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

[Gareque]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

True, sad and very difficult to address in a way that will have results. I find it difficult to think of many measures that can be taken against online actions that don't also carry rather large implications to the use of the internet as a whole, one of the great things about the internet is the ease of access to information and the spread of it but that is in turn one of the problems too. I'm left with hoping that as time passes, because the internet age is actually not that old, that maturity and self responsibility and self regulation will come to pass and we can view this era as the 'internet dark age' and move on from it.

Perhaps you're right, but to be completely honest, I can't see how that would come about of its own accord.

 

I do not say this as a thing against kids, but let's be honest here, even when we were young we did stupid things, including to see how far we could push the boundaries and that was not always done in ways that wouldn't have ramifications.  So there's that for one.

 

Second is that there is currently an infuriating belief in the world at the moment and this is in no way relative purely to the internet.  This is the belief that someone's opinion in a field they have no experience in can somehow, on some level, measure up to that of an expert in the same field and be held on the same level.  You see it in TV interviews as well.

 

The problem with the internet is it gives a whole range of people that would never have an opportunity to voice such things, the ability to do so.  This is why you have things like growing support for things like flat earth which currently don't seem dangerous, just stupid...  But as misinformation grows...

 

Problem is, like you say, how to handle the spread of misinformation is not an easy thing to tackle.

[Ruckus42]

On 3/14/2019 at 4:49 PM, Gareque said:

There is an enormous difference between causing offence and saying something that would otherwise be a crime or hate speak.

 

Someone can tell me whatever the hell they like, I don't get offended easily.  But, on the other hand, if they tell me that they are going to track down my IP and kill my son, that's not causing offence, that's a threat.  It's 'still' just words however, so are you saying that kind of thing should be acceptable?

 

And that's where my point comes in to it.  Being behind a keyboard should 'not' mean that you are free of consequence for your actions.  Look at the terrorist groups recruiting people through social media.  Should that be allowed unfettered?

 

Whilst all these things are opposed in civilised society, to allow them would be true freedom of speech.  Which would you prefer?  A world that allows threats against your loved ones in a variety of ways? Or one where such actions have legal ramifications? Because if someone stopped me in the middle of the street and threatened me, you'd be damn sure there are consequences, why should online be any different?

 

Same goes with racism and any other form of prejudism.

Nope, those things are illegal; Threats, incitement of violence... They shouldn't be allowed on any platform.

 

But I'm talking about things that are far from illegal or promotion of illegal activity. There are simple opinions that some people are offended by very easily. Those things should not be banned just because a fragile person says so.

 

How do you define hate speech? It's very hard. What if I accused you of hate speech for this message you sent? And what if the "believe the victim" mentality is all that matters? Then you're banned for simply bringing valid points to a conversation.

[Ruckus42]

20 hours ago, TetraSky said:

So we know where anti-vaxxers and other crazies will go to now that they had their soapboxes taken away.

It's not good to take peoples access to discussion away. You push them into the shadows where they find others they agree with. An echo chamber. And that's how you get radicalized. Better to keep them engaged in conversation with smart people who might change their minds. I was personally a hardcore conspiracy theorist. After hundreds of lengthy conversations, I've become much, much more sensible in my thought processes. And now I see people in the same trap I used to be in. And I want to help them out of it.

[Gareque]

5 hours ago, Ruckus42 said:

Nope, those things are illegal; Threats, incitement of violence... They shouldn't be allowed on any platform.

 

But I'm talking about things that are far from illegal or promotion of illegal activity. There are simple opinions that some people are offended by very easily. Those things should not be banned just because a fragile person says so.

 

How do you define hate speech? It's very hard. What if I accused you of hate speech for this message you sent? And what if the "believe the victim" mentality is all that matters? Then you're banned for simply bringing valid points to a conversation.

I agree with what you're saying, you are definitely correct in that a person should never be banned or punished for an opinion.  Even if that opinion is racist, sexist or otherwise.  After all, it's very difficult to actively think differently than is natural to you.  There's a very fine line between when it goes from acceptable to unacceptable and I can certainly understand why there's confusion.

 

For me, and I am in no way an expert on these matters, so this is going purely by what makes sense to me; Hate speech should be something considered when your words actively aim to bring about harm or to infringe on the rights of others, regardless of the underlying reason.

 

For example, I do not have issue with someone who says "I hate gay people".  I might question 'why' they do, but all in all, that in itself is their opinion, it's not hate speech and if someone who's gay doesn't like it, too bad I guess.  They don't have to try and get along after all.  On the otherhand, if someone uses said dislike to try and rally people against them, that's well beyond the line.  Obviously an extreme case, but you get the idea.

