric's reasoning? The students wanted to see a Gay Jewish Immigrant speak about the dangers of Islam and a Conservative woman talk about how great America is, and he felt that they shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Fortunately, thanks to 4chan tracking him down, he's looking at a long, LONG time in jail: http://www.berkeleyside.com/20...
There's an Alt Left, they're way worse than the Alt Right, and the more the "enlightened left" pretends they don't exist the more people like Clanton out there feel emboldened to try to murder people in the streets.
Being a communist is every bit as bad as being a neo-nazi.
Worse, actually, given how many people Marxism has killed and how much suffering they have caused. Hitler has nothing on Marx, Stalin, or Lenin. At least Nazis don't try to indoctrinate kids and preach that "it wasn't real nazism."
The hammer and sickle should be considered every bit as offensive as the swastika, and for the same reason.
Marxism -- including Socialism, Communism, et cetera -- has killed over 95 million people. I'm not sure it's possible to create an insult bad enough to encapsulate a horrific thing like that.
They've already kinda experienced this.
It turns out that most people don't buy the nonsense "Racism is power plus prejudice and white people have all the power, so only whites can be racist, and you can't be racist towards whites, just prejudiced, and that's ok because white people are responsible for all the evil in the world" crap that radical Alt-Leftists spout off regularly. Which means that anti-racism rules on say, Facebook, Twitter, etc have been hitting the most radical of the Alt-Left, which has been *pissing them off something fierce*.
Wait, how did the Ba'athists getting banned cause ISIS?
Wait... when did Ba'athism get banned? I thought they were effectively "Islamic Mormons"?
When google takes it upon themselves to act as censors, they lose their common carrier protection, and become liable for content on their services. If you don't understand that they've just massively increased their liability, then you have no business calling anyone else retarded.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
we're talking about _actual_ Nazis. People who literally heil Hitler an fly a red flag with a Swastikas on it chanting "The Jews Will Not Replace Us!" while brandishing torches.
They can speak all they want. They got their bloody permit for Pete's sake. They didn't resort to violence. It was their first choice. That's what makes them Nazis. It's their defining characteristic. And congrats, you just sympathized with them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's never about free to spew hate
Where did you get your degree in constitutional law? You should contact them about demanding a refund.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
hugely insulting to real communists.
There is no greater insult than calling someone a communist.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Allowing calls for violence is not a free and open world.
The few white nationalists at the march were marching alongside a handful (I heard there was only one) of Neo Nazis, and a much larger contingent of people who were simply opposed to the idea of tearing down statues because they offend PC obsessed millennials who have declared them unIslamic. Er, sorry, politically incorrect.
They were preaching nonviolence and they were nonviolent. Know how I know?
1. There was a march the night before -- where they had all those torches -- which was completely uneventful. The violence didn't start until the Alt-Left -- Antifa -- showed up the next day with metal bats and blocked their path, assaulting them when they came close.
2. There was an unnamed militia there with assault rifles. If the Alt-Right was violent, there would have been mass casualties on the Alt-Left side. There weren't.
3. What kind of retards would fight in court for the right to march then riot at their own march? That doesn't pass the smell test.
no no no no no. My God, how did you get modded up that high with such a dumbkoff idea? Where you trying for a textbook example of false equivalency?
Intent _matters_. If Firefox's primary target demographic was Nazis and other white supremacists and if it cultivated a user base of such then Google would have a damn good reason to kick them off the app store. If Firefox consistently ignored hate speech and overt incitement to violence that would also be a good reason. And if google ignored such things in the face of solid evidence then they would be complicit in the spread, growth and empowerment of Nazism. In the exact same way IBM was to their Shame.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
But a baker MUST make a cake for gay weddings. You're a fucking moron. Got it.
The more services, networks and US brands try to stop free speech, the more users around the world will seek better services that always support free speech.
A big US brand that stops free speech will still be used to pay taxes and find gov services.
All the fun and creativity will move to sites and networks that still support freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
The more SJW ban content and report users on their own sites, the more real content moves to better brands.
All the big SJW brands will be left with is:
Ads
Big government and political party approved content.
Always positive reviews of very average movies.
A selection of SJW approved books and authors.
No cartoons or animations about faith. No blasphemy.
Boring sites approved by SJW and governments do not keep users.
People like the internet been open and free, not as an extension of US party political policy.
The more a US brand bans content, the more users will want to see and read what is been banned.
Censorship always fails.
Freedom of speech and freedom after speech always wins. Communist nations tried censorship for decades and people still just wanted freedom.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
or that clashes with their ideology. First, that blows any hope of a common carrier defense. They're also actively ignoring veiled threats of violence (or not so veiled) so long as it's in line with the groups they want hurt.
There is no "alt-left". You're either falling for a ruse or perpetrating one. It's the same crap the Karl Rove right has been doing for decades. Take whatever negative qualities you have and accuse the other side of it. You've got a billionaire funded media machine pushing this crap on you so you ignore the real cause of your problems (rich white guys in Wallstreet). You've been had, or you're one of the ones bought and paid for astroturfing. If it's the latter, fuck you. If it's the former, please, wake up. You can't solve your problems or mine like this.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Ironically, a cornerstone of the alt-left's ideology is that words they don't agree with are *violent.*
They use this term specifically so they feel justified in trying to murder people that disagree with them. They use this term so they can justify harassing, doxing, and oppressing people who disagree with them.
Because after all, those "White Lives Matter" guys and the tryhards pretending to be Nazis are being "violent" by existing, which means it's ok to try to murder them with homemade flamethrowers -- that's just self defense, right?
Pray the alt-right never get to the point where they agree, because if they do, this is going to escalate very, very quickly.
Hilariously ironic!
You are the evil one who thinks they are doing good, you fucking imbecile.
You are silencing the capacity for another human being to express themselves in the same manner that you enjoy, simply because you disagree. You paint it with words and emotion that lets you dismiss their humanity without feeling like you have compromised your own... But you have.
You are evil. You.
Well, there's a line of thinking now.
If Google, Cloudflare, et cetera are all going to abuse their positions of privilege, then why not oppose Net Neutrality and let the ISPs knife them to death?
This theory is called DAD -- Digitally Assured Destruction. Basically, people push back against Google's unilateral abuse of it's userbase by holding Net Neutrality over their heads like a club. If they don't start being good citizens of the net again, we let the ISPs loose.
I guess you just use the term as an indiscriminate insult, kinda like "fuckface". Whatever.
But using a specifically political group name to apply to an entirely different and opposing political group does kinda stultify the conversation.
Found the Nazi sympathizer.
Hahaha you're literally a Nazi! That's fucking hilarious.
