I don't think groyper speech is (or should be) automatically banned, though. It's a point of view that many find abhorrent, but it should be possible to express it. Same for far left messages encouraging the public to "eat the rich".
Please do not equate demands for more taxations with calls to do more genocides of jewish people. The far right is uniquely problematic in our modern political landscape.
And I disagree, free speech is a liberal value, you don't get to say nazi shit and hide behind free speech. Being a groyper is not a crime, but calling for genocide is and should be punished. Else we run the risk of normalizing these abhorrent ideas and repeating the worst times of our history, like the US seems on a course to doing.
It means defending Nazi shit by claiming you're allowed to say anything you want.
Timmy: "I think it should be legal to kill Jews."
Moderator: (bans Timmy)
Timmy (elsewhere): "Help, I'm being persecuted for expressing my beliefs!" / "Moderator X is a fascist oppressing people based on their opinions!" / "Platform X hates free speech!"
You can see it even in the comments on this post about the UK. Most complaints about UK censorship don't say what was being censored. If Timmy said why the moderators banned him, his argument wouldn't even survive a cursory glance.
Well, censorship has been recentky applied to Palestine Action supporters too (they're routinely arrested in the UK, and they're normally far leftists), so it's not only nazis. The thing that makes hate speech laws safe and fuzzy is that they're initially applied to restrict the speech of your enemies. Then the tide changes, and the same laws get applied against you and your friends.
They're not excusing themselves with "I can say whatever I want to" and "arrests for speech are invalid", are they? - they're not hiding behind free speech. They're excusing themselves with reasons like "You're arresting me for terrorism but I didn't do any terrorism" and "The UK is helping Israel do the next Holocaust, and it's important that we talk about that and hopefully stop doing it"
That would be "eat the rich"? It looks like more demand for homicide and cannibalism, at least at a face value.
> free speech is a liberal value
That is a really nice definition that allows your side to say whatever they want, but the other side to have their speech restricted. It looks like "free speech" because you say it is, but of course it is not.
> but calling for genocide is and should be punished
And that is the usual strawman. "Calling for genocide" is incredibly vague. Is repatriation of immigrants genocide? Is CECOT genocide? Is advocating bombing Gaza genocide? Is "from the river to the sea" a coded call for genocide? Is, God help us, saying that trans women are men advocating for "trans genocide"? (apparently that's a thing)
I have this feeling you don't want to establish a line in the sand for free speech to be free - you just want to pick and choose the examples that you deem acceptable.
> That would be "eat the rich"? It looks like more demand for homicide and cannibalism, at least at a face value.
Very bad faith interpretation. You know full well that's not what is meant when this phrase is employed.
> That is a really nice definition that allows your side to say whatever they want, but the other side to have their speech restricted. It looks like "free speech" because you say it is, but of course it is not.
Free speech is a liberal value. Don't take liberal as meaning "american left", take it as meaning pro-freedom. Nazis famously don't believe in it. The Trump administration only believes in it when they're making themselves to be the victims of supposedly unfair censorship, but then use the full power of the state to silence media, or individuals.
Should we extend free speech to groups actively trying to suppress it? That's the paradox of intolerance: "if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance". Example of this to be found in the US.
> And that is the usual strawman. "Calling for genocide" is incredibly vague. Is repatriation of immigrants genocide? Is CECOT genocide? Is advocating bombing Gaza genocide? Is "from the river to the sea" a coded call for genocide? Is, God help us, saying that trans women are men advocating for "trans genocide"? (apparently that's a thing)
You're completely muddying the waters, you know what is a genocide. And throwing in a line about trans people for some reasons, because your side is literally obsessed with making their lives as miserable as possible.
> Very bad faith interpretation. You know full well that's not what is meant when this phrase is employed.
I hope you're willing to extend this charitable way of interpreting intentions to the hyperboles made by the far right in their slogans. What if a anti-immigration group came out with the "eat the aliens" slogan? Should they be allowed to chant that? Make signs?
> Should we extend free speech to groups actively trying to suppress it
Again, it cuts two ways. Should we extend free speech to groups trying to suppress public discourse by deplatformimg, cancelling and banning people they don't like from speaking in campuses?
> You're completely muddying the waters, you know what is a genocide. And throwing in a line about trans people for some reasons
I only mentioned trans people because not believing their self appointed sexual identity was famously equated to erasing and genociding them. As you see, the waters are indeed very muddy. You see them clear just because you already made up your mind about what kind of speech you want to allow and what kind of speech you want to ruthlessly ban.
It's a quote that justifies homicide of the wealthy class, popularised during the French revolution: "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich"
Norwood vs UK was about Norwood displaying an "Islam out of Britain" sign.
Samuel Melia was jailed 2 years for publishing downloadable stickers saying "Mass immigration is white genocide," "Second-generation? Third? Fourth? You have to go back," and "Labour loves Muslim rpe gangs".
Are those messages controversial? For sure. Should originator of these messages be prosecuted? I don't think so. Are anti-christian, "dead men don't rpe" or "eat the rich" messages treated the same in uk? Absolutely not.
If you want to spell rape on HackerNews you can just spell it. There’s nothing wrong with using the word in its proper context, or in quotations. There’s no algorithm censoring the word, and you’re not shielding someone from “getting triggered” by replacing the vowels with an underscore.
> Norwood, a member of an extreme right-wing political party [the British National Party], placed a poster on his apartment window that called for the removal of all Muslims from Britain.