 

I think a big problem at the moment is online bullying, for example.  Things that this dissenter program would allow in spades.

 

If someone is targeting you, the mantra 'sticks and stones etc...' goes so far, but after a while, words or not, things will wear people down.  They 'can' have disastrous consequences as has been proven in the past, particularly where people are not mentally stable to begin with.  For some, it's simply not that easy.  The options for avoiding (rather than ignoring) it are fairly limited:

 

1 - Block the person from your view if you are able to do so

2 - Avoid the platform altogether

 

I might well be wrong and there may be other ways I can't think of.  But imagine for the second point if someone told a child being bullied at school to just not go to school anymore.  It wouldn't fly, so why should it online?  This becomes more of a problem as the world becomes more and more dependant on the internet.

As for the second option, whilst sure the whole dissenter program may be used with better intentions of avoiding people wildly swinging the ban hammer, it will also be used by those who want to relentlessly torment people and they could potentially have no way of avoiding it other than just not using the platform.

 

It's a double edged blade and one that unfortunately, you physically cannot protect people 'and' allow total freedom, because there will always be those who abuse that freedom for their own agenda or to justify their actions, regardless of how vile they may be.

 

I remember a story not long ago about a schoolgirl who killed herself after being bullied at school, then those same people would target her online.  That's the kind of thing that could potentially become more of an issue with programs like these and for that reason, I just cannot accept it as a good thing, just so that people can tell strongly aligned political people that their views are pathetic.  It's not worth the trade off.

 

Apologies, did not mean to go on that long lol!

[RejZoR]

I've been on a Gab for a while after ditching all the shitty mainstream social networks. And Dissenter is a really clever design. It takes WOT (Web Of Trust) idea and focuses on comments instead of webpage rating, but you can still use it for that too. It was so amusing watching dumb people meltdown because they thought Dissenter somehow injects comments into the webpage even if they ban certain user from commenting. LOL That's not how Dissenter works lol. Dissenter places a comment layer on top of any URL basically. If there is an URL you can comment on it. They can lock down comment sections all they want, it can't stop people from talking about things.

 

Also people need to stop confusing censorship and illegal content. Gab still complies with severe things that are globally considered illegal or beyond tasteful. Calling someone an idiot isn't one of them. Neither is being aligned politically to the right a reason to get censored, silenced or banned. Which is what basically all major mainstream platforms started doing. But that sweet narrative of calling Gab as a place where only racist far right Christian white supremacists are talking...

 

Even if you don't talk about any politics, I find Dissenter a very useful tool to just comment on whatever you like online.

[Sauron]

On 3/14/2019 at 5:37 AM, Ruckus42 said:

Someone might be a Trump supporter and someone might say they hate Trump, but then they interact and they realize the other person's not that bad.

Or they just have a shouting match with name calling and only end up hating each other more. Seriously, this person sounds like they've never been on the internet - or are particularly salty that their "opinion" is considered obnoxious by the rest of civilization and are desperately looking to present this as anything other than an insufferable circlejerk.

On 3/14/2019 at 5:48 AM, Arika S said:

really wish people would stop using "far-right" as a way to discredit everything.

When people write "far right" in this way they mean nazis. If your website is primarily used by nazis it probably doesn't deserve a lot of credit. Let's not defend nazism as if it were a valid "opinion". If you had to pick a bar to go to, would you go to the one with skinheads as regular customers?

On 3/14/2019 at 5:37 AM, Ruckus42 said:

Dissenter allows you to comment on any web page, anywhere, anytime, regardless. So if you think turning off comments on your YouTube video is effective, it's not.

It is effective, because you don't have to dive into that sea of trash whenever you open your video. Who cares if someone, somewhere is commenting obnoxious garbage on my content if I'll never see it... they might as well be writing that comment on a piece of paper for all I care.

On 3/14/2019 at 5:49 AM, Ruckus42 said:

Agreed. It's a social network open to everyone. If you want it to lean further left, get a bunch of lefties signed up.

That doesn't work because if you let intolerant people have their way they'll start bullying everyone else off the platform. Moderation isn't there to gate people off, it's there to prevent harmful behaviors to both individual members and the community as a whole. Nobody is banning "the right", they are banning people who act racist or what have you... it just so happens that most of these people tend to be right wing. What a coincidence.

On 3/14/2019 at 6:07 AM, Ruckus42 said:

I want to know, have any of you heard of Dissenter before now? Have you installed it? There are side chats happening on a lot of YouTube videos, twitter feeds, etc. For example, in the video I linked in the OP. I can even comment on this page. And LTT can't stop it. I could say ANYTHING. But I won't because I'm nice like that.

Hadn't heard of it and I don't plan on ever checking it out. I like the forum as it is and I don't feel the need of spewing bile on any internet page.

[Stefan Payne]

23 hours ago, leadeater said:

True, sad and very difficult to address in a way that will have results. 

Its the way Twitter works and how you grow a Following that's basically the main Problem that generated this Outrage Culture.

To grow your following, Ragebait isn't the worst Idea, so you rage about something you don't really care about and that might get you a bigger following, so you rage about other things. Result is that you grow your followers...

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

When people write "far right" in this way they mean

people I don't a gree with, that have a different oppionion.

ANd that is the fact!

 

Yes, "FAR RIGHT" should more or less mean what you claim but it doesn't as its thrown around so inflationary that it lost its meaning...

I mean calling a half (or was it Quater?) asian, center lefty "far right" is a bit streched, don't you think?!

[Arika]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

When people write "far right" in this way they mean nazis. If your website is primarily used by nazis it probably doesn't deserve a lot of credit. Let's not defend nazism as if it were a valid "opinion".

Except that's not correct, that's my point. people throw around the word nazi for anyone even remotely right leaning so they don't have to listen to them. Dissenter is for free speech. Real Nazi's where not even close to being advocates for free speech.

 

Gab was created because people were getting banned from Twitter, they were told "go make your own platform if you want to say this stuff" they did, the same people then got pissed off about Gab being created and had their webhost kick them out and all payment systems stop serving them, again because of "wrong think".

 

there are TWO things i agree with the right about, one of those is free speech, everything else i'm more left leaning. But if i went on twitter and just posted "i support free speech" i guarantee a whole bunch of blue checkmarks will say im a nazi/fascist/alt-right/far-right/russian bot/troll

 

Quote

That doesn't work because if you let intolerant people have their way they'll start bullying everyone else off the platform

you mean like the far-left has been doing for the last couple of years? SURELY you have to be aware of the cancer spreading on twitter with things like #killallmen #kiillallwhitepeople #ihatewhitepeople (and other white genocide advocating) I dont know about you, but that sounds like racism, which for some reason twitter is perfectly happy with leaving up. change men to women and white to black and you'll be banned faster than you can say cultural appropriation.

[Trik'Stari]

On 3/14/2019 at 12:48 AM, Arika S said:

really wish people would stop using "far-right" as a way to discredit everything.

I really wish people would stop discrediting one another and actually have discussions. The very act of discrediting one another to win an argument is counter to what a democracy should stand for. Not to mention the abject harm it does to the social bedrock of a civilization as a whole.

 

People have lost the ability to talk with one another "in good faith" that both want similar things. I myself am guilty of this, as I tend to assume far left leaning people want nothing more than to destroy what my country is and should be.

 

If things keep going the way they are, I full expect to see an American Civil War within my lifetime.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, Arika S said:

you mean like the far-left has been doing for the last couple of years? SURELY you have to be aware of the cancer spreading on twitter with things like #killallmen #kiillallwhitepeople #ihatewhitepeople (and other white genocide advocating) I dont know about you, but that sounds like racism, which for some reason twitter is perfectly happy with leaving up. change men to women and white to black and you'll be banned faster than you can say cultural appropriation.

I think it was an Isaac Butterfield video, checked a couple and couldn't find it, but he covered a story over a tweet where the person said "There are only two kinds of men, rapist and rapist in potential" or something very close to that. Someone reported it and it got manually reviewed and "Nothing could be found that breaks Twitter policies".

 

So while I do agree and do know of instances where platforms like Twitter and Facebook are not moderated equally/correctly I still very much hold the opinion there is a very clear, easily distinguishable difference between someone like Isaac Butterfield and others who put out abhorrent commentary that does not deserve any rights to be heard. These people with their opinions that speak out to the world also typically don't directly break any laws doing so (country dependent) and often choose their words purposefully and the way they deliver them, but their rhetoric does have very real consequences. They also do end up getting pushed over to places like Gab but places like Gab utterly fail to moderate their platforms to the same degree as Twitter and Facebook. Those platforms don't represent a place of freedom of speech to me, they represent a place where hatred thrives unchecked, unencumbered and goes unacknowledged by those that want to support those platforms.

 

To reference South Park, Douche or Turd Sandwich? I choose to abstain, I support neither. 

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I think it was an Isaac Butterfield video, checked a couple and couldn't find it, but he covered a story over a tweet where the person said "There are only two kinds of men, rapist and rapist in potential" or something very close to that. Someone reported it and it got manually reviewed and "Nothing could be found that breaks Twitter policies".

