Milo Yiannopoulos Wants To Buy 4Chan, Promises Free Speech Haven (hollywoodreporter.com) 369
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes The Hollywood Reporter:
Milo Yiannopoulos, an alt-right hero known for his banishment from Twitter, is preparing a bid to acquire his own social media firm: 4chan... The Hollywood Reporter learned that Yiannopoulos, with the help of a wealthy backer, is preparing to approach 4chan owner Hiroyuki Nishimura, a Japanese entrepreneur, with a bid this week. Contacted Saturday, Yiannopoulos confirmed plans for a possible acquisition but did not offer details.
"As a free-speech fundamentalist and a student of Internet culture, I appreciate how fragile and precious the 4chan ecosystem is and how much it gives to the wider Internet -- even if some corners of it, such as /pol/, don't always approve of me very much," Yiannopoulos said... "I spoke to my lawyer this morning about purchasing the business... I intend to approach the current owners in the next few days with an offer."
Yiannopoulos added this his philosophy as an owner "would be very simple: free-speech central, no ifs, no buts."
"As a free-speech fundamentalist and a student of Internet culture, I appreciate how fragile and precious the 4chan ecosystem is and how much it gives to the wider Internet -- even if some corners of it, such as /pol/, don't always approve of me very much," Yiannopoulos said... "I spoke to my lawyer this morning about purchasing the business... I intend to approach the current owners in the next few days with an offer."
Yiannopoulos added this his philosophy as an owner "would be very simple: free-speech central, no ifs, no buts."
Pepe (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
#GreenLivesMatter #DontTreadOnMemes FeelsBadMan
great if possible (Score:5, Insightful)
sad that so called social media as they expand try to restrict speech to what is acceptable in a drawing room of bourgeois white women, and internet has to depend on a self described faggot troll to consciously create a truly free speech haven.
Re: (Score:2)
sad that so called social media as they expand try to restrict speech to what is acceptable in a drawing room of bourgeois white women, and internet has to depend on a self described faggot troll to consciously create a truly free speech haven.
Whatever the larger implications are for the state of free speech on the internet, I think that a "self-described faggot troll" is pretty much what one would expect from a would-be savior of 4chan.
Re: (Score:2)
what is acceptable in a drawing room of bourgeois white women
Er, you realize he was banned for racism and mobbing a black woman, right? She was the one who complained, not bourgeois white women.
Re: (Score:2)
But what started this? Is it even still possible to disentangle the whole "he said/she said" mess?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Leslie Jones, the women Milo and his legions decided they needed to bully the shit out of because, gasp, she was in a Ghostbusters reboot. Leslie Jones, the woman that Milo himself was caught fabricating racist tweets of.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
sad that so called social media as they expand try to restrict speech to what is acceptable in a drawing room of bourgeois white women, and internet has to depend on a self described faggot troll to consciously create a truly free speech haven.
Is libel OK outside the drawing rooms of bourgeois white women? You do remember what he actually got banned for, right? He posted a (badly, it turns out) faked tweet in order to defame someone's character. That's libel and it's not protected by any free speech laws an
Re:great if possible (Score:4, Insightful)
If a private golf course discriminates against a black person... it's racism! It's racism when the government does it. It's racism when a private business does it. It's racism even if it's legal for them to do it. And so it is with free speech.
If you're against free speech (whether completely or to some partial, qualified extent) then say so. But neither you nor Mr. Munroe have the power to redefine it in such an incredibly narrow fashion, just so you can have your cake and eat it too.
Not worth the money you'd pay for it (Score:2)
It would have to be literally free. Anyway, who needs the stupid thing... there are many alternatives and most of them are better. Let 4chan die and let the alternatives thrive.
Re: (Score:2)
And this may be even sadder, but when it comes to social media brand names that have an association with free speech 4chan is still one of the biggest names in town. I can entirely appreciate why Milo would want to buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Discord is blowing up and there are a few other social networks that are exploding... so I don't know how much any of that ultimately matters. Keep in mind, the objective is not to attract as many normies as possible because if that's what you wanted... stay on twitter or something. The point is rather to leave such behind.
Fewer people? Sure... but most of the best communities on the internet are highly limited in their membership. Go full facebook with and before you know your aunt May is chiming in... and
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that I triggered you so hard you've been e-stalking me for about a year suggests I'm actually pretty good. Beyond that, it also suggests you're easily one of the more degenerate members of the community and a very solid argument against the anon tag in Slashdot. Again, what topic did I pick you up on? Just curious what triggered you?
I've not really understood the point of it in slashdot. I guess I can see the point in 4chan. But here? All it does is encourage people like you to shit up the communit
Great Idea, but... (Score:3)
While I disagree with Milo on many, many things, he seems to be committed to free speech above all.
Also he showed that he is able and willing to learn and change his oppinion when presented with new facts: There are famous tweets from him where he accused gamers of being immature, but a few month later he recanted and even tried to learn how to play Dota2.
On the other hand I fear that 4chan may turn out to be un-monetizeable. Most advertisers will never agree to show their ads there, not even on the worksafe boards, plus most 4chan users probably have an adblocker enabled anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
1. antivirus vendors
2. ads with malware
Actually ad blockers would kill that. Which is a shame, it'd be a fun circus to watch.
