Allegro.cc - Online Community
Post Reply

Allegro.cc Forums » Allegro.cc Comments » Thread locks too soon

rss feed Print
Thread locks too soon
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

I don't give Twitter any points for banning Trump. It's just part of the knee-jerk cancel-culture reaction that's happening right now regarding him.

Yes, he should be banned because he uses the platform to spread propaganda, untruths, and lies in a way that feels legitimatized since it's hosted by a private third party. As should any foreign leader be blocked who does the same. I would not allow lies to propagate through any platform I controlled if they had any sort of market reach. i.e., If nobody is there to listen, who cares. If you can broadcast a lie to millions of people with a push of the button, I don't want to be complicit in that.

But to do it now because he tweeted that he won't be going to the inauguration ceremony? Really, that is the final straw? How pathetic. He should have been banned years ago; the ban now is an act of cowardice for fear of being the only mainstream platform that doesn't.

I say the same to the fellow Republicans who are finally calling him out now. I dislike you even more. At least when you were with Trump, you stood for something. The taped calls to the Republican election officials should have been what evoked this game-ending uproar for those who were able to accept that he openly gloated about sexually harassing women.

For those of his fan base who finally see him for what he is, however, I'm glad they see the light. I hold no hostility toward his fanclub who have been duped into trusting him and the party the past four years. But the elected officials have no excuse.

Bob Keane
Member #7,342
June 2006

But to do it now because he tweeted that he won't be going to the inauguration ceremony?

He was not banned for refusing to attend the inauguration. He was banned for his inflammatory remarks. Unfortunately, there are other sites he can spread his "stolen election" rhetoric, (Parler for example) so we haven't heard the last of him. One site has already set up an account for him and he has more than 4,000 followers. The newspaper spelled out the impeachment process and repercussions and it was interesting. He can be impeached even after he leaves office, it was done after one of President Grant's cabinet members resigned. Congress can also add a provision that Mr. Trump is barred from future office or holding a position of trust in the future. I guess the only fly in the ointment is a pardon. If Mr. Trump pardons himself, he may still be allowed to run again.

By reading this sig, I, the reader, agree to render my soul to Bob Keane. I, the reader, understand this is a legally binding contract and freely render my soul.
If we get apple juice from squeezing apples, and we get prunes from drying out plums, where does prune juice come from?
"I like to go to the park and watch the children run around. They don't know I'm using blanks." LennyLen

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

What I mean is that Twitter lifted the ban and told him if he misbehaved they'd ban him forever. His only tweet that I'm aware of was him stating he wouldn't be at the ceremony. What did they think he was going to be tweeting? Videos of him handing out food at a local homeless shelter?

Again, I agree that he should be banned, but the manner in which they did it was pathetic. He can go to Parlor, etc, but any site or service that permits and endorses widespread lies and incites violence will be black listed by Google, Apple, Visa, advertisers, etc. It will be a very insular, self-funded community.

Ultimately there's nothing stopping him from low-tech solutions like email blasts, etc. But in today's rapid information age, anything that makes it a little harder to spread and legitimize the message will be effective in preventing the radicalization of more people.

It would be a weird, unique sequence of events as you describe. I hadn't thought about that negating the punishment of not being able to run for office, but it makes sense that it would. There actually have been official DOJ memos stating in the past that a president cannot pardon himself. So it's not actually widely agreed that he can do it. I'm sure that would go up to the Supreme Court who I'm guessing would side with the president since the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid it.

Bob Keane
Member #7,342
June 2006

I did some looking and presidential pardons do not apply to impeachment. There is also the possibility Mr. Biden can "unpardon" Mr. Trump. But that would also be an issue for the court. Let's hope Ms. Pelosi gets her way.

By reading this sig, I, the reader, agree to render my soul to Bob Keane. I, the reader, understand this is a legally binding contract and freely render my soul.
If we get apple juice from squeezing apples, and we get prunes from drying out plums, where does prune juice come from?
"I like to go to the park and watch the children run around. They don't know I'm using blanks." LennyLen

RmBeer2
Member #16,660
April 2017
avatar

There was once a group of witches who gossiped about the nonsense that the devil was doing. END.

🌈🌈🌈 🌟 C/C++ 🌟 GNU/Linux 🌟 IceCream/Cornet 🌟 🌈🌈🌈

Rm Beer for Emperor 2020!