Lol that literally is not the law, in the US liar.
Lol nobod's afraid of you you silly little impotent cunt.
Nice hysterical propaganda! Did you know capitalism has killed at least 205,000,000?
See the problem is, both these figures have a certain truth to them, even putting aside the inevitable politically inspired exaggerations. Yet both figures also have a major element of hand-wavy bullshittiness.
In both cases the overwhelming majority of the claimed casualties were not killed by gubmint bullets, but by the results of economic policies. Problem is, everyone dies eventually, and most causes of premature death are multifactorial - malnutrition, obesity, disease, etc. So how do you accurately and consistently define "premature death", much less measure it over population over time?
Shrill hysteria like "Ideology X killed N people! Reeeeeee!" does nothing to advance our understanding of politics or economy. Imho it's far more useful to point out that while collectivization of heavy industry has a pretty good record, collectivization of agriculture has a record of disastrous failure.
Slashdot I come from Ars... your comments fill me with hope... live long and prosper.
You can choose to live by your own rules, but the consequence of Schenck v. United States 1919 still applies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
the 1st amendment prevents Google et all from discriminating like this.
Willing to take a bet?
Banning Nazis is the minimum response. Killing them all in a war they start is the best.
Ah the dumb smug arrogance.... I remember when the Vietnamese used to talk about Americans that way, "killing them all" in a war that they started as a False Flag. Then the NVA/VC turned those words into action and they did a pretty good job of killing Americans. Next thing you know Marines were being evaced from the top of the U.S. Embassy in Ho Chi Minh's city.
Inaccurate and untrue speech is still protected by the First Amendment.
No, not in all cases. Yell fire in a crowded theatre or slander someone and you are not protected. Is this really news to you?
Wait, I'm confused. Banning Nazi's is bad?? How did that happen?
First they came for the Nazis, blah blah blah.
And then they called you a Nazi because your opinions/beliefs differed from theirs. Blah blah blah.
Facebook also hosts figures like Milo Yiannopoulos
https://www.facebook.com/myian...
Are they going to ban it too?
So why is hate speach not protected by the law ?
In America, it is. I don't know what oppressive dictatorship do you live in?
That's a huge benefit of Android over iPhone. Thanks for reminding me again why I prefer Android: I can install whatever I want, without getting permission from Apple (not that I want to install this crappy app, of course).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Muslims?
They would try if they could, but they don't have insane sympathisers running mainstream media, the education system and the judiciary.
To call yourself a communist at this point is to tie yourself to Lenin and the justification of using terror to achieve your goals.
You could in theory be a civic nationalist fascist with not a shred of racism or xenophobia but no one is going to treat the term fascism with that in mind. Communism should be no different, it would be without our education failing so massively at teaching history.
If I say "cats are less intelligent than humans", does that mean I hate cats? Of course not.
I hate corrupt politicians. I hate socialists. I hate communists. I hate fascists. I think I'm perfectly justified in "spewing hate" towards those "subsets of society".
Hate speech is legal in the US. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "society's view". The majority may decide something, but the majority does not get to curtail freedom of speech.
Oh, and I also hate you: I think you are a totalitarian prick.
Well, but you should spend a little time reflecting on whether you are evil knowing it, or whether you are evil not knowing it.
Either way: go to hell.
The American Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment: we don't "ban people" anymore for their political beliefs, and we don't ban speech we don't like anymore either.
I can't believe they haven't figured this out - godaddy, google, and cloudflare have essentially claimed liability for anything offensive on their networks. They might as well just impose sharia law, german nazi censorship, and the great firewall of china on anything that runs over their infrastructure. The only thing left is going to be prayer calls, kittens, and advertisements for hair care products.
No, you don't know what free speech means.
Which countries are you talking about? Authoritarian shitholes like European democracies?
If that were the case, then Google would need to ban socialists, communists, and progressives.
Yet, Che Guevara, Karl Marx, and Bernie Sanders aren't banned from Google Play.
Moral equivalence is the single most defining thing wrong with the modern societal discourse. Because the "other side" has equal or worse crimes you don't have to discuss the crimes committed by "your side" because you've successfully called the "other side" hypocrites and that's a far worse crime than assault, murder, abuse of your fellow humans, death threats, preaching a violent solution to perceived problems, etc etc. Throw in some implicit guilt by association and you have the shortest path to shutting down a constructive discussion there is.
The absence of something from the American constitution doesn't make it legal.
Secondly hate speach is illegal. Your only options are love it, leave or mount a constitutional challenge.
Why you want to make hate speach acceptable and insisting violence ok, is beyond most reasonable educated people
You really genuinely think the American constitution and law enshrine your right to spew hateful speach and inciting violence towards a subset of society. wow random white supremacist guy
Here in Europe we ban the ass of anyone who looks like a Nazi and we don't have cry baby far right trash complaining about it. The Nazi's nearly destroyed Europe and killed millions and we do not want them back and will stop them. We will stop you too pal if you persist in pretending that it is ok to support Nazi ideology even if we have to invade America and kill you all. Go cry somewhere else you nasty piece of crap. Free speech does not include shouting fire in a crowded theater and shilling for Nazi ideology is similarly verboten.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Or saying schools are anti-science for not teaching evolution.
The students can always learn that elsewhere. /s
In a scientific arena you could make an argument for how white supremacist are the most intelligent people, in a I think it is because I is one and my sister cousin tells me, is another ball game.
Ps I think you are a racist masquerading, and I couldn't care less about what you think, I care about the minds you are trying to warp.
Looks like we found an actual neonazi here.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
> Wait, I'm confused. Banning Nazi's is bad?? How did that happen?
Yes, it is bad. It's called [killing] freedom of speech. I guess you didn't read Orwell, or think about it, or lived in totalitarian state.
We don't judge the wrongness of an ideology based solely on how many deaths it causes, that's why virtually nobody thinks communism is nearly as bad as nazism - going solely by the numbers, communism should be considered far worse.
Communism isn't a hateful ideology that supports racist ideas or advocates genocide. It ends up killing a great number of people anyway, but that's not intended. It's actually less hateful than capitalism which relies on classist victim-blaming for ideological support - communism constantly glorifies and praises the worker even as he suffers under the system, while capitalism constantly blames the worker not only for the entirety of his own plight but for a large share of the economy's ills. Both for the same reason, to prevent the workers from revolting against the horrific economic injustices these economic systems create. One butters them up and the other tells them to blame no-one but themselves.
Laissez-faire capitalism, if left in place long enough, will end up killing far more than communism ever did, when a majority of humanity is made unemployable through automation and there are killbots sitting around ready for orders.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
There was an "anti-hate" rally that had a major topic of defending Eric Clanton. The left have rallied around defending him.
https://supportericclanton.com/
Sunlight is a good disinfectant. It is better for extremism to be discussed and confronted openly rather than festering in the shadows.
