So the site suggestion thread got me thinking about things. Remember when the internet was more wild west? A place where safe spaces didn't exist and speech wasn't sanitized? If you didn't like what you were reading or someone was saying something you didn't like, the simple advice was 'turn off your computer'.
Now we've got a watered down version. Places where anything that doesn't suit the sites (left leaning) agenda is quickly deleted i.e. facebook and twitter. Big tech and advertising have more sway than our own governments do and continue to strengthen their march toward monopoly. Sites like Parler get taken down as they are a threat. Yet the Australian government too, can and has blocked all sorts of sites with no consequence. There's not many places people can go anymore to express free thought and speech without any constraint. We need less censorship not more of it and at the core I think it's because we are trying to protect people's "feelings". People should harden the fuck up and stop being Karens offended over everything. The biggest offenders are the ones who are offended for some other group, to show their virtue.
Where do you see things going? It's getting harder to live a life without being connected to the internet. The more we need the internet to live the more we are moving to a social credit system. It won't be long until people will be to scared to say even the minor wrong thing let alone speaking a free thought out aloud.
Do you want this to be a post rather than a forum item?
@peachy Sure. I just posted it as a discussion but you can make it a post if that will get more exposure/open debate.
ill save my response in case this gets made into a blog post
DD is confusing freedom of speech with ideological dickheads that will systematically destroy every conversation based on political persuasion. Imagine an army of twats downvoting everything you have to say into oblivion, or spam ridiculing every single thing you have to say. It is not freedom of speech, and it won't be them switching off their computers.
Be careful what you wish for.
@freddy that's actually what his argument was. you may "technically" have freedom of speech, but at the same time you really don't have it; if you're not free to say what you want without getting fired, having your posts removed, being deplatformed and unpersoned, you don't really have "freedom of speech". according to the logic of these ppl, just because its a bunch of private entities ruining your life as opposed to the govt for having the 'wrong' opinions, thererfore its ok.
i call it the DrSmithy freedom of speech - you're technically free to say it, but we're going to ruin your life if you do -- so you're really not. therre's almost no functional difference between this conception of free speech and no legal freedom of speech at all.
we don't even HAVE legal freedom of speech in australia, there's no guaranteed right to anything here. even if we did, judges play fast and loose with our guaranteed rights all the timne -- look at how they basically disregarded the constitutional right to interstate commerce/travel last year.
@stagmal DD talking about removing constraints. I am saying that some constraints are needed to prevent the ideologues from controlling the content.
Case in point is DD's idea to allow downvotes to make comments disappear. The last thing I want is all of Stewie's comments to disappear because his admirers have written some software to systematically downvote and hide his content.
he was in the other thread but not this thread, he seems to be saying the opposite here and i agree w him
To be clear I made this post as something I've been thinking about for a while and thought it would spark some discussion. It's got nothing to do with the down vote thing. More to do with the 8 chan vs reddit thing. The ethos of a site like ezfka and regardless of what someone might think there is some sort of rules here. It's not a lawless chan image board where everyone is anonymous. Which brings me back to my original post, the internet has been sanitised and speech is controlled via moderator censorship or self censorship. Cancel culture is a thing. How can people have an open discussion/debate about topics such as immigration or gender issues without being called a racist or having their posts taken down? I see this issue getting worse.
I will take a stab at splitting multiple issues:
1) Law. You either respect it or you don't. I presume Peachy would be forced to shut this site down if people started posting pedo pics, or making seditious or defamatory comments. If you truly want that level of freedom then why not stick with 8chan?
2) Cancel Culture. I think this contradicts your desire for #1. If you genuinely want freedom of speech without moderation then why would you then complain about "being called a racist"? and this fits into my point about some moderation needed to prevent armies of dickheads trying to shutdown conversation in the first place.
3) Monopolised social media. It obviously becomes susceptible to political bias. I'd like to see an antitrust suit against all big social media sites. It should all be a common property communication medium like email, and you choose a provider to host your content.