 

So while I do agree and do know of instances where platforms like Twitter and Facebook are not moderated equally/correctly I still very much hold the opinion there is a very clear, easily distinguishable difference between someone like Isaac Butterfield and others who put out abhorrent commentary that does not deserve any rights to be heard. These people with their opinions that speak out to the world also typically don't directly break any laws doing so (country dependent) and often choose their words purposefully and the way they deliver them, but their rhetoric does have very real consequences. They also do end up getting pushed over to places like Gab but places like Gab utterly fail to moderate their platforms to the same degree as Twitter and Facebook. Those platforms don't represent a place of freedom of speech to me, they represent a place where hatred thrives unchecked, unencumbered and goes unacknowledged by those that want to support those platforms.

 

To reference South Park, Douche or Turd Sandwich? I choose to abstain, I support neither. 

I'd take a platform that allows hatred to thrive for all parties, over a platform that only allows one kind of hatred. At least if all parties are equally capable of expressing their hate, they can keep each other in check.

 

When you have a society where one kind of hatred is not only allowed but taught and encouraged (which is happening in our colleges here in the US, not all but many of them), you're going to end up going down a very, very bad road and atrocities will eventually start happening.

 

But no one will be allowed to question them, most won't even think to question them. There are many instances of this happening throughout human history.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

I'd take a platform that allows hatred to thrive for all parties, over a platform that only allows one kind of hatred. At least if all parties are equally capable of expressing their hate, they can keep each other in check.

I don't think there is ever going to be a neutral ground platform, to me there will be ones that lean different ways however cross communication between those platforms and groups of people should absolutely happen. Everyone deserves the right to a balanced debate, the difficulty I see with it happening online is the ability to actually have the neutral ground and moderation. In the absence of that greater effort needs to happen over hearing differing opinions and you need to have discussions on each others platforms as a way to attempt to have that balance.

 

I also often think text only is a poor communication method in a conversation style debate.

[Arika]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

the difficulty I see with it happening online is the ability to actually have the neutral ground and moderation. In

And trying to move the debate off the internet to being in person will likely result in words being turned into fists on both sides. 

 

Neither side of the debate is right in how they go about getting their message across, they are as bad as each other

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

If your website is primarily used by nazis it probably doesn't deserve a lot of credit.

Then we can discredit CNN, VOX, Tumblr, Twitter, etc.

[Nicnac]

What most people don’t get is that free speech doesn’t mean it will protect you from the consequences of what you said. Sure, go ahead, say anything you feel you have to say, but don‘t cry about it afterwards if you promoted some racist shit.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

people I don't a gree with, that have a different oppionion.

ANd that is the fact!

 

Yes, "FAR RIGHT" should more or less mean what you claim but it doesn't as its thrown around so inflationary that it lost its meaning...

Then you think the group they're talking about is far right, not that having a "far right" audience doesn't discredit a platform. That's a pretty big difference and the latter was what I was responding to.

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

Except that's not correct, that's my point. people throw around the word nazi for anyone even remotely right leaning so they don't have to listen to them. Dissenter is for free speech. Real Nazi's where not even close to being advocates for free speech.

As I wrote above, this isn't what you said, or at least it isn't what came across. As for free speech, I assure you plenty of people on platforms like Gab and, most likely, dissenter wouldn't hesitate for a second if they could silence "sjw"s or really anyone who disagrees with them. The platform itself may not allow it, but if I went there and tried to argue against these people I'd just get shouted down and bullied away. Nazis don't care about free speech, but they'll take any chance they get to defend their bullshit - nazis are (rightfully) not accepted in mainstream forums, so they'll whine and cry about free speech because that's the only semi believable argument they can muster.

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

There are TWO things i agree with the right about, one of those is free speech, everything else i'm more left leaning. But if i went on twitter and just posted "i support free speech" i guarantee a whole bunch of blue checkmarks will say im a nazi/fascist/alt-right/far-right/russian bot/troll

It depends on the context. No private platform has any obligation of hosting any content they don't like, and that's not a violation of free speech - just because I own a balcony doesn't mean I must let you shout your argument from it. Free speech applies to public (as in state owned) places and even then there are things you cannot say, such as believable threats and harassment. It also doesn't mean anyone should be forced to listen to what you say. Gab was hosted on a private platform and that platform didn't want them there. It's really that easy. Do you think breitbart or alex jones would willingly host a leftist media platform? Of course not. They only care about ""free speech"" when it suits them, twisting the definition to be "you must let me say whatever I want on your platform with no consequences".

2 hours ago, Arika S said:

ou mean like the far-left has been doing for the last couple of years? SURELY you have to be aware of the cancer spreading on twitter with things like #killallmen #kiillallwhitepeople #ihatewhitepeople (and other white genocide advocating) I dont know about you, but that sounds like racism, which for some reason twitter is perfectly happy with leaving up. change men to women and white to black and you'll be banned faster than you can say cultural appropriation.

Maybe twitter should me more moderated, not less. As for the "white genocide advocating", I assure you there aren't nearly as many people actually doing that as you've been told. "White genocide" is a fascist dog whistle and while there may be a few nutters who actually want that, the term and the supposed conspiracy has been entirely manufactured by far right recruiters. Just the idea that minority groups with a fraction of the political and institutional power could attempt a genocide of the vast majority (because let's face it, this whole "debacle" is centered in the US) is completely ridiculous and debunks itself.

 

Be weary of what you read and hear on the internet, I've been close to falling into the trap myself - way too close for my liking.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

nazis are (rightfully) not accepted in mainstream forums

Yes they are. They make up some of the most prominent voices on platforms like Twitter.

[Nicnac]

56 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Do you think breitbart or alex jones would willingly host a leftist media platform? Of course not. 

I‘d host Alex Jones just for the memes tbh tho.

[Jito463]

On 3/14/2019 at 6:49 PM, Gareque said:

But, on the other hand, if they tell me that they are going to track down my IP and kill my son, that's not causing offence, that's a threat.

There's a world of difference between speech and a call to action.  This would be an example of the latter.  It's the same with people who make the inane argument about yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater.  That's not speech, that's a call to action.  Supporting free speech should mean even defending the morons who spout racist and bigoted crap, because that's their right to do so.  Calls to action are a different beast entirely.

On 3/15/2019 at 4:54 AM, leadeater said:

You can be a racist and do something like try and block someone from entering a building, following them to their room berating them all the way.

There's no actual proof she did it because of racism.  The guy just followed her in to the secured building without using his pass card.  Then when she asked to see his card, he refused.  His actions led to the confrontation.  Though admittedly, she should have just called the police and allowed them to handle it, but there's no guarantee even that wouldn't have been labeled as racist.

On 3/15/2019 at 4:54 AM, leadeater said:

There are limits to what you can say in the US, just like many other countries

Again, only in relation to calls to action.  We don't have so-called "hate speech" laws like Canada, UK or other such countries.  I don't know the laws of NZ, but if you have "hate speech" laws, then I would argue you do not truly have freedom of speech.  You have speech permitted by your government.

[Eaglerino]

Is this why Washington Post suddenly requires a subscription to view more than like 5 of their articles? lol

29 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Again, only in relation to calls to action.  We don't have so-called "hate speech" laws like Canada, UK or other such countries.  I don't know the laws of NZ, but if you have "hate speech" laws, then I would argue you do not truly have freedom of speech.  You have speech permitted by your government.

 

It's also a matter of time before criticism of the government is considered hate speech

[kuhnertdm]

Gee, I wonder what's gonna be appearing on this platform

 

[Eaglerino]

4 hours ago, kuhnertdm said:

Gee, I wonder what's gonna be appearing on this platform

 

 

You ban them from every other platform. Are you surprised?

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Jito463 said:

There's no actual proof she did it because of racism.  The guy just followed her in to the secured building without using his pass card.  Then when she asked to see his card, he refused.  His actions led to the confrontation.  Though admittedly, she should have just called the police and allowed them to handle it, but there's no guarantee even that wouldn't have been labeled as racist.

Well I fully believe if the person were a non black person the level of suspicion would have been vastly different. It's not her duty to enforce anything, the only duty she has is to report suspicious activity and no more.

 

Unless I have a reason not to I will hold the door open for anyone, they are there for a reason and I will always assume a valid one. I might even ask can I help you, for two reasons, they might need help finding their way and it's also a good way to assess if they are supposed to be there.

 

He has no obligation to show her anything, she has a right to say hey this is a secure building and notify him that she will report his activity unless he swipes in but nothing more than that.

 

No civic duty ever evolves infringing on others civic rights ever, she cross that and only she did. I don't believe that she should have lost her job because that's some very serious ongoing impact to a single bad decision, I don't even think what she did was all the serious either but it was still rooted in distrust and I believe that distrust was higher because of his race.

 

This is off topic anyway so not really going to discuss that more here.

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I don't know the laws of NZ, but if you have "hate speech" laws, then I would argue you do not truly have freedom of speech.  You have speech permitted by your government.

No we have a Bill of Rights and in that protected rights to expression which covers speech as well as more. Your last bit implies a whitelist, no we have laws, like the US does, that limits very specific things, more than the US sure but it's still "Anything but" not "Only these".