Home » Controversial Topics » Politics » Does the Internet need a town square.

Does the Internet need a town square.

February 4th, 2021 at 6:14:50 PM permalink

Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 189
Posts: 18775

I found this post which is almost 2 years old on another site.

Quote:
In the context of this online landscape, Facebook operates as the internet’s largest virtual private country club. And like any private club, it reserves the right to both maintain its own code of conduct and take punitive action against any member who chooses to violate that code.

In the physical world, when someone is exiled from a private establishment for expressing a controversial idea or making an offensive remark, that person can simply move to a sidewalk, open-air park, or some other public place where they can continue to communicate their message to anyone who is willing to listen. But there are no sidewalks on the internet. There are no parks where demonstrators can gather to share their conspiracy theories or voice their collective displeasure with the political establishment. There are no street corners for the preachers to loiter around while they shout the sacred words of their holy texts to agitated passersby.

Simply put, there’s no online refuge for unpopular speech that can never be taken away at the whim of a domain hosting company like GoDaddy or cast off into some remote corner of the web by a search engine like Google. With a collective, Thanos-esque snap of their gauntleted fingers, the titans of tech could vanquish you from the web altogether at any moment of their choosing.

https://ordinary-times.com/2019/05/09/the-internet-needs-a-town-square/

My question is, does the Internet need a town square and does Qanon and Al Qaeda, ANTIFA speech need to be left online? Or any other radical group? Why would you ban one and not the others?

Personally, I'm not seeing a lot of difference in results from people who threaten actual violence versus results of people who constantly try to undermine and create suspicion about what people in power are doing. Or maybe what I'm pointing out, is one doesn't have to directly attack something to create violence, just keep casting doubt on it until other people do it for you.

You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?

February 4th, 2021 at 6:46:20 PM permalink

terapined

Member since: Aug 6, 2014
Threads: 73
Posts: 11820

Quote: rxwine
I found this post which is almost 2 years old on another site.

https://ordinary-times.com/2019/05/09/the-internet-needs-a-town-square/

My question is, does the Internet need a town square and does Qanon and Al Qaeda, ANTIFA speech need to be left online? Or any other radical group? Why would you ban one and not the others?

Personally, I'm not seeing a lot of difference in results from people who threaten actual violence versus results of people who constantly try to undermine and create suspicion about what people in power are doing. Or maybe what I'm pointing out, is one doesn't have to directly attack something to create violence, just keep casting doubt on it until other people do it for you.

The internet itself is a town square
You can stand on a street corner
You can create a web site
Its pretty easy. I used to have one. It was simply a list of my live music collection
Maybe you get an audience on a street corner, maybe you dont
Same with a web page
Or you can still use the internet and create a list of emails to send a blast out
Thats a common way to get your message out. Maybe to common due to so much junk mail but it is a solution.
If the Wizard wants to use his free speech, he probably comes here or at WOV
If I want to check out Alex Jones, I'm not going to a social media site, I'm going to his website

I go to FB to catch up with my friends and to show off pics from my travels.
Thats it
I'm not there for politics or news

Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World"

February 5th, 2021 at 2:42:38 AM permalink
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18221	I kind of see Facebook, et al eventually being declared "common carriers" and will not be allowed to censor only what they disagree with. Though Facebook is past it's prime. Few people under 30 use it and competitors without their censorship culture are popping up. That Facebook has not banned BLM shows it is not about violence but thought Facebook does not like. The President is a fink.

February 5th, 2021 at 5:27:21 AM permalink

Tanko

Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 0
Posts: 1988

Quote: rxwine
My question is, does the Internet need a town square and does Qanon and Al Qaeda, ANTIFA speech need to be left online? Or any other radical group? Why would you ban one and not the others?

They only use the Internet for the communications they want the world to see. They use encrypted social media like Signal and Telegram for the secret communications. Due to their technology, the only user information they have, is the account user’s phone number, last connection date, and account creation date.

February 5th, 2021 at 6:30:39 AM permalink

terapined

Member since: Aug 6, 2014
Threads: 73
Posts: 11820

Quote: Tanko
They only use the Internet for the communications they want the world to see. They use encrypted social media like Signal and Telegram for the secret communications. Due to their technology, the only user information they have, is the account user’s phone number, last connection date, and account creation date.

So that's what the right wing extremists are using in their plans to attack the USA. Why were they crying about Parler?

Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World"