Ledditors griefing over internet “censorship” and muh freeze peach principles that were apparently violated when effective, direct measures were used to combat fascism.
I don’t think we should ever celebrate people being deplatformed…If the content is illegal pursue legal means to punish the posters…But let’s say they win, and they get the domain blocked everywhere. They’ll just launch a new domain, just like all the pirate streaming sites do.
Are you implying you shouldn’t try to do anything because the fascists will (deterministically) win? Hence why the people trying to shut them down went straight to the ISPs because they know they can win the ISPs over on moral grounds?
[…] you have to decide if the internet is a human right or not. If it is, it must be for everyone, or it is for no one. As soon as we make exceptions to basic rights, those rights get eroded for everyone. Because people in power will bend the exceptions to political expediency.
Fascists don’t deserve basic rights.
as long as the US government wouldn’t literally put someone in a cage for it, you are morally obligated to provide anyone who asks with the means to do whatever they want, with zero discretion allowed on your part. because it’s speech.
removed by mod
Freedom of speech (and comparable rights) applies under the assumption that no concerns should go unheard to ensure that everyone’s needs are considered when making decisions so the best outcome can be achieved for everyone.
Kiwifarms exists to hurt people. People use it to hurt others. It does not need defending.
removed by mod
And if you’re dealing with some kind of bigot, the best way to make them see the error of their ways is for those people they’re bigoted against have civil conversations with them.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Frankly, I don’t care about convincing them. I care about suppressing them. Whenever possible their voice should be taken away and they should always be afraid of expressing their bigotry out loud. They are worthless scum and generally beyond saving, what matters is protecting the people who they endager.
They say “oh just have civil conversation with them” like that’s the easiest thing in the world, but who on earth wants to actually talk to these people? Why would you assume they want to be talked to? What would you even say to them?
Maybe we can figure out what they want and find a compromise where we only kill half the Jews
Well, and the people who suggest having the civil conversations aren’t the ones who are volunteering.
They usually expect the people who are most impacted to put themselves at risk. That’s why they love Daryl Davis. They can sit back believing that fairy tale, doing nothing to help, and thinking their worldview fixed everything.
civil conversation
deleted by creator
We’ll see who Steamrolls who!
deleted by creator
civil conversations
At the Hague, maybe, if even there.
“Re-manov-ed by mod”
I was too late to even see it hours ago and new dunks are still coming in, besides the quoted snippets, what else was there?
I too missed fun and haven’t taken the time to dig through the modlog.
Or
Ima go with option two.
No, you let the racists and bigots face the consequences of their actions, including legal ones. If someone wants to say racial slurs, they get arrested. That’s how it works in South Africa. If you say the k word, you can expect legal action to be taken against you. And that’s how it should be. Hate speech has no value and is not “free speech”.
removed by mod
deleted by creator
They’re libs
Because moral victory is good for the bourgeois state, while material victory is not
Because moral victories don’t cost as much to the ruling class.
Capitalist ideology in general, Žižek maintains, consists precisely in the overvaluing of belief – in the sense of inner subjective attitude – at the expense of the beliefs we exhibit and externalize in our behavior. So long as we believe (in our hearts) that capitalism is bad, we are free to continue to participate in capitalist exchange.
- Capitalist Realism chapter 2
I see that a lot with China Man Bad takes, they decry the evil of the CPC, pick one random Chinese corporation they swear off (Tencent is a popular one), and then act like they’ve taken a principled stand while continuing to buy mountains of plastic shit that’s made in China.
They are part of the non-profit industrial complex. They make money by appealing to hardship and selling gains, not by directly assaulting systems of oppression. If they did, they would be quickly outlawed, perhaps branded a terrorist organization. They also ensure their own power and relevance through integration with that oppressive system and its centers of power. The EFF makes most of its money from “charitable organizations”, i.e. rich people’s kids’ orgs that function as cheap PR due to tax write-offs, i.e. mouthpieces of the bourgeoisie. The ACLU is a libertarian org in bed with all kinds of corporate goons, again via “charitable organizations”. It’s actually a pretty great example of the limits of reformism and the way that radical movements are coopted into snd subsumed by capital, as it began as something much cooler.
They’ll just launch a new domain, just like all the pirate streaming sites do.
copyrighted material and documenting people’s whereabouts and goings on are exactly the same thing actually
context don’t real, everything is a frictionless, spherical concept in a vacuum
and that’s why I cyberstalk kids
At best the isp actions merit critical support, since they got the right answer but not within a framework of understanding or decision making that ensures their power will be used appropriately in other situations.
e: to go a bit farther, the eff is also right for the wrong reasons. their concerns about censorship are merited, not because that censorship will impinge upon free speech, but because we have no assurance that censorship will be meted out consistent with Juche.
