free speech Dissenter - The comment section of the internet - And a severe game-changer for free speech

[RejZoR]

56 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

So it's basically a troll honeypot? So anyone willing to throw their rageposts into the ocean of internet oblivion can do so even for sites without comment sections? Good, hopefully it keeps them off everywhere else. After all, that's what every comment section in every website has always been: a way to waste trolls' time (I think "engagement" is the euphemism used )

It is. You can comment on a video in this new platform? Great, but you could already comment videos everywhere you wanted. You could come to this forum and create a post about a video you love or dislike in the off-topic section (within CS, but you can always go somewhere else). It doesn't change the fact that disabled comments won't show for anyone not willingly using this platform, nor influence Youtube's algorithm, so no, turning comments off is as effective as it always was.

 

 <insert "cool story, bro" meme>

 

So I see the public service angle: websites are blindly dismantling our decentralized network of troll-time-wasting traps, so someone with a global vision had to step in to keep trolls safely trapped at their keyboards. It's not the hero we wanted, it's the hero we needed 

You really don't understand the concept of Dissenter, do you? With your logic you need to specifically come to a forum and find a specific video someone maybe commented on. With Dissenter, you get the comments on the exact video (or whatever for that matter). And its fucking hilarious to see people and companies piss their pants because Dissenter gives people unlimited power to talk about anything. Why are they so angry and butthurt, I mean, comments don't even appear on their webpage affecting their fragile dumb users. Would they get so pissy over said forum post as well? Of course not. But everything from Gab, they absolutely lose their shit.

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

With your logic you need to specifically come to a forum and find a specific video someone maybe commented on.

You also have to specifically use Dissenter . Dissenter is just an integrated forum with quick methods to create/start topics, sure it's a large increase in usability over a typical forum but you still actually have to use Dissenter.

[Drak3]

18 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

You really don't understand the concept of Dissenter, do you? With your logic you need to specifically come to a forum and find a specific video someone maybe commented on. With Dissenter, you get the comments on the exact video (or whatever for that matter). And its fucking hilarious to see people and companies piss their pants because Dissenter gives people unlimited power to talk about anything. Why are they so angry and butthurt, I mean, comments don't even appear on their webpage affecting their fragile dumb users. Would they get so pissy over said forum post as well? Of course not. But everything from Gab, they absolutely lose their shit.

Fascists hate and fear free speech and free thought. That’s why these people hate Gab, and the concept of Dissenter.

[leadeater]

33 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Fascists hate and fear free speech and free thought. That’s why these people hate Gab, and the concept of Dissenter.

I mean I get what you are saying but Fascism is an ultra-nationalism ideology, wouldn't Marxism be more fitting? I mean you'd never see a Fascist get all up in arms over people making perceived racist remarks. If there was a name for ultra-Internationalism then I'd say it's that, if it had a name.

[Drak3]

44 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I mean I get what you are saying but Fascism is an ultra-nationalism ideology, wouldn't Marxism be more fitting? I mean you'd never see a Fascist get all up in arms over people making perceived racist remarks. If there was a name for ultra-Internationalism then I'd say it's that, if it had a name.

Fascism is an ideology that combines socialism with authortarian government. It carries a fundimental component of silencing all political views not like its own. Fascism is inherently and violently against personal freedoms, including freedom of speech. Old Fascist governments were also Nationalist, but that's not a core component of Fascism.

 

So yes, those that think sites like Gab should be silenced, and try to silence them with alander and propaganda (calling them far right), are Fascists.

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Fascism is an ideology that combines socialism with authortarian government. It carries a fundimental component of silencing all political views not like its own. Fascism is inherently and violently against personal freedoms, including freedom of speech. Old Fascist governments were also Nationalist, but that's not a core component of Fascism.

 

So yes, those that think sites like Gab should be silenced, and try to silence them with alander and propaganda (calling them far right), are Fascists.

Charles Maurras would say otherwise.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Fascism is an ideology that combines socialism with authortarian government. It carries a fundimental component of silencing all political views not like its own. Fascism is inherently and violently against personal freedoms, including freedom of speech. Old Fascist governments were also Nationalist, but that's not a core component of Fascism.

 

So yes, those that think sites like Gab should be silenced, and try to silence them with alander and propaganda (calling them far right), are Fascists.

That's just... wrong.  As in, if you claimed this in a report for a political sciences class, you probably wouldn't pass.

 

Fascism and communism (the extreme of socialism) can be uncomfortably close at times, but they're still polar opposites in many ways.  Fascism effectively treats the country like a corporation, supports private property and believes in extreme nationalism, militarism and "traditional" family roles with a religious bent.  It's designed to grant full authority to a charismatic leader.  Communism may place everything under the control of the state, but in its 'ideal' form is effectively stateless and emphasizes equality above all.  And socialism is a less extreme version of that.

 

I don't think Gab should be silenced, but don't pretend that it's some noble defender of free speech... no, it's where you go if you've been kicked off of other social networks, want to live in a right-wing bubble, or both.