Yiannapolis = be the best keeper of free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether you like 4chan or not (I don't, particularly), you have to agree that speech there has been pretty freewheeling. And that's perhaps 4chan's most redeeming feature, the one feature I wouldn't want to change. And Milo is, simply put, the best possible custodian of free speech. Whether you like Milo or not (I happen to like him, a lot (no, I'm not gay (but I have nothing against gay or any LGBT people, and am probably bisexual (this is a lot of nested parentheses, huh? But am keeping track, we're at number 4.)))) you must admit that there are few people as dedicated to free speech as he is.
Re:Yiannapolis = be the best keeper of free speech (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yiannapolis = be the best keeper of free speech (Score:5, Funny)
This is what happens when you let an ex-LISP programmer make comments.
Hey, they let me out of the cell for two hours a day, may as well use them to abuse parentheses while I'm at it.
Re:Yiannapolis = be the best keeper of free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem is he's not good at running stuff. Look at the Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant. He hasn't even got around to filing the paperwork to set it up as a charity, it hasn't paid out anything and its bursary manager said it was "mismanaged". He blamed a busy schedule for this, and now wants to add the extra overhead of owning 4chan.
An Alternative Viewpoint (Score:2)
I dislike the man quite a lot. But completely agree, there is no one else I know of that I would trust quite as much to keep/improve the free speech aspect of 4chan.
Trolls and jesters (Score:5, Interesting)
Al Gore once titled a movie of his "an inconvenient truth". The premise being that the truth can be isn't convenient, pretty or profitable. It's an argument that was widely embraced by the left when it was in there favor. Now that it is against their favor it is condemned (flashbacks of wikileaks anyone?).
Milo has previously stated that in today's society only trolls are allowed to speak the truth. This position used to be taken by the court jester or fool, the one person who could speak freely, to say what no one else dared. In today's society sites like 4chan have become the fool, saying what no one else dares.
4chan or it's replacement while always exist because history has always demanded that the truth be told, no matter how politically incorrect it is.
He's going to run into a brick wall (Score:5, Insightful)
Yiannopoulos added this his philosophy as an owner "would be very simple: free-speech central, no ifs, no buts."
Let me know how that goes for you 5 seconds in when somebody posts child porn or makes a credible threat of violence.
And the trolls of the world.... (Score:2)
Rejoice...... :/
Alt-right "heroes" (Score:2)
While we're on the subject, what are David Duke, Jared Taylor and the rest of their KK buddies up to? How about the USA neo-Nazi movement? Are they looking to buy a strip mall somewhere? How about the Bundy clan? Are they looking to build a new outhouse at their compound? Does Dylan Roof have a special someone he is prison pen-pals with now?
I'm really, really not down with /. reporting on hate group leaders like they are the Kardashians.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
While we're on the subject, what are David Duke, Jared Taylor and the rest of their KK buddies up to? How about the USA neo-Nazi movement? Are they looking to buy a strip mall somewhere? How about the Bundy clan? Are they looking to build a new outhouse at their compound? Does Dylan Roof have a special someone he is prison pen-pals with now?
I'm really, really not down with /. reporting on hate group leaders like they are the Kardashians.
You mean the KKK that was founded by the Democratic party and once headed by Democrat Senator Byrd? They've been superceded by the Democrats newest hate organization called Black Lives Matter. Rather than hang negros from trees though they've moved on to destroying their own cities and shooting cops.
Anyone good with Photoshop? (Score:2)
Picture this: Milo standing in front of Twitter Inc, yelling
"Oh, no room for Milo, huh? Fine! I'll go and buy my own microblogging service. With Blackjack! Aaaaand hookers!"
Then again, what'd he do with the hookers... Ahh, screw the whole thing!
Honest Thought: Free Speech + No Platform = ? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I can get a bit more theoretical here, a number of people have posted the Free Speech xkcd comic. It's absolutely right that there is a difference between 'the government won't arrest you' and 'no one should be compelled to host content they disagree with'. For this reason, I am indeed glad that Milo is keeping 4chan as a place where people can indeed post unpopular opinions.
However, I've been thinking about this recently: to what end is it not required for there to be a platform given? Twitter doesn't want to host offensive tweets. Fine. I'll join the four people on Google Plus and do it. Well, seems the other three people on Google Plus don't like my offensive speech, either.
Okay. I'll head on over to HostGator and install Friendica and make my own place where I can post my offensive things. Well, HostGator says I can't do that on their servers, rinse and repeat for GoDaddy, BlueHost, and 1&1. I head over to Amazon and rent some server time there, but Amazon says I can't post my offensive things there.
Fine, no more cloud for me - want something done right, DIY time. So, I call up Verizon and get their you-can-have-a-web-server FiOS package and load up an old desktop with a LAMP stack and host it myself. Verizon says they're not obligated to give me a platform, and when I call Cablevision, I get the same story. So, "no one is required to give me a platform" is, at its logical conclusion, a statement that can prevent a sufficiently offensive message from ever reaching the internet.
What is the reasonable expectation here? Should someone sufficiently down the line be expected to provide the same platform to hate speech as they provide to acceptable speech? Obviously I