Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: 1 [2] 3
[#] Fri May 29 2020 17:39:45 EDT from darknetuser @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I can't say what is comming to social media platforms is exactly "fair". But they surely deserve it.

The only possible possitive outcome that may come out of this is that social media will be liable up to such point, than they will have to censor extremely hard in order to avoid liabilities. At that point, they will be so useless to common users that Zero Censorship platforms will be the only alternative for Jack and Joe.

By the way, Mastodon nodes that censor anything that is not SJW have the crosshairs on them too I guess.

[#] Fri May 29 2020 18:18:06 EDT from nonservator @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Best suggestion I've seen: Rather than use anyone else's platform, including the swastika panty-LARPers at Gab, Trump should set up his own Mastodon server and crosspost everything to Twitter until they ban him. Bonus points for every soyboy in Silicon Valley racing to hardcode more censorship ("FREE ASSOCIATION!") into their software.



[#] Sat May 30 2020 07:26:15 EDT from darknetuser @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

2020-05-29 18:18 from nonservator
Best suggestion I've seen: Rather than use anyone else's platform,
including the swastika panty-LARPers at Gab, Trump should set up his

own Mastodon server and crosspost everything to Twitter until they
ban him. Bonus points for every soyboy in Silicon Valley racing to
hardcode more censorship ("FREE ASSOCIATION!") into their software.


I suspect the Mastodonverse is too hostile towards Trump for that to work.


What he should do is set up his own Citadel instance.

[#] Sat May 30 2020 10:56:12 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Ivanka already did.

[#] Sat May 30 2020 11:47:32 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Ivanka set up her own Citadel instance? That would be news.

I would hope that the Fediverse eventually grows past the point where a few sites feel that they have the power to control who peers with who, as that is really counterintuitive to the objective of having a Fediverse in the first place. Otherwise you end up with multiple non-overlapping networks ("If you peer with any of THEM then you can't peer with any of US!") which is on-its-face stupid.

It is a shame that Citadel's implementation of the Mastodon protocols won't be coming for at least a year or so. I'd love to get in the game right now.

But yes, at some point Twitter needs to decide whether it's a common carrier or a publisher, and yes I think they need to be forced to make that decision.
Internet Service Providers have common carrier protection because they don't decide what I access and what I don't. That's why when I called out JK Rowling on Twitter for acting like a big yeasty cunt, I got kicked off Twitter but didn't get kicked off my ISP. Twitter is a publisher, Verizon is a carrier.

[#] Sat May 30 2020 12:21:40 EDT from darknetuser @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Internet Service Providers have common carrier protection because they

don't decide what I access and what I don't. That's why when I called

out JK Rowling on Twitter for acting like a big yeasty cunt, I got
kicked off Twitter but didn't get kicked off my ISP. Twitter is a
publisher, Verizon is a carrier.

You are going to have to provide more details about that conversation. I liked the early Harry Potter books but always thought Rowling is an ass.

[#] Sat May 30 2020 19:51:55 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I don't have a problem with Rowling the author. She's pretty good. I have big problems with Rowling the person. She is exactly the person I described her as, moments before getting perma-banned from Twitter.

[#] Sun May 31 2020 09:45:08 EDT from darknetuser @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

2020-05-30 19:51 from IGnatius T Foobar
I don't have a problem with Rowling the author. She's pretty good. I

have big problems with Rowling the person. She is exactly the person I

described her as, moments before getting perma-banned from Twitter.




Lol hahahahaha.

Actually, I am not very fond of HP books. The first ones were ok if you took them for what they were, but then the series turned into a Young Adult aberration and the whole thing crashed.

[#] Mon Jun 01 2020 13:55:10 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'm not really interested in a discussion of her books/movies, at least not in this conversation. I'm not a huge fan, but I don't begrudge other people being fans if they like that kind of thing. What matters here is that I think she's a horrible person, and if I am not permitted to say so on Twitter, then Twitter is editorializing and is therefore a publisher, not a common carrier.