The most tired practically disproven idea in society since trickle-down economics. Sunlight makes these weeds grow tall and form growth patches. What works on people who follow nonsense ideologies that shouldn't survive first contact with rational debate is "don't feed the trolls."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's not just nazis but it is largely populated with various varieties of white nationalists. Its original intended purpose was as an alt-twitter for the alt-right. Its icon is a cartoon frog after all.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Tell us all what you think the free speech tag means.
BTW totalitarian, authoritarian dictatorship is your wet dream, where only the pure white get to run things and have a voice, the ones with a sister cousin wife enter the inner enclave of the pure pure white
It does not matter when govt and corporations are in bed. They become the same exact thing.
Say you'd be a Gab user (which I'm not, and I do not like the alt-right). You want a phone, an app, internet, and use Gab.
Well, you just can't unless you stand up your own phone network, make your own phone, connect all this to your internet (probably your own internet, since the company that provides peering will probably also ban you), and there, you can use Gab.
Imagine the same situation with access to water or electricity being 100% denied by corporations.
While I wish you were right - your argument doesn't fly anymore, unfortunately.
By claiming there is a dichotomy and nothing in between or besides these two points you committed a fallacy. There are private affairs and then there is a tyranny. Somewhere between these extremes there is a society that is capable of living together and respecting each other's different views. The first 'private affiars' thing ends badly as the other often enough because people seeing abuse of the (groups of) individual(s) by other (groups of) individual(s) want the authority to jump right in. There are limits to free speech that most of us agree: screeming "fire" in a crowded closed space like cinema where it is bond to cause panic and damage although there was no fire is one such thing. Yet hunting individual people in the their private and professional lives for whatever misguided or otherwise political views they have is just wrong. Have they committed a crime or planned to attack and hurt others you can file a complaint by your police or fbi. Other than that leave these people alone. Just a side comment on hunting nazis. "Doin' right ain't got no end' so after you finished hunting the hard core nazis you will have to hunt less hard core nazis. Where do you think will this logic lead you? Just in case you do not know. The examples of French revolution and Inquisition should you teach that leaders of such movements usually end up not being clean enough for them and being destroyed by own creation. This is Ok I think but the countless innocent victims of torture and killing are too high a price for allowing lynch mob to which you firmly belong go on unchecked.
This is a gross misrepresentation of relationship of free speech and violence.
You forgot abot common sense, rationality and science that should precede as factors even before any consideration of whether thia will violate free speech or not.
One of the largest post WW2 genocides occurred in Central Africa, and it was fueled by unchecked radio hate speech.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
No, idiot. The test of whether we have free speech is whether the GOVERNMENT tolerates speech it doesn't agree with. It has nothing to do with private companies, it never did, and it NEVER will. Free speech is about the government and ONLY the government.
You want private companies to support hate speech? Then those private companies will have to support the hate speech (see Gab) or you need to make it so those companies networks are CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Then hate speech can flow freely, just like all the other forms of speech. Until then, fuck off with your ignorantly incorrect definition of free speech.
TL;DR: Free speech is vs. the govt. Fuck off if you don't understand that.
Well yeah, that's exactly right. Go report the sites that are infringing. Go report ANY of them. Oh, there aren't any? And when you find one and report it it gets dealt with swiftly and accordingly?
Well shit, I guess you're fucked.
Look, just because 1% of the people on Gab aren't Nazis doesn't mean that whole platform isn't a Nazi platform! If I told you that 1% of your brain cells think you had a big dick and 99% know you don't have a big dick would you think you had a big dick?
No.
Meet Eric Clanton, an Antifa -- Alt Left -- icon.
Well, I guess if you invent the term alt-left, you can invent their icons too. I guess worldbuilding is a valid passtime, but I don't see why you're pretending it's reality. That whole fourth wall thing was done and dusted in the late 1700s.
He's a professor at Berkeley. He teaches ETHICS.
I don't think "East Bay Commnuity College" qualifies as Berkeley.
He tried to murder 7 people with a Bike lock during the Berkley riots. Here's a video of one of his attacks:
There's an Alt Left, they're way worse than the Alt Right,
Right. Here's a video of someone on the alt right actually murdering someone with his car.
CBA to post the video, it's all over the news right now.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
hate speech is only illegal in certain countries.
The USA gives the strongest protection for free speech in the world, and as such has no hate speech limitations.
It does.
Not knowing the law of your own country is suite concerning.
Any sort of censorship is bad, especially when the rationale is divergent political or religious ideas.
Lol, no dude. First of all, that man's 'antifa' actions are truly deplorable, like many Nazis. The girls weren't in on it in any way, they were just as surprised as the victim that something like that happened. They didn't 'close up' after they just stood in place after Clanton had pushed one aside with a hand on her shoulder.
There's no way that one violent man is worse than 1 million armed alt-right Nazis, at least one of which is willing to continually drive through a crowd of people until someone dies. Or maybe one is willing to shoot a bunch of black people as they pray after church?
No, the alt-right is just a rebranding of the Nazi platform that we all know and hate. There is no alt-left. There are single people on the left who have acted as deplorably as those might on the right, but they are not a platform. They are not the alt-right.
And trying to pretend that letting Milo Yiannopolis speak is just 'Gay Jewish Immigrant speak about the dangers of Islam' is fucking insane. He is the poster boy of the new Nazis. Well, not any more because he turned out to be totally and utterly morally bereft and a proponent of pedophilia, but don't say that out loud, you might not want your Nazi side to be associated with such people.
Hate speech is well-defined and is illegal in a number of countries where Google operates.
I hope the reason they banned this application is that they found it easier to implement the same criteria for approval into their store worldwide.
If you have read any Plato, you will know that Socrates was bought to trial by those he had embarrassed intellectually. The full charges did not really matter, but included both atheism and worshipping false gods. Presumably the only thing you as a pseudo-intellectual are aware of is the corrupting of the youth charge. Unfortunately the situation is not the same and your comparison falls short. Nobody wants paedophiles near their children, yet your false equivalence would also set them up as Platos killers. Not that anyone is getting sentenced to death, but also most interestingly Socrates never claimed to be spreading a message to anyone. He never preached violence or hate, and he very certainly never claimed to be better than anyone else. Your position is the antithesis of his. I'm sure you think dropping names of philosophers is very impressive, but alas you are just talking nonsense wrapped up in the trappings of intelligence. Back down into the slime with you, with all the other terrorists, spammers, hackers and paedophiles.