It really is hard to be enthusiastic about this when we know damn well that the right wants to censor queer people on the internet and that it very realistically could be used as part of legal justification to do so. They’re already working on it through a few avenues: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/senator-admits-kids-online-safety
Of course, they’d most likely find a way to do this with or without KF being taken down by ISP or court order, but how the hell am I supposed to find that reassuring?
I agree that it stops at critical support. ISPs are no saints. Nevertheless, the material reality called for actions to be taken by the activists. While I agree the framework is not ideal, it won’t change unless we change the system; we live in a world where the line between government and business is blurry, and there will also be constant power struggle between humans (minus fascists) and these monoliths. But I think we should struggle case-by-case, both speculatively and as they arise, instead of basing it on nebulous and generalized ideas of “rights” or “principles”.
The thing about Kiwifarms is that it acts a lot more like Reddit (as a whole) than your typical forum. People don’t come to Kiwifarms because they want to be a part of the Kiwifarms community – they come to Kiwifarms because they obsess about some individual or some other community that they want to dunk on or harass. Each thread therefore has to be viewed more akin to a subreddit with its own separate userbase than your typical forum thread.
The best example for this are their two competing Ukraine war threads, one pro-Russia, the other pro-Ukraine, each with roughly the same number of posts yet representing two completely different, irreconcilable worldviews.
This property is what I think makes Kiwifarms so extremely resilient. Even if they have to move to the darknet, where other sites would normally not survive, they still have the necessary draw to gain new users from mere name recognition alone.
Because when you’re obsessed about something or someone, is the small hurdle of installing torbrowser and looking up an onion link really going to stop you?
Legality is a very stupid and bad metric for what sites and communities should be combated. Piracy is illegal, fascism is legal. Laws are threats from the dominant socioeconomic group and so on.
Agreed.
Also, who’s version of legality? I very much doubt Mr “Let the law handle the Nazis” is going to be happy if Iran or Saudi Arabia tried to take down porn sites due to their local laws.
Of course, that’s a rhetorical question. Whenever someone talks like this they always mean American/Western laws, which they assume should apply universally.
[…] you have to decide if the internet is a human right or not. If it is, it must be for everyone, or it is for no one.
It’s a human right.
Fascists aren’t human.
😘
They can still… use the rest of the internet… after the site is taken down…?
Unfortunately.
it must be for everyone, or it is for no one
The nazis must be let into the restaurant, or else no one should ever be seated
most based lemmy.ml poster
Websites should have human rights, right?
Not getting harassed by internet fascists should be a human right too, but the only ‘rights’ they care about are the ones that expand their bourgeois consumerism.
Chuds when people are doxxed, stalked, and sent death threats
Chuds when they can’t reply “peepeepoopoo” to their president on the internet
The obvious answer here is to doxx, stalk, and send death threats to chuds.
No excuses for the terror
The endless battle to banish the world’s most notorious stalker site - Lemmy.world
Damn Lemmy, I didn’t know you guys were into stalking. But… uhhh… use those powers for good, I guess?
Not sure why they’re involved, but uncritical support to the Economic Freedom Fighters against the internet fascists
Fascists don’t deserve basic rights.
correct
More and more people are saying this! But seriously, in the gulag you’ll get human rights but certainly not a loaded machine gun like unrestricted internet access to stalk, bully, and harass people to self-harm.
but certainly not a loaded machine gun
oh, they’ll get a loaded machine gun
just not the end of it they’re expecting
Fascists deserve as many human rights as they believe others should have
So yes. None 😊
I hate KF and the userbase more than virtually anything else. Pig farm septic bog ass site.
I don’t think we should ever celebrate people being deplatformed
Correct. We should debate them in the marketplace of ideas
These people don’t understand how rights work - or rather, they have the intentionally stunted understanding of rights fed to them by American political theory.
KF’s right to exist as a website conflicts with many other peoples’ right not to be stalked, harassed, etc. If, let’s say, you went to public park and catcalled every woman there, the state would be right to kick you out and ban you from the park. Same principle.
KF as an institution was literally created for the purpose harassing someone. This is before getting into how they’re fash and shit like that - even under liberal rules of engagement they should have been shut down a long time ago.