1) Law. You either respect it or you don't. I presume Peachy would be forced to shut this site down if people started posting pedo pics, or making seditious or defamatory comments. If you truly want that level of freedom then why not stick with 8chan?
The law still has to be respected on sites like that, as it should. What I'm talking about isn't freedom to post pedo pics or defamatory comments. Pedo pics are against the law everywhere and rock spiders engaging in that shit should be chemically castrated imo.
2) Cancel Culture. I think this contradicts your desire for #1. If you genuinely want freedom of speech without moderation then why would you then complain about "being called a racist"? and this fits into my point about some moderation needed to prevent armies of dickheads trying to shutdown conversation in the first place.
Calling someone racist/Hitler for things that aren't even racist is not freedom of speech. It's a tactic used to strong arm people with opposing views into silence.
In regards to having a balanced/level headed discussion about immigration, the pros, the cons and if it's working? Is that even possible on a forum like twitter without the twitterati screaming racist, doxing people and getting them fired/kicked out of uni etc?
Remember when the internet was more wild west? A place where safe spaces didn't exist and speech wasn't sanitized? If you didn't like what you were reading or someone was saying something you didn't like, the simple advice was 'turn off your computer'.
A bit conflicting
Safe space was behind that little X button (usually) in the top rhs corner of that window.
But emotional distress at smallest disagreeance and desire for revenge could not allow that.
I signed up hotmail when one needed just another(disposable) email address. That model is long dead
Long live EZFKA.com and its pseudo anonymity.
Perhaps it is that strong radiant quartz heater at the reception door (that makes snowflakes melt before they can enter) that makes this place free to express whatevs view.
Blokes, I think that you’ve managed, between yourselves, to get a good handle on what a sensible environment might be and where lines need to be drawn.
here is my take, for what it’s worth:
#1 - I’m here to have fun.
#2 - For me fun is sharing my own rants and interacting with people who have considered opinions and share them, either as their own rants or as comments.
so
- I don’t want anyone to sit down and write a rule book or a policy (that’s no fun - refer #1)
- I don’t want anyone to play moderator (that’s no fun - refer #1)
- I don’t want anyone to deal with legal issues (that’s no fun - refer #1)
- I want people to come and post interesting, thoughtful or funny comments (refer #2)
- I don’t want to have to wade through inane shit (#2)
A completely wild space would be a shallow puddle of profane pap from which any thoughtful or interesting discussion would quickly evaporate. So I’m hoping we don’t end up there.
I’d propose this place can be thought of this way: once you walk past the radiant heater at the entrance, you find yourself in a small town pub.
Everyone is there to have fun
It’s more fun when there are people there, compared to being alone
Who you are doesn’t really matter - some people are square accountant types, some are fairly rough and disheveled.
However, there is a range of acceptable behaviour and it runs approximately from “salt of the earth” to “a bit of a dickhead”. Anyone beyond that range - bloke who wants to act like a total dickhead or a complete cunt is not going to be welcomed by the blokes at the bar.
t's a tactic used to strong arm people with opposing views into silence.
Which is speech, that they wish to make. and would be free to do so if speech was free.
In regards to having a balanced/level headed discussion about immigration, the pros, the cons and if it's working? Is that even possible on a forum like twitter without the twitterati screaming racist, doxing people and getting them fired/kicked out of uni etc?
Is it possible in australia not online? In MSM? anywhere really?
How good is Weekend Links this week? Lots of valuable and respectful discussion going on. We even have so called Progressives wheeling out homophobic and misogynist slurs. It's a classic.
1. https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/
2. Delussional Macro economics
same links but 2 is behind "<a href=....>....</a>": codes (ways to make links behind word(s) )
<a href= https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/>Delusional Macro economics</a>
@djenka My guess is it doesn't like multiple links to the same website.
But it's just a guess, and I don't think the href will make a difference but feel free to experiment and let us know the results:)