> the poster in question contained a photograph of the Twin Towers in flame, the words “Islam out of Britain – Protect the British People” and a symbol of a crescent and star in a prohibition sign. The assessment made by the domestic courts was that the words and the images amounted to an attack on all Muslims in the UK. The ECtHR largely agreed with the assessment, and stated that such a general, vehement attack against a religious group, implying the group as a whole was guilty of a grave act of terrorism, is incompatible with the values proclaimed and guaranteed by the Convention, notably tolerance, social peace and non-discrimination
> Melia was the head of the Telegram Messenger group Hundred Handers, a social media channel that generated racist and anti-immigration stickers that were printed off and displayed in public places.
> The stickers contained "ethnic slurs" about minority communities which displayed a "deep-seated antipathy to those groups", the court heard.
> The judge told Melia: "I am quite sure that your mindset is that of a racist and a white supremacist.
> "You hold Nazi sympathies and you are an antisemite."
> Melia, who was also found guilty of encouraging racially-aggravated criminal damage, was sentenced to two years for each charge to run concurrently.
Its hard to imagine a non-neurological basis for the ardent believers, it takes a lot to stick to belief in obvious falsehoods. There have been hundreds of religions throughout history, all of them thought they were the true one. None of them even stand scrutiny to basic arguments, let alone the very high amount of rigor such a supposedly fundamental truth must demand.
The point of a religion is to provide a devoted in-group with a coherent set of values and principles, subsequently fulfilling an individual's social needs of stability and belonging. God and other supernatural concepts are just social communication tools to enable the same, and are not meant to be treated as scientific theorems to prove or disprove.
Your ad-hominem tirade is embarrassingly juvenile.
I have met very few religious people who claim the god and supernatural stuff isn't capital T Truth. They'd be offended if I said religion is just a lifestyle or moral system, some even to the point of violent genocides.
Of course they do, because that intangible symbol of God is the base of the whole social structure. Just like how cash is nothing but paper without the underlying intangible idea of a nation to give an exchange value to it. It doesn't matter that it's artificial, what matters is that it's held up with collective faith to give validity to a set of ideas and values.
Normally we'd call that schizophrenia, hallucinations or any number of serious mental illnesses. The religious are on the other hand coddled. I'll be honest, at a fundamental level, I don't trust religious people at all, I work with people as needed to, but its like trusting a wild unpredictable beast, you never know what dangerous form their insanities would one day pop up as.
Cash has value because the government, which is a real thing that verifiably exists and has power because of collective decisions made regardless of whether you agree with them, demands that you pay taxes and will put you in prison if you don't.
What verifiably happens to me if I don't pretend I believe your particular god exists?
What gives a government legitimacy and power to extort taxes and punish people? Collective acceptance and trust, nothing else. Same goes with religion.
> What verifiably happens to me if I don't pretend I believe your particular god exists?
Used to be not that long ago that you'd face similar punishment. It's fairly recently that religion as a social institution has weakened to obscurity. If you attack its symbols, you attack its society.
And how many governments claim no other country or currency is legit and anyone who isn't their country is a blasphemer or at least seriously misguided? Does French government say Germans are fundamentally wrong, the German government should be dissolved and every German should be French?
Show me which government claims cash came from outside the universe and the govt itself invented the universe and is omnipotent and can read everyone's minds.
They are liars because they don't just say "Let god fix it" when they face crime, disease, what not. Well, some are insane enough that they do yes, I'd at least consider those people honest who go to faith healers for problems.
But why do they claim god has powers over man if he needs mans hand to execute it? Cash or governments don't claim to be some all powerful fundamental truth of the universe. Nobody ever said that. Why do we infantilize and accept such utter absurdity from religious people? And what's funnier is most religions hate "LGBT" because its made up....how is it more made up than their beliefs? At least gender is a real thing that we can see, and one day in theory the body could be modified to truly change gender. Religion hasn't even, in principle given us any reason or explanation for their absurdities yet violently push back on anyone saying doubts.
I don't think you can transpile arbitrary TS in mqjs's JS subset. Maybe you can lint your code in such a way that certain forbidden constructs fail the lint step, but I don't think you can do anything to avoid runtime errors (i.e. writing to an array out of its bonds).
> If I want to get exposed to "different morals" I just open any of the other existing social networks. Until then I'm stuck here
I think the point is that "opening all other existing social networks" to get a rounded point of view has immense friction, especially in an enshittified world. Even with supposedly non-enshittified solutions like Mastodon, for example, you have to subscribe with different users to distinct instances that allow only a subset of the network and manage that for you. They can alter their banlist behind your back, for starters, so you have to manage that as well.
The proposal of Nostr is that you can follow as many relays as you want, in the same app, with the same user. Compare to having separate accounts for Facebook, X, Threads, Instagram, Telegram, TikTok, YouTube, <woke-friendly Mastodon instance> and <reactionary-friendly Mastodon instance>.
Yeah, true, but now you have to manage 5 accounts on the 5 major social networks, all with different rules, format, public, moderation guidelines. It can be done but it starts to sound like a job.
That's true. The hope is that users will favor generalist / unbiased relays (less fragmentation by design) rather than heavily biased / restricted ones. Maybe even fund them: I will pay you as long as you don't start banning large swathes of the network just because you don't like what they say.
Users you follow can also advertise relays behind the scenes, so it's more probable that, if you follow a coherent set of users, you will converge on a coherent subset of relays that doesn't really feel fragmented.
reply