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, Commodus said:

As in, if you claimed this in a report for a political sciences class, you probably wouldn't pass

1. I wouldn't pass because I don't agree with leftist ideas.
2. PolSci classes are far from good examples for what is correct and incorrect.

 

11 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Fascism effectively treats the country like a corporation

So does socialism and communism in the real world. That's the only way any of them can work for the extremely short time that they do work.

 

12 minutes ago, Commodus said:

supports private property

"Private," until the government decides that it is government owned. The closest thing to actual private ownership in Fascism is what the government allows you to own.

 

15 minutes ago, Commodus said:

believes in extreme nationalism

No. There have been Fascist governments that do, but it is not requisite.

 

16 minutes ago, Commodus said:

traditional" family roles with a religious bent. 

Again, not requisite.

[Master Delta Chief]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

So yes, those that think sites like Gab should be silenced, and try to silence them with alander and propaganda (calling them far right), are Fascists.

Are you trying to say that when people are telling others that such sites or forums like Dissenter that potentially could harbour comments that might seem extreme, inappropriate or harmful, fascists? That doesn't sound right. Personally I don't think sites like these should be outright banned, however people that do visit these platforms should be recommended to stay away from it. It's still their choice on whether they will continue or not. As I said in one of my previous statements: I think that people tend to take almost everything political, and that's just bad.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, Master Delta Chief said:

Are you trying to say that when people are telling others that such sites or forums like Dissenter that potentially could harbour comments that might seem extreme, inappropriate or harmful, fascists?

When it's because it's "far right," it's trying to silence the platform by way of discreditting them not on merit of ideas, but assassination of character.

[Nowak]

4 hours ago, Commodus said:

That's just... wrong.  As in, if you claimed this in a report for a political sciences class, you probably wouldn't pass.

 

Fascism and communism (the extreme of socialism) can be uncomfortably close at times, but they're still polar opposites in many ways.  Fascism effectively treats the country like a corporation, supports private property and believes in extreme nationalism, militarism and "traditional" family roles with a religious bent.  It's designed to grant full authority to a charismatic leader.  Communism may place everything under the control of the state, but in its 'ideal' form is effectively stateless and emphasizes equality above all.  And socialism is a less extreme version of that.

He's probably getting that idea because the full, legal name of the Nazi Party was the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party), which is a rather disingenuous argument because if that were true then Hitler wouldn't have imprisoned socialists and considered them "enemies" as well.

[Commodus]

35 minutes ago, Nowak said:

He's probably getting that idea because the full, legal name of the Nazi Party was the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party), which is a rather disingenuous argument because if that were true then Hitler wouldn't have imprisoned socialists and considered them "enemies" as well.

Quite possibly.  I'm always baffled by that... do they think North Korea is a democracy because it's in the name, too?

[Nowak]

4 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Quite possibly.  I'm always baffled by that... do they think North Korea is a democracy because it's in the name, too?

I'm sure that North Korea is a sterling example of democracy.

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, Nowak said:

Hitler wouldn't have imprisoned socialists and considered them "enemies" as well.

Fascism is totalitarian socialism. It makes sence to imprison those that don't agree with the totalitarian aspect.

[Master Delta Chief]

5 hours ago, Drak3 said:

When it's because it's "far right," it's trying to silence the platform by way of discreditting them not on merit of ideas, but assassination of character.

I wouldn't say that's the case. If sites like these are known for their extremist behavior, people have the right to denounce and criticize the platform and discourage people for visiting it. Plus, I also meant it from all political perspectives, not only the 'far-right'

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, Master Delta Chief said:

If sites like these are known for their extremist behavior

Except these sites aren't actually partaking in the claimed behavior. It's being propagated that they are.

[leadeater]

34 minutes ago, Master Delta Chief said:

I wouldn't say that's the case. If sites like these are known for their extremist behavior, people have the right to denounce and criticize the platform and discourage people for visiting it. Plus, I also meant it from all political perspectives, not only the 'far-right'

Extremists, terrorists etc don't have a political affiliation, or religious, they are evil people exploiting whatever they can. Whatever gets them the outcome they want they will exploit, be it race supremacy, religious or social they don't actually believe in it, uphold the values of them so we shouldn't label any such person as 'far-right' or 'far-left'.

 

Once you start talking about political views of these people and label them as one side or the other you marginalize and devalue all people of that view point. There isn't anything specifically wrong about wanting low immigration and migration rates, protecting national traditions etc but neither is there anything wrong with accepting higher immigration and migration rates or integrating other cultures. These are just differences in opinions and values, neither of which is more right than the other. 

