Message from @bitels
Discord ID: 488015090944180244
i really hope not
I only use it to check up once in a while to see if hes in a costume or at a public event
lol
If he gains attention again they'll push for it
and he will
yeaaaa
Welll, lets wait and see what our godemperor will do...
@Schedrevka
I was just about to post that.
It reveals several things:
1) The hard sciences and math are far from immune from the censorship and social justice activism that's dominating academia (something I could tell you firsthand, though many wouldn't believe me)
2) People *are* being censored and the NSF is hardly fair in any of this
3) Intimidation works.
4) This has been remarkably silent for the controversy it should be--I haven't heard anything about it from Inside Higher Ed or the Chronicle of Higher Ed, both of which would have been on something like this from the start.
5) The University of Chicago and Principles of Free Expression mean nothing without a cultural commitment to them in practice (@Beemann )
6) The academy is every bit more corrupt than you might expect. Ever wonder why the science seems to go in one direction? Now you know.
7) The possibility an article might get picked up "in the right wing press" is sufficient to get the research pulled. What does this reveal about the ideological inclinations of the academy and the argument that "the sciences are more right wing and balanced"
@Jewknows They've already DDOS'd his website. And Cloudflare has been doing some sketchy stuff. It's only a matter of time before he's removed from DNS.
Google and Apple already removed Gab from their app stores months ago.
This is why we needed to be regulating these places yesterday. You can't make alternatives to appeal to anyone when there's so many gatekeepers and network effects are so strong. Imagine if Microsoft could limit what you installed on your computer. That's essentially what is happening with Android and iOS.
@Stefan Payne Honestly, I've come to the conclusion he'll do nothing. And the mealy-eyed Republicans will do nothing. And the Democrats will cheer and enshrine the censorship into law and go after any remaining channels people might have (like this one).
We're approaching the situation where we *must* look into how people have fought in the past and take those kinds of steps *now*.
One thing I think needs to happen. Everyone needs to quit mulling around over political compass tests and whining online and decide what they are: free speech radicals and start behaving as a unified block if we are going to fight back on any of this.
@pratel how about we remove section 230 before you add more regulation
open these fuckers up to lawsuits for what is on their platforms, but only IF they moderate them.
I think the two that left were man haters or the like if I rmemeber
No no no, they we're diversity advocates
They didn't hate men, they just blame them for everything bad in the world.
Ahh
Rip
I belive at least on the those ppl were defending panel at Pax which is woman and non-binary only event
And he wasnt nice while defending it
That panel is discriminatory and shouldn't have happened
though we are talking about exclusionary things, not inclusionary shit
Ill try and find more evidence then just a tweet
Honestly fuck the EU. Thank kek for Brexit.
@Grenade123 You remove section 230 and they go absolutely nuts on the censorship. There would now be a financial incentive to always play safe. Plus, the SPLC specializes in lawsuits until an organization folds, do you not see where this would go?
The removal of SESTA and FOSTA is what spurred the mass banning of stuff like the alcohol trade group and various gun groups on Reddit.
It was blocked due to “intolerance”. That category does not come with the software the rest stop uses, it had to be manually added.
I'm not sure framing it as 'conservative ' is going to do them any favours.
@pratel why would they censor with places like the SPLC? when all they would have to do is stop moderating posts all together and be safe from lawsuits?
the whole reason 230 was even brought into law is because a website wanted its cake and eat it too. They wanted to be an editor with the protection of a library
removing 230 means they need to either play it so safe no one uses it, or they don't censor and keep being safe from lawsuits
their choice would be unban alex jones or ban basically half of all blue checkmarks, even trump.
and SESTA/FOSTA didn't open them up to lawsuits, it opened them up to criminal reasonability with jail time. Also that was more legislation, not less.
No one would block the SPLC, that's suicide.
No, the SPLC would find something it didn't like and just start filing lawsuits at everyone. The SPLC is rich enough they could just harrass--even with lawsuits they might not win--to force places, especially smaller platforms, to act as they would like.
230 clearly isn't being used that way. Mostly it just prevents them from being liable for what other people post. I like the idea of decalring that 230 protections require you to then host everyone, but that's clearly not happening now. I don't think repealing 230 is going to just help. It's just going to make all the platforms more scared and more censorious.
Them banning half of blue checkmarks isn't going to happen. Ever. Most blue checkmarks are too famous for that. And you're going to sue CNN for what exactly? And how do you plan to do it?
Jail time is worse, but at some level you're arguing technicalities and "more or less legislation" isn't really that worth arguing over.
@Poppy Rider Sure, but what is anyone going to do about it?