If James Damore wanted more independent evidence that Google, in spite of claiming to value diversity, actually has an animus against conservative and libertarian speech, this gives him that. It strengthens his case that Google uses political affiliation and beliefs as a basis for discrimination.
This also looks like ripe grounds for the FTC to investigate Google on anti-trust grounds, and the DOJ to investigate them on civil rights grounds. Failing that, some conservative lawmaker might introduce a bill to make political ideology a protected category under the Civil Rights Act. Not that they (or I) want Antifa or Nazis to be protected classes, but the US Constitution would not permit Josh Average to get better treatment under the law than Joe Jackboots.
Shit, Mao did 77 million and still manged to rape young girls who idolized him as a hobby. That's ONE dude.
Pol pot, Stalin, the shitbags that exist in Africa... add it all up and the number of deaths caused by the generic term 'capitalism' looks pretty weak.
Your argument is predicated on the belief that whatever is not explicitly legal must not be legal. You live in a dystopian fantasy world far removed from reality.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Gab does delete illegal content. Imperfectly maybe, but that's the same as Twitter.
and look how well that's working out!
Weekly terrorist atrocities and population replacement by the elites
No. I said just because something isn't listed as illegal in a constitution does not make it legal
They stopped teaching history in schools and universities. If they hadn't, you'd know the history of places like China and Russia.
Once you've banned one person for being a Nazi, it's only a matter of time before they come for you - the window shifts and as you aren't sufficiently fervent enough, you filthy counter-revolutionary. Reeducation for you!
Google and the big social media companies need to be regulated. They've opened the door with this move to silence anyone who disagrees with them. It's only a matter of time before they turn their censorship on their competition.
USA military deaths in WW2: 416,800. That's quite far from "millions". Russia on the other hand...
>The answer to hate speech has always been more free speech
No. You are worshiping free speech, which is just another stupid flying spaghetti model of liberals.
You are stupid.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
>. If you don't know who Harry (not Henry, derp) Anslinger is, I highly suggest you read up.
Why don't you go and shove your stupid poison up your ass, legalizer imbecile?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
The problem with the approach of "don't feed the trolls" is that it assumes they are in the minority. Slashdot has been invaded, and if nobody else speaks it becomes a de-facto White Power site.
The Ba'ath party was effectively banned in Iraq after the US toppled Saddam Hussein, so the rise of ISIS is at least post hoc, if not propter hoc.
A major difficulty in establishing a casual link is that the Syrian side of the Ba'ath party still rules Syria, so why would disgruntled Ba'athists try to overthrow the Syrian government?
So we start first with violent communist groups like antifa first right? They did shoot first after all. They also assaulted first, as seen by what happened at Berkeley when Milo went to speak.
Om, nomnomnom...
FYI: Antifa are communists--read their websites where their entire premise is to bring forth a commie revolution, the full name Antifaschistische Aktion is from ye olde Germany. They were directly funded by the KDP, or the German Communist Party. They hold the same ideals. The antifa that we see with the black masks today? The group they spawned from also wore black masks while beating the piss out of people, who didn't bow and scrape to their views. The brownshirts? That started out as people who belonged to the nazi's who were fighting the antifa of the era so people knew which side was which. You probably don't have any idea of just how big antifa in the early 1930's was, but it surpassed the nazi's. They even had open gun battles with the police and military under the weimier republic.
The kicker: The KPD also supported fascism. The difference between the KPD and Nazi's? How to implement that fascism.
Om, nomnomnom...
Then it does not deserve to survive. Censorship is not the way. Every regime ever that has burned books (electronically or literally) to survive, has been on the wrong side of history.
Fair point. I think they're still a minority on Slashdot, if a loud one. IRL they're definitely a minority, I figure maybe 1/3rd of the US population at most are white nationalists or white nationalist sympathizers.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'm going to go download it right now. +1 member.
Actually Nazi is a short for national socialist party of the workers...
If your definition of "Nazi" is so ludicrously broad you should be more scared of that war than you seem to realise.
It doesn't become a free speech issue until the _government_ steps in
Free speech is a principle separate from the government. The 1st amendment protection of free speech is what is limited to the government. Free speech can be celebrated or limited by anybody, it's just illegal for the government to do it. That's the difference. It's not illegal for Google to ban apps that say things critical of Google for instance... but it certainly means they aren't committed to free speech.
It's not well-defined, almost nothing about speech is well-defined. That's why there are cases every year about whether a law or government action violated the 1st amendment and many people disagree about the outcome of such cases.
That is just silly.
I know it is really popular in socialist and communist publications to claim that claims of deaths under Stalin and Mao are greatly exaggerated and that they never intended for anyone to die, it was all merely natural disaster or simply the complications of the switchover from the revolution, but this is just bonkers.
And I get the impulse to make up shock numbers of "deaths due to capitalism" to deflect from the obvious evils of totalitarian regimes that you politically agree with, but lumping in deaths due to faulty products or industrial pollution with state-created regional famine is just stupid.
If you want to argue that socialism isn't bad - it is just totalitarian governments that are bad - you'd have at least a leg to stand on. But pretending that the Soviet Union was actually a worker's paradise where everything was wonderful while western Europe and the United States were a dystopian nightmare of a quarter-billion dead bodies being crushed under the capitalist boot is just plain stupid.
This is akin to Holocaust denial. Just give it up already..... step away from you left-wing version of "the Daily Stormer" and join the rest of us in the post-communist 21st century.
That's impressive....did you really just argue that freedom to buy and sell stuff depends on classist victim blaming?
And did you really wind up advocating for some sort of bulwark against automation to preserve jobs?
What has happened to the world that we might have an actual Luddite espousing anti-technology views on a "news for nerds" website on a global computer network?
Yup yup, move those goal posts. It was never true Socialism and they're never real Antifa members.
You don't have to resort to appeals to the first amendment. Banning Nazi's and the KKK is bad strategy. So is showing up to their rallies with weapons looking to pick a fight. Or just throwing crap at them.
This problem was solved in the 70's and 80's, with full implementation of the solution finally achieved in the early 90's.
You don't ban them. You let them speak their piece. And you ignore their marches and rallies.
When I lived in Atlanta the KKK and Nazis used to have a march every year. The city would try to block them, denying permits and generally trying to ban them from coming. And the ACLU would take up their cause and the march would go forward. Then the folks from the NAACP and the SPLC and a whole lot of other folks who rightly didn't want a bunch of racist assholes coming to their city would show up and make a big show of it. It would often involve quit a few scuffles and thrown objects. It gave the racists a nice platform to play the victim role, and it gave them a lot more relevance.
Then they finally decided to stop all the nonsense and just issued the permits. No more months-long coverage of ACLU battles on behalf of the Klan.
And the anti-racism groups quit most of the violent counter protest stuff. They put out the word that the proper reaction was to pity the poor, uneducated and usually rather dim-witted racists.
They let the Klan leaders go on TV and have long-form interviews espousing their views. Everyone got to see exactly who they were and what they thought. Without a bunch of violence and government interference to soak up the news cycle, they actually got to talk about their core beliefs. And nobody (for very, very large values of nobody) turned out to be sympathetic.
They very quickly dwindled and died. By the early 90's they couldn't get more than 18 marchers for their annual parade. Shortly after that, they just quit coming altogether.
Strategically, confronting ideas with violence is a bad idea. It just creates tribal loyalties that are hard to break.
Yes, total freedom to buy and sell stuff and not suffer a revolt requires classist victim blaming.
I'm not arguing for restraints on technology, I'm arguing for restraints on, and changes to our economic system.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Now that Google has established that it can and will exercise plenary authority in deciding who gets to speak, it will be under pressure, both internally and externally, to use that authority to exclude others. Why not deny a forum to climate "deniers", advocates for due process for those accused of campus rape, donors to initiatives to codify traditional marriage, or any other of a thousand causes that Google execs or various pressure groups deem unworthy of granting access? Selective enforcement of vague Terms Of Service can be the excuse to do whatever they feel like.
Inaccurate and untrue speech is still protected by the First Amendment.
No, not in all cases. Yell fire in a crowded theatre or slander someone and you are not protected. Is this really news to you?
Uh, it's been known for *years* that the "fire in a crowded theater" thing is BS.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/0...
And trying to pretend that letting Milo Yiannopolis speak is just 'Gay Jewish Immigrant speak about the dangers of Islam' is fucking insane. He is the poster boy of the new Nazis. Well, not any more because he turned out to be totally and utterly morally bereft and a proponent of pedophilia, but don't say that out loud, you might not want your Nazi side to be associated with such people.
The gay Jew who won't stop talking about how much he loves the taste of black cock... is the poster boy of the new Nazis.
This is why we're not taking you guys seriously anymore.
Here, here.
I'm an older millennial, and I may have lucked out by going to a slightly-shitty (but not terrible or totally poor) almost rural high school. When I was in 9th grade, I had to take a class called "Practical Law." The class must have been designed in the 70s. Unfortunately, it stated facts about US law in many places and most of that was outdated and incorrect. But, the core of the ideals about law were still useful (and arguably more useful than the facts about current law). It was an amazing class. Probably my favorite class in high school. The teacher was a run-of-the-mill conservative guy, and I was a 15 year old naive liberal. But, he did a great job of running an open dialog about both sides and not pressing his opinions as necessarily better (I'm sure he believed that they were, but he was teaching).
Anyway, the next year, they got rid of those books and replaced the class with "Civics" and moved it to 10th grade (American History moved from 10th to 9th). I had to take both classes.(We just skipped American History completely, because I guess there weren't enough books to teach both the 9th and the 10th graders American History.) What a piece of shit Civics was by comparison. Total propaganda, "be good little citizens" bullshit. Practical Law was a class about self-empowerment and self-sufficiency, particularly with regard to the legal system. Maybe they replaced the class because it didn't cover the basics of elections and democracy in the US (I forget). But, regardless if Practical Law had some shortcomings, it was fucking amazing. "Civics" was complete jingoist garbage. I felt like bias couldn't hide very well in the Practical Law book, it was cold and factual. It would lay things like the First Amendment out in cold, hard terms, citing case law (which, unfortunately, wasn't always current, so the class needed a good teacher to deal with that). All about how the citizen lives in the US from a very practical, objective perspective. Fierce individualism has always been a hallmark of American culture and values. I feel strongly connected to that. Both books had to talk about the balance between the Bill of Rights and the limitations the Supreme Court has allowed placed on them.
I always saw this as some sort of shift that I've considered myself lucky to have gotten in before. Just the total tone shift from Practical Law to Civics bothered me. I wish I could remember the content of Civics better. I remembered rolling my eyes a lot after taking Practical Law, but that's mostly what I remember (and, I feel like there was picture of Bruce Springsteen and an American flag somewhere prominent). Maybe it's true and the new ones aren't learning American values the way Gen X and before did.
For me, proper freedom has always been a source of pride over Europeans (and, let's be honest, if you're German, you've got a number of sources of pride over Americans, so it's nice that we have some good ones). I worry that Americans take this for granted. One of my German friends told me that in Germany, you can be pulled over for no reason. The two other Germans agreed. Honestly, that is not better than the USA. That is not where we want to go. We do not want Euro-style restrictions on free speech. That is simply not free speech. Does Germany *really* have such a neo-nazi problem that they couldn't allow free speech? Do they really prefer the peaceful tranquility of "mostly free speech" to the sometimes messy reality of truly free speech? Are they worried that in a marketplace of ideas, neo-nazi-ism will win out (I am not)?
You're lying.
Reports say 4 people were struck on the head (by your own link). Where did 7 come from?
The 'tried to murder' seems to be your interpretation. Post a link to justify it.
He's a dickehead but then it looks like you are too. Why was this upvoted?
That "first they came for.." bit only exists because of the nazis committing genocide and wiping out all political rivals including basically the entire left wing of their country.....
At this point, the government and public opinion is ran by corporations. So in effect, free speech should extend to companies that lobby.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The OP claimed legal liability for free speech, which implies LEGAL limitations on allowing free speech.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Speech that everybody agrees with doesn't need defending. The test of whether we have free speech or not is the tolerance of speech you don't agree with. The answer to hate speech has always been more free speech. Drown them out.
Whether it's "accurate and true" makes no difference. Who determines if it is or not? You? Me? The government? Exactly who? See, there's the flaw in your idea.
The Ministry of Truth of course. Welcome to Oceania, comrade.
Black panthers can spew all the kill whitey they want. Google sells kill whitey and cops music.
Careful but your bias is showing helping to further incite hate speech...
It seems crazy to me that people really think you can define truth. The only reason someone need to define it is to lie. Truth just is, one such truth is 1 + 1 =
I say that's the path to evil. They are evil thoughts, encourage evil and the acts of evil people
I've heard this argument before. Frequently, actually. From fundamentalist christians about why some music, books, movies, art, etc should be banned. About by why socialism is bad and 'them queers' are going to destroy this nation under God.
Seriously. I'm having trouble telling the left and right apart any more. They're both fanatical, knee-jerking assholes.
Hate speech, real Hate speech shouldn't be protected speech.
Let's play a game. Can you tell the difference between these 2 sets of examples?
Example 1:
I hate Walmart because of capitalism.
I hate my neighbor because they don't cut their grass.
I love my job when they hire intelligent people.
I wish my mom would die because she grounded me.
Example 2:
I hate Target because they support Transgender people.
I feel safe at the office because it's mostly White.
I hate my class because there is a Muslim teaching it.
I wish we would nuke N. Korea first to end this stupid drama.
As long as it's hate directed towards conservatives, twitter is perfectly ok with it. Death threats, rape threats, misogyny, racism, bigotry, and so on is perfectly ok as long as it's against the "right people."
Yeah, they shoud totally stick it to those damn racist liberals.
Feel free to cite some of the laws that outlaw hate speech in the USA or point to the part or parts of the Constitution that do.
How ironic. Complain that someone is "moving the goalposts" by pretending you were actually talking about Antifa when, in fact, you were talking about - and being criticized for - a made up definition of the "Alt Left".
BTW if you had been talking about Antifa, most of the GP's comments are still appropriate - you lied about a person's affiliation with the group, and tried to compare someone whose actions you already exaggerated with an actual fascist murderer.
To be fair, Google's been censoring youtube videos and such for some time now. Common Carrier status only legally applies to telecoms, which they aren't. So they haven't given anything up. Common Carriers aren't required to pull anything, and the supposed responsibility Google has assumed is simply if they're made aware of illegal content, they have to pull it. That's all.
That said, censorship of anything short of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre MUST be protected if we aspire to be a free society. While the 1st amendment doesn't legally apply to corporations, it does ethically.
In both cases the overwhelming majority of the claimed casualties were not killed by gubmint bullets, but by the results of economic policies.
No! Mao and Stalin's apologists certainly tried to claim that. The truth about the Holodomor got out though. Stripping the entire Ukraine of food at gunpoint to start millions is not economic policy, it's mass murder! You have noticed there is conflict between Russia and the Ukraine now, right? You seem like a Holodomor denier, don't you?
How about Mao's great leap forward? How many millions dead? When he invited public criticism and then exterminated any who spoke up? 50 million dead? What's your answer? everyone dies eventually Ah yes, compassion. And against hate speech. How... conveniently defined too.
Stalin's gulag prison death camps? The Gulag Archipelago slightly more convincing than hand waving you know.
Shrill hysteria like "Ideology X killed N people! Reeeeeee!" does nothing to advance our understanding of politics or economy.
You are a denier. I bet you're a special kind, that believes in the Nazi holocaust but not Mao's or any of Stalin's. 'Bolshevik labeled authoritarianism is good' does seem to be trendy.
If the government says 1+1=3, and makes it illegal to contradict this "truth", then what happens?
You missed the parent poster's point by a mile.
FC Closer
Are you sure it's not 2/3rds? You know, the number who didn't go vote for Hillary and prove themselves ideologically pure? Those Trotsky er... Bernie supporters are suspect too.
But congress has made no law here. The First Amendment doesn't say you have a right to free association unless you're Google either.
It seems it's Google, facebook, and Twitter at the moment.
...same as anyone else. If the Nazis want to, they can open their own play store and sell their own phone that connects to it.
So if I make a social media app, and KKK and Nazi members start using it, my app gets banned? How far will they take that? What if they start using MineCraft?
So first we start by blocking White Supremist groups. Then what? Will we start silencing people who want to keep the Robert E. Lee statues next? Then maybe we will go "Oh, there were lots of Christians in the south so let us silence them." This is a dangerous slope and we, as a nation, vowed not to do this. I don't like their position, but we cannot silence them. The best way to silence idiotic racist ideas is to let them be heard, and let their own words be used against them. If we force them into a dark web, they will fester there like a virus and we will only see them when they rise up against us.
I remind everyone of the words on the Holocaust memorial:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Some of us know enough about technology to know its limitations. One thing it's never going to solve is the human condition. Tiny, naive little short lived biomatons inhabiting a single rock screaming their level of pigmentation makes them superior to differing levels of pigmentation. It truly is pathetic.
Because that ass space is already happily taken by my husband's dick, so orally is the only other worthwhile administration route!
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Banning Nazis is the minimum response. Killing them all in a war they start is the best.
Hey! Thats what the Nazi's did do!!
Just replace Nazi with Democrat/Progressive/Leftist and perhaps you might start to understand why you have a terrible ideology. You are the Nazi you hate....
That fight has already hit the supreme court. Certain things are illegal when it comes to free speech. Inciting violence is one of them. Free speech doesn't mean I have to listen. Free speech also doesn't mean free from consequences. The only way to effectively address speech we don't like is to allow it to exist in a society that allows open discord on the subject. As soon as you make it illegal you create the need to keep it in private which only strengthens it. If you aren't exposed to contradictions to your belief you cannot change your belief. Surround yourself with the same view, creates a stronger reality of that view.
So all the tech like cell phones and the internet weren't originally for the richest until billions were poured into them? You enjoy cheap gas because the billions that evil oil companies spent on fracking. And the billions in medical research which gives everyone better health care.
No one gave you money, but you received the benefits that trickled down.
Supporting some one's right to say something does not mean you support that view. I support the right for anti-abortion protestors to say their message in a public space, but I'm pro-choice. I support the right so someone with an opposite political view of mine so say what they believe, even if I don't agree. I like being surrounded by opposing views to my own, because it challenges my own assumptions and allows me to improve myself, or it allows me to identify thing that I intrinsically disagree with.
Ah, I see you're trying the old "argumentum ad hurling names of logical falacies at random" method. Very good!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I million nazis? You're off by a factor of three. There's more rioters since the election then there are nazis in America.
> Communism isn't a hateful ideology that supports racist ideas or advocates genocide. It ends up killing a great number of people anyway, but that's not intended.
Wow... so they sent those millions of people to die in gulags by mistake? What, did they trip over something?
You're right that communism doesn't kill people for their race, instead it kills people for their religion. It kills people for insufficient loyalty. It kills people for having the wrong ideas. It kills people for asking questions. It kills people for speaking truth.
That is what this is really about, and nothing more.
I have seen what google censors. It would not be considered "hate speech" by anybody other than a far left loon.
Fortunately, thanks to 4chan tracking him down, he's looking at a long, LONG time in jail: berkeleyside.com
The thing I find most amusing in that article is that some of the evidence police presented against this guy is the fact that his cell phone was in the area of the riots at the time. A self-proclaimed anarchist attends a riot where he commits premeditated assault and battery and... carries his cell phone with him the entire time.
They don't make anarchists like they used to.
Google isn't Congress. People often get confused about the scope of the First Amendment. It means the government can't censor you. It doesn't mean a corporation has to let you say whatever you want on their platform.
Even the ACLU is giving up on Nazi's first amendment rights if the Nazi protesters simultaneously exercising their second amendment rights.
Only "correct" speech allowed. That and a handy bit of virtue signaling and/or distraction from their other problems with their (current or ex) staff
If you oppose what the Nazis stand for, then you should support their right to speak.
I don't support the death penalty... but I support killing murderers. My position on the subject is arrived at for practical reasons, not moral ones. You think you have the right to take someone else's life without sufficient provocation (self or community defense as defined by law), you forfeit yours, that simple. The problem is the costs of litigation, and the risk of killing someone innocent by mistake (an irrevocable decision).
My position on Fascists and Nazis is easier to implement, because you get a do-over if you get it wrong. Google can have a change of heart and reinstate the app if they decide that they were in error, and it's been an inconvenience for people, but no one dies. Simply stated though, I'm happy with letting Fascists and Nazis set their own bars for punishment. If you advocate for the censorship, deportation, firing, or otherwise punishing people for their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, then you really have no leg to stand on (apologies to the wheelchair bound nazis) when it's done to you.
In the end, it's Google's platform and they get to set their own bar. Next time you walk into a mom and pop store and argue with them about their sign, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", don't be surprised if they throw you out for arguing with them.
google is obviously run by the alt-left and doing everything to silence the opposition.
I'm not sure whether you forgot the sarcasm tag there. Must be sarcasm...
Assassination threats against Trump are rampant on twitter. Both Google, and Twitter are fine with that.
Hatred expressed by BLM, Antifa, or Muslims is also fine with Twitter, and Google.
Violence is their goal. Look what it got them this week.
A BLM supporter killed 5 cops in Dallas. Ban BLM from speaking too? A left-wing Democrat shot at a group of congressmen, seriously injuring one of them. Ban Democrats from speaking too?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
You don't know what you're talking about. As a gay man and an immigrant, neo-Nazis hate me. But the American left hates everybody who doesn't kowtow to their totalitarian leaders. Really, there is little difference between the American left and the American right: you are cut from the same cloth.
Zaphirplane, you need to read up on your history: the white supremacists, KKK, eugenicists, and fascist sympathizers in the US have overwhelmingly been Democrats and progressives. Fascists and anti-fascists, white supremacists and their violent opponents, they are all of the same shitty, racist, authoritarian mindset, and you're part of it.
http://www.berkeleyside.com/20...
Aren't you a bit exaggersting implying that he got away with his violence scot free?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Its not, if Barnes and Nobles is the only non shady book store in town
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I'll add another one then, lying under oath is that something you've heard about? Just admit that you're wrong, not all speech is protected by the first amendment and pretty much everyone can name a few examples, just at the top of their head.
That's not what trickle-down economics means. Look it up and try again.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yeah! And bakers don't have to make cakes for gay couples!
Oh wait.. You're a fucking moron.
Meet Eric Clanton, an Antifa -- Alt Left -- icon.
He's a professor at Berkeley. He teaches ETHICS.
He is not, and was never, a professor at Berkeley. He used to be a professor at a nearby community college.
Wow just Wow are you really that fucking stupid? Can you please not procreate so we can remove your stupid genes from the gene pool. I really hope someone just punches you in the face today for being so stupid. Yep that was hateful , go call the police in the US and they will just laugh at you.
Funny one is guy with mental issues committing road rage and one is premeditated attempted murder of multiple people from a college professor.
You still don't understand that other countries have their own laws and that the first amendment of the constitution of the USA does not apply there.
Their laws clearly define what is hate speech.
Oh bullpussy! That nazi has mental issues for sure but that was NOT road rage. I'd slap the shit out of you for that dumbass statement if you were standing here.
And my nickname is Big Dicky Ricky. My dick is only 5 inches. People lie.
Thank you for your boldface text and empathetic "Reeeeeeee!". You have contributed greatly to public understanding and I feel we should all subscribe to your newsletter.
SCOTUS has already sided with the KKK over 1st amendment protection in the past, 1969. They made their opinion clear. Content of speech does not matter, only potential for imminent violence and that has been hard to prove.
See, congress didn't do a FUCKING THING here. This was Google. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that Google has to do fuck all for your freedom of speech.
Your freedom of speech was not harmed here. Freedom of speech is freedom from the government controlling your speech. The government has not controlled your speech.
Stop being such an ignorant fuck.
faggot
fake ass faker
you are a stupid fucking troll
Actually what Google claimed is "Don't Be Evil, we're watching you".
coastwalker, who is this "we who ban"?
I live in Europe too and see the healthy resurgence on nationalism everywhere contrary to communist-socialist every day hate speeches against them, and against people who are not multinationalists. Many states in Central-, Eastern-Europe are thrown down the shackles of oppressive central "politebureau" of EU.
random white supremacist guy
What an eloquent and well-reasoned argument for abandoning my freedom of speech.
Fuck you too, sunshine.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Actually, the german left-wing tried many times in 20's and in 30's to commit genocide on germans and to wipe all political rivals who were against "international workers movement" and "anti communist".
Comrade Trotsky and comrade Stalin from CCCP sent vast amount of weapons, gold and paper money to german communists. Comrade Tuhhatsevski even tried to invade Germany to "help the german communist party and the peoples uprising" but was stoped by polish army.
Says the f bomb intellectual, who just doesn't get why the inferior races are not letting the one true pure race to run the show
Any kids can swear make a point if you have one, what's your end game wet dream
Btw since you sound like an angry little person, I'm going to write you off as pointless to turn from being a little hateful loser that will never amount to anything
You, Jzanu would be a really good NKVD or Gestapo executioner-killer.
You will gladly pile up children, women and elderly to some ditch edge and pull your guns trigger and smile every time.
You know, to preserve the "right thinking" and "social values".
Or may-be you will be really good to the people and you will tie them first with barbed wire and then bury them alive? Like the NKVD did?
Even the comrade Maos "big Chinese hunger" killed more than 80 000 000 people (according to recent announcement from Chinese politebureau archives).
Communism has killed hugely more than flimsy 95 000 000 or 100 000 000 people.
It ended in VE day, didn't it? (Ha ha only serious)
Which is, of course, a false equivalence.
"I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep"
We already know from bitter experience that appeasing Nazis really doesn't work. They lie through their teeth to further their own ends, right up until today (the "anonymous hack"). You don't listen to them, you don't trust them, and you certainly don't sympathise with them.
We already know their goals, and what they are happy to do to achieve them. There is only one rational reaction to Nazism to anyone who values their freedom and their life, which is to stamp it out before its slimy tendrils get a hold.
It is always the right time to punch a Nazis teeth out.
There were plenty of reasons to not vote for Hillary that didn't involve being a douchebag, so probably not.
They hate everyone not white. It isn't that complicated and the seeming need to have a social media presence is laughable. Do they hate differently on different days and need to express it?
Both hate towards subsets of society and anticommunism are, matter of fact, a part of the very definition of fascism. Perhaps you are the one who is a totalitarian prick after all.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Really kid, you need to see a shrink about these lurid fantasies of yours. The notion that only racists support free speech is not merely ludicrous, it shows that you're delusional.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
an entirely different and opposing political group
Nope. Commies and nazis would like to believe that they're different, but wishing doesn't make it so.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Okay, toodles, you go right on believing that.
Being a communist is every bit as bad as being a neo-nazi.
Worse, actually, given how many people Marxism has killed and how much suffering they have caused.
By the same token, we should consider Christian, Jewish etc symbolism as offensive as Nazism, don't you agree? In fact, the Christian church has, over history, killed, tortured and maimed with an abandon that has rarely been matched by any other religious or ideological movement, and they were never bashful about either. But now-a-days we seem willing to forget about that and accept that the Christians have changed for the better - they are in general more tolerant of non-Christians, gays and other minorities now; so why do people like you keep referring back to the worst examples of what has called itself 'Communism'? I know why, of course - it was a rhetorical question: You have decided the conclusion a priory, and now you are constructing the arguments by filtering out any fact that doesn't support your conclusion - probably the most fundamental of all logical errors.
You also identify Marxism with Communism, Leninism, Stalinism, etc, which is in itself incorrect. Communism as such is less an ideology than simply the way smaller groups tend to function naturally - like a family, where everybody owns most things as a community, where the stronger members provide for the weaker, as needed etc. Marx used this as an inspiration for some of his thinking, but IMO Marxism is primarily an economic theory (which is in fact gaining more traction in recent years, since the financial crisis). Karl Marx famously once said, after meeting with a group of Socialists: "If that is Marxism, then I'm no Marxist" (or something to that effect) - so he certainly was aware, and disapproved, of the ways in which his name and work was being used politically; I doubt that he would have approved much of what they did in Russia and later in other places. He wasn't so much against capitalism, but he was severely critical of the excesses and the gross unfairness he saw as a result and predicted that it was inherently unstable and would lead to revolutions again and again. He wasn't wrong either.
Personally, I think a form of communism will eventually replace what we have now - that is, if we manage to reach a sustainable society with global peace; but I don't think it will come as a result of a minority forcing it on a majority - it must be a result of people's free choice. I can't see it happening in my lifetime, but you never know.
This should go through the court system. But at the same time we have free speech in the USA.
So either we do have free speech, or we don't.
Though I don't agree with Nazi's or most of the KKK, I do believe in free speech. If they have an "app", then they should be allowed to have it.
Tailoring rules to get it banned, that's not very nice. Some would say the KKK or Nazi's aren't very nice, but we can't save all misguided souls. Eventually they will dwindle into non-existence, that's a given.
I do hope this doesn't creep into other areas, and then after all programs are banned, we're left with facebook and twitter? What kind of crummy world is that...
Didn't say it was. Read the post and try again.
You're fucking joking, of course. The phrase "fake news" has absolutely no meaning anymore.
How many marxists do you think there are out there on the left? Its hilarious how right-wing racist nazi blowhards accuse anyone who isn't equally a disgusting racist of being a "communist". I don't think they know what the word means.
What is the "alt-left", exactly? Just because Hannity and Trump use a term, doesn't mean it has *any* meaning. The newly emboldened racist right has a bizarre habit of accusing anyone who isn't equally racist of being a communist, or being "alt-left".
Just because someone isn't a racist, doesn't make them a communist, LOL! And the term "alt-left" is as meaningless as the co-opted term "fake news".
so you are saying you should be forced to invite nazis to stay in your house? because last I heard, Google is not an arm of the government and saying that they have to allow facists to come on their platform is pretty much the equivalent of saying that the government can tell you that you have to accommodate them as well.
Communists are totalitarian mass murderers. Any decent, moral, reasonable person should hate them.
Fascism literally means the "binding together" of the people; it is defined through total government control over the economy and the people. Fascism, socialism, and communism are nearly identical ideologies, except that fascism replaces class conflicts with national conflicts. Mussolini, in fact, started out as an ardent communist, but then discovered that class conflicts just didn't work well in the relatively wealthy West.
Did you read the Popehat article they linked? He's a lawyer specializing in free speech cases. He's very, very good at this stuff.
In a nutshell, Brandenburg v. Ohio put severe limits on Schenck v. US - the famous case in which SCOTUS Justice Holmes enshrined the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy and the "clear and present danger" test for suppression of the First Amendment. In Schenck v. US, Schenck was convicted of obstructing the draft for just producing flyers encouraging people to talk to their legislators to rescind the draft. That's it. There was absolutely nothing, by modern standards, that would not be protected speech in his pamphlets.
So no, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and inciting a mass panic is not illegal unless a lot of other factors are in play. That bar was set way, way too low, and the SCOTUS started changing it only a few months after Schenck v. US, culminating in Brandeburg v. Ohio about 50 years later.
The Brandenburg v. Ohio decision specifically limits illegal speech to things that directly incite illegal actions. Perjury itself has been deemed an illegal action, so obviously that's not protected. Lying to federal officers is an example of a borderline case. It's currently illegal, and treated the same as perjury, but it's entirely possible that will change in the future (because if you think about it for 5 seconds, it's pretty ridiculous).
So, to relate this back to the discussion of hate speech, doing something like talking a person into attacking another person, no matter the reason, is not protected speech. Saying all Christians are murderers, however, is protected, because there is nothing there that is calling for someone to commit a crime.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
I hate to break it to you, but they were already being held liable for those sorts of things. The Common Carrier argument has always been selectively applied by the courts, and Google has been bent over a barrel several times because of it. The biggest example of this was a multi-billion dollar lawsuit brought by Viacom that Google almost lost because they weren't screening copyrighted material, even though they were complying with all DMCA take down notices as required by law.
The courts' position for internet companies has become "If it's technically possible for you to screen them, then you're responsible for what they do even if you don't screen anybody". A smaller company has a better argument for not being capable of this level of screening, but they don't buy it for a company like Google.
Google already doesn't get the protection they aught to get from CC status, so they screen to cover their asses as much as they can. They're kinda screwed either way.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Go ahead, try it dumbass. There are more people with guns who know how to use them in the US than there are people in your country, possibly the whole EU. That is not counting our military.
What are you waiting for? I dare you.