[RejZoR]

15 hours ago, Master Delta Chief said:

I wouldn't say that's the case. If sites like these are known for their extremist behavior, people have the right to denounce and criticize the platform and discourage people for visiting it. Plus, I also meant it from all political perspectives, not only the 'far-right'

Twitter and Fecesbook are the nests of islamists, terrorists and other lunatics who livestream torture and murders there and you don't see anyone running around doing mass panic and demand their shutdown or even terminating their pay processors like they are doing around Gab just because few people with "wrong" opinions are on them. It's ridiculous. But we all know Twitter and Fecesbook are leftist havens who pander to leftists on every possible step and thus they get the immunity card. Also they are big and established where Gab is a newcomer.

[Mihle]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Twitter and Fecesbook are the nests of islamists, terrorists and other lunatics who livestream torture and murders there and you don't see anyone running around doing mass panic and demand their shutdown or even terminating their pay processors like they are doing around Gab just because few people with "wrong" opinions are on them. It's ridiculous. But we all know Twitter and Fecesbook are leftist havens who pander to leftists on every possible step and thus they get the immunity card. Also they are big and established where Gab is a newcomer.

Facebook and Twitter is at least trying to block stuff like that. Its harder than you think, they rely quite heavily on users reporting the stuff (or algorithm, but its ofc far from good enough), and when they get blocked they just create new users and continue doing it... 

I bet Gab will never become mainstream, even if facebook and twitter dies completely.

[Ruckus42]

Oh boy, people just got pushed further into the shadows. Dissenter has been removed from the Google Web Store and the Firefox Add-on page. I'm seeing some real authoritarian nightmare coming from the left with this, and it can't possibly end well: 

 

[RejZoR]

3 hours ago, Ruckus42 said:

Oh boy, people just got pushed further into the shadows. Dissenter has been removed from the Google Web Store and the Firefox Add-on page. I'm seeing some real authoritarian nightmare coming from the left with this, and it can't possibly end well: 

 

To no ones surprise, of course it happened. Can't have challenging views and opinions. What they say must be the final word, even if people are talking and commenting on a separate layer outside of the webpage. I am disapointed that Mozilla did this though. I guess enough of butthurt hardline leftists are in their organization...

[RejZoR]

On 3/20/2019 at 4:13 PM, Mihle said:

Facebook and Twitter is at least trying to block stuff like that. Its harder than you think, they rely quite heavily on users reporting the stuff (or algorithm, but its ofc far from good enough), and when they get blocked they just create new users and continue doing it... 

I bet Gab will never become mainstream, even if facebook and twitter dies completely.

Gab also censors and blocks actual criminal or illegal stuff and gives you bunch of tools to deal with annoying people if you wish so yourself, but they don't enforce platform wide "Ai" bullshit filters to punish people en mass and they don't censor challenging opinions. Good luck with that on any hardcore leftist platform like Facebook, Twitter and the likes...

[RejZoR]

45 minutes ago, Sampsy said:

This is literally just unmoderated comments, nothing more. We all know how well that works.

 

Except no it isn't, because not only that, this is only useful for those who can't chat using the normal functionality because they would get banned. So that will make up the vast majority of users.

 

Dissenter does not exist to protect free speech - that is just another transparent lie the far right uses as a shield to dismiss criticism. It exists to create an echo chamber of extremist conversation not allowed elsewhere - racism, death threats etc

"Creates echo chamber." By allowing people to have different opinion than on the platform which censors/bans different opinions. Dude, what? Death threats? To whom? Dissenter is a separate layer that doesn't modify or touches the original platform. People between them literally have absolutely no contact. You're the kind of person that keeps spreading bullshit about Gab which then gets banned everywhere because companies like Google and Apple bend over to pressure of butthurt snowflakes in their safe space echo chambers. You're the problem, not Gab or people on it.

 

People call me all sorts of shit because I don't just believe what people say, I go and check it myself, even if that means listening to fucking Richard Spencer's speech. How can I do that on Twitter or Facebook when they just straight up ban, censor and remove differenting or controversial opinions? That's why I'm on Gab, because I like to hear what people say on the other end too. It's why I'm strong opponent to censorship and coddling of people in their own safe space echo chambers. Ideas and opinions, no matter what they are need to exist and need to be challenged. Censoring words won't magically make actions, behavior or attitude of some people just go away. You don't see them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And worst of all, they never get challenged as a result. Banning place where they gather is NOT a solution. That's just pure ignorance and it's doing more harm than good. But hey, whatever, go on banning them and just making them more angry and more determined. That'll show them for sure! Where challenging ideas may convince people that their thinking might not be the best way. That doesn't sound too logical to you does it?

[Drak3]

8 hours ago, RejZoR said:

To no ones surprise, of course it happened. Can't have challenging views and opinions. What they say must be the final word, even if people are talking and commenting on a separate layer outside of the webpage. I am disapointed that Mozilla did this though. I guess enough of butthurt hardline leftists are in their organization...

Didn't their last CEO have Mozilla donating to domestic leftist terrorist organization Anitfa?

 

It's more shocking that they didn't do it immediately.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Didn't their last CEO have Mozilla donating to domestic leftist terrorist organization Anitfa?

 

It's more shocking that they didn't do it immediately.

Could be. Not aware of it.