Bob Keane
Member #7,342
June 2006

I read OANN's report about Mr. Trump getting banned from Twitter and had a few questions. OANN said the Ayotollah of Iran and the Chinese president were tweeting worse things about America and were not treated similarly. So I googled their tweets. I did not see any "Death to America" messages or anything similar. Does Twitter delete any such posts without comment or do they remove them and post an explanation as to why they were removed?

By reading this sig, I, the reader, agree to render my soul to Bob Keane. I, the reader, understand this is a legally binding contract and freely render my soul.
If we get apple juice from squeezing apples, and we get prunes from drying out plums, where does prune juice come from?
"I like to go to the park and watch the children run around. They don't know I'm using blanks." LennyLen

MiquelFire
Member #3,110
January 2003
avatar

OANN's sources might be the same sources that Trump uses to claim the election was rigged.

Either the example of other leaders posting the same thing are REALLY subtle that we may not spot them, or like you said Twitter has deleted said tweets before you found them.

---
Febreze (and other air fresheners actually) is just below perfumes/colognes, and that's just below dead skunks in terms of smells that offend my nose.
MiquelFire.red
If anyone is of the opinion that there is no systemic racism in America, they're either blind, stupid, or racist too. ~Edgar Reynaldo

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Trump can be banned from Twitter for literally any reason. It's a private platform. Most of the planet understands that Trump was outright lying and spreading misinformation. That's why he was ultimately banned. He kept abusing his power. That's what bans are for. There's no need to question it. Everybody understands that it was appropriate. If you don't, give your head a shake, back away from your biased news coverage, and try reading the news from an unbiased source for a change. There will be less chance of you supporting a Nazi-style regime in the future. :P

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

There are lot of interesting topics around this. It's impossible for me to perfectly articulate my viewpoints in part because they are always shifting since this is a very complex situation. My take is something like:

- USA laws against printing misleading information are lacking. I understand and agree with "Freedom of Press," but there should be consequences to breaking stories without knowing them to be true. The standard of being allowed to print anything as long as you don't know it's false is pathetically weak because that means stupid, ignorant people can publish anything they want without consequence.

- The standard for slander, libel, and threats is likewise too weak for individuals. Again, I understand and agree with "Freedom of Speech," but it is far too big of a shield.

- Companies that publish public content on the internet should be held liable for the content of their users. End of story.

- Anonymity on the internet is a bad thing.

The argument that Facebook, Twitter, Parler, etc like to use is that it's impossible to police that much content. My answer is then you don't deserve to exist. A traditional newspaper would never have published daily thousands of unvetted, unread, unedited content from their users only to ban somebody three months after publication.

I don't care about something that nobody reads. A person with no followers on Twitter can say anything he or she wants. Nobody is harmed. But I've come to believe that before there's any content that reaches a certain threshold of eyeballs, then the publishing platform's duty is to review it and take appropriate action if it violates terms of use.

This means that services like Facebook should be fundamentally redesigned. Limit people to only connecting with 50-100 actual friends. Limit content from spreading farther than friends of friends. Remove vanity metrics that both encourage distributing lies and give credibility to it. Require verified identification.

I have no issue with private, encrypted peer-to-peer chat platforms, but I still would hold the companies liable if their end-to-end software platform is used to coordinate terrorist attacks (etc). This is a hard distinction to make, but I differentiate between, say, the inventor of encryption and the makers of software that enable a click-and-run version that directly supports illegal activities.

Yes, encrypted chat is needed, but if you cannot tell the police upon receiving a court order who is using your software, and who they are communicating with, then you deserve to be held partially accountable. There are reasonable trade-offs where speech can still be kept private, but metadata around it to assist in investigations remains accessible.

Sure, yes, the evil guys will ultimately resort to low-level encryption, etc. Good. Then it will be easier to spot them vs the average user of Signal.

Again, there are a lot of cases that are hard to define. For example, I wouldn't hold the makers of Wordpress liable for everybody that uses their software. However, if you are hosting Wordpress on behalf of others, and are actively providing services that enable them to publish, then I would hold you more accountable.

Ultimately this means that publishing content would cost a little bit of money because somebody would need to be paid to vet it. But IMO I'd sacrifice 90% of the terrible content of the internet if it meant we were left with higher quality stuff.

And to bring this back home - back in the day when this site was much more active, I took the responsibility of making it a non-abusive place very seriously. Other then some not-nice name calling from time to time, thankfully it remains a relatively tame place... But ultimately I should be responsible for this place as I'm the closest to the implementation of it.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

- Anonymity on the internet is a bad thing.