From a free speech perspective, it's hard to disagree that the Big Tech oligopoly now has a stranglehold on public discourse, and if you don't have views that are popular in the SF Bay area, you *will* be suppressed. Yes, it could be argued that they are private companies and can do what they want. The problem, of course, is that there are network effects of these sites' popularity that raise very high barriers to entry by existing or future platforms. For antitrust purposes this is close enough to a monopoly to justify action against them, similarly to how the actions against Microsoft some two decades ago were justified even though they didn't strictly hold 100.0% of the market.

After all, what does it matter if you found a site where you can say anything you want, if no one you know is there? Here on our little cow town BBS we operate the community as a sort of corner pub where the locals gather, while the big socials constitute the roar of the information superhighway. You can have better conversations with better people, but no one is going to effect major social change on a site with fewer than 100 regular users.

[#] Mon Jun 01 2020 15:55:34 EDT from darknetuser @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I wonder how making social media liable for the things they publish will affect things such as game forums and the like. For example, games like Horse Reality have their own in-game forums that are known to be heavily censored.

[#] Mon Jun 01 2020 15:57:51 EDT from darknetuser @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

At this point, war on information has turned into a war against the authoritarian left... we are going to have to enact a IT martial law just the way you invoke martial law to quell uprisings.

[#] Tue Jun 02 2020 08:09:38 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


*Sigh*

So many reflexive partisans (on both the censorious left and the right, lately) continue to wallow in their ignorance about why Section 230 was created and what it actually says.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview

[#] Tue Jun 02 2020 14:11:34 EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Doesn't matter what it says. It's how it's been weaponized.

[#] Wed Jun 03 2020 09:19:32 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Well except that it actually does matter what laws say, but I see your point ;)

[#] Thu Jun 04 2020 10:27:48 EDT from nonservator @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

"Free speech" is a red herring, and always was.



[#] Tue Jun 09 2020 13:09:44 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

If you think you have free speech, try posting "All Lives Matter" to LinkedIn and see if you still have a job the next day.

[#] Sat Jul 04 2020 16:12:04 EDT from bennabiy1 @ Uncensored

Subject: Or If you wear this t-shirt...

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Pride



[#] Sat Jul 04 2020 16:14:19 EDT from bennabiy1 @ Uncensored

Subject: Or this one...

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Responsible



[#] Wed Jul 29 2020 15:13:20 EDT from ParanoidDelusions @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Ok. So I've been absent for a while, and things went to hell in a handbasket. I also hadn't been paying attention to my Citadel at secure.wallofhate.com, but I'm trying to jump start it again. But here is the story of how I kind of abandoned it for a while. 

It started with Facebook banning me from sharing the URL. When I would post anything with a hotlink to secure.wallofhate.com - Facebook would flag it as a "hate site," and was also flagging my DDNS provider's link (the redirector link links to https://tsbbs.spdns.org:4916/  that link would ALSO flag as a hate site. 

So... part of the problem is I'm hosting on my home ISP, and I am not a Linux guru. Dynamic DNS doesn't seem to be reliably updating when a DHCP lease renews - and if I'm not checking in every day, the BBS will be down until I go do spdns.org and manually update with the new IP address - and, it is a residential account - so technically, there may be some ToS issues going on with hosting the site. If it ever got big enough that this was a huge traffic problem, I would have obviously needed to move to a hosted solution. I guess what I'm getting at is that I probably need to piss or get off the pot and decide to host this on a cloud based Linux server and retire the little RPi it is running on, and just pay to have it all legit. 

So, if anyone has advice for an affordable Linux based hosting service I can migrate my domain and my Citadel instance to, let me know. And if someone can maybe help me to move my current version from my Pi to that hosted service once I subscribe to it, that would be awesome too. I don't know that I have the chops to do that. 

By the way, if you're a regular here who was checking in over there, it is back up - for now and could use an infusion of people with things to say. 






[#] Wed Jul 29 2020 16:43:15 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Google flags the site as well.

 

Your connection is not private
Attackers might be trying to steal your information from tsbbs.spdns.org (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more
NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID
Help improve Chrome security by sending URLs of some pages you visit, limited system information, and some page content to Google. Privacy policy
This server could not prove that it is tsbbs.spdns.org; its security certificate is not trusted by your computer's operating system. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection.

Proceed to tsbbs.spdns.org (unsafe)