That's completely wrong. Anonymity on the Internet is the best thing and we should defend it at all costs. Without anonymity the Internet is mostly just a corporate circle jerk. The anonymity is what made it so powerful in the first place.

The problem isn't that people are pseudo-anonymous. The problem is that people are not 100% anonymous. The Internet should be untraceable. There will always be bad people doing bad things. They existed before the Internet, and they'll continue without it if necessary. We need to stop wasting our time on symptoms and start addressing the roots. Let's ask all of the difficult questions. Let's challenge each other to challenge each others' ideas all the time. Let's explore different solutions and different perspectives. Let's take advantage of all of this diversity and see if can't make things better for a change of scenery.

https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/fall95-papers/rigby-anonymity.html

The argument that Facebook, Twitter, Parler, etc like to use is that it's impossible to police that much content. My answer is then you don't deserve to exist. A traditional newspaper would never have published daily thousands of unvetted, unread, unedited content from their users only to ban somebody three months after publication.

I don't care about something that nobody reads. A person with no followers on Twitter can say anything he or she wants. Nobody is harmed. But I've come to believe that before there's any content that reaches a certain threshold of eyeballs, then the publishing platform's duty is to review it and take appropriate action if it violates terms of use.

I think that a distinction needs to be made between content hosts versus content publishers/distributors. Facebook and Twitter aren't merely hosting the conversations. They're actively participating in spreading the message so they should have a role to play in being responsible for what the message is.

Ultimately I think that social networks are a failed experiment. We took a neat idea and decided to let money decide how best to implement it. And as usual money corrupted it. These networks are not social. They're very antisocial.

We need to abandon those stupid systems and rethink the idea with a distributed, anonymous structure instead. Try to come up with a system that benefits humanity and relationships instead of hurts them. That doesn't pull us away from what matters, but brings us closer together.

Rather than focusing on enforcement of the Internet (which is impossible) we should be focusing instead on what really matters. Just as the war on drugs is a complete waste of resources, a war on the Internet is also just going to be a waste of time and resources. We should be tearing down Internet monopolies instead of trying to police them.

This means that services like Facebook should be fundamentally redesigned. Limit people to only connecting with 50-100 actual friends. Limit content from spreading farther than friends of friends. Remove vanity metrics that both encourage distributing lies and give credibility to it. Require verified identification.

The problem is that it will no longer be the billion dollar money growing machine that it is. It will fundamentally be a different system. And it won't be anywhere near as popular. What made Facebook so popular was precisely it's unapologetic abuse of its users. I don't think it could exist in any other way without fundamentally changing what it is and what it's used for.

I have no issue with private, encrypted peer-to-peer chat platforms, but I still would hold the companies liable if their end-to-end software platform is used to coordinate terrorist attacks (etc). This is a hard distinction to make, but I differentiate between, say, the inventor of encryption and the makers of software that enable a click-and-run version that directly supports illegal activities.

Yes, encrypted chat is needed, but if you cannot tell the police upon receiving a court order who is using your software, and who they are communicating with, then you deserve to be held partially accountable. There are reasonable trade-offs where speech can still be kept private, but metadata around it to assist in investigations remains accessible.

On the contrary, I prefer the world where we address the inequalities that inspire terrorism instead of draconian methods to track every interaction so that Big Brother can catch big bad criminal.

Terrorists are often either mentally ill (victims) or people that are fed up with perceived injustices with a broken system that won't listen to them. We need to stop dismissing people that we don't like. We need to get rid of this twisted morality of every man for himself and work together instead so that no man is left behind.

That's the ONLY way to prevent crime/terrorism/violence. Take care of everybody so that nobody has a reason to feel that violence is the only way to be heard. Take care of everybody so that we can identify the brains that are imbalanced and work together to solve it for everybody's benefit.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

bambam said:

That's completely wrong. Anonymity on the Internet is the best thing and we should defend it at all costs.

Just commenting on this since it seemed to evoke the strongest response from you. It's interesting though to see you apply logic differently in different places. Here you want to solve human nature instead of taking precautions...

I don't necessarily mean that all anonymity on the internet is bad; I'm mostly thinking of it in the context of public social networks. Anonymously publishing a coherent piece of writing can be a powerful thing because it causes people to focus on the message and not the author. (Okay, so then people spend all day speculating on who the author is...)

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

I like to go to the park and watch the children run around. They don't know I'm using blanks.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Just commenting on this since it seemed to evoke the strongest response from you. It's interesting though to see you apply logic differently in different places. Here you want to solve human nature instead of taking precautions...

The freedom of an open Internet is far greater than the risks. Nefarious people have always found a way to get around the law, and if we make the Internet difficult for them to use for their purposes they'll just figure out another way to do it. In other words, we won't stop the bad things from happening.

We need to remain focused on what's great about the Internet and not cripple it just because some bad people do bad things with it. If there is such a thing as human nature I'm not sure it should be solved. How do you tell an intelligent animal that it can't do what is natural for it to do? Who made you God to even decide such a thing?

My insistence on an anonymous Internet is in spite of the inevitable abuses. I think that the good far outweighs the bad. Or the bad would find a way to happen anyway so nerfing the Internet won't fix the world.

I don't necessarily mean that all anonymity on the internet is bad; I'm mostly thinking of it in the context of public social networks. Anonymously publishing a coherent piece of writing can be a powerful thing because it causes people to focus on the message and not the author. (Okay, so then people spend all day speculating on who the author is...)

The problem isn't anonymity on the Internet. The problem is social networks. Keep the anonymity. Dispose of the social networks. Problem solved.

The problem with social networks isn't anonymity either... Anonymity would improve social networks. The Internet is meant to be a place where you can talk to anyone, but in doing so you need to be able to evaluate how much you trust what that person says. That necessarily means that you need maturity and intelligence to evaluate the credibility of information on the Internet. Who is the alleged author? How do you know them? How much should you trust what they say? Is it enough to risk your child's life? Is it enough to go to war over it? Or is it just some guy's opinion and it can be ignored?

There are plenty of stupid people on the planet that appear incapable of doing this (points at Trump supporters). I don't think that we should nerf the Internet for their benefit either. I'd much rather allow stupid people to believe stupid things than to make it difficult or impossible to express controversial ideas without anonymity. Free speech is very important. We need the ability to question whether the world is flat without getting ganged up on by social media mobs that know it to be flat and don't like you questioning it.

Whatever problems arise from the anonymity should be addressed individually without compromising the ability for people to be anonymous on the Internet. If people want some other platform that is locked down, and trusted, and everybody is identified, then go ahead and create a separate virtual network over the Internet to do that with. That should be technically possible, and offers the people that might want that the option without sacrificing the entire Internet to them.

Edgar Reynaldo
Major Reynaldo
May 2007
avatar

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

:D

Erin Maus
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

I'm making a new portfolio. >:( I want publishers to know how awesome I am. 8-)

I'm trying to have CI/CD. The goal is to deploy a React SPA to S3 and have the back-end be serverless Flask/Python app.

The latest fads. 8-)

This is what it will look like:

{"name":"612841","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/c\/7c8fe79b9c9de0281d0efddd29285714.png","w":1903,"h":1139,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/c\/7c8fe79b9c9de0281d0efddd29285714"}612841

Also, the splash background is animated. P cool. 8-)

{"name":"612842","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/0\/60be5de8b4495b49cbc65c5f855372a3.gif","w":253,"h":240,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/0\/60be5de8b4495b49cbc65c5f855372a3"}612842

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.
they / she

Edgar Reynaldo
Major Reynaldo
May 2007
avatar

{"name":"612844","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/7\/1712ff245dc5addcb7a3ade23b104543.jpg","w":500,"h":590,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/7\/1712ff245dc5addcb7a3ade23b104543"}612844

GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
avatar

Love it 8-)

"Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours"
Allegro Wiki, full of examples and articles !!

Edgar Reynaldo
Major Reynaldo
May 2007
avatar

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

"serverless Flask/Python app."

At first I thought that said "serverless Flash" and I laughed really hard.

Erin Maus
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Well, a Flash site could very well be a serverless app... ;D Too bad Good thing Flash is dead.

...

{"name":"612847","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/2\/b2dc8ac975813a226e103e28b9b2c48b.png","w":589,"h":433,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/2\/b2dc8ac975813a226e103e28b9b2c48b"}612847

https://twitter.com/ItsyRealm/status/1351592913139081220?s=20

>:( (It's a video.)

The cinematic camera is one of my favorite 5 minute changes.

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.
they / she

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Hey, Elias, I noticed your avatar in the TINS breach thread, and it seems to me you explained many years ago how it came to be.

My question is, how many miles or km has that thing walked by now?

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Edgar Reynaldo
Major Reynaldo
May 2007
avatar

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

I don't have a TV, but I bet I've gone 500,000 miles driving cab over the last 35 years. What have you done to support yourself?

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Is that full time? I'd guess more than that... Average American drives around 13k/year or thereabouts.

Post Reply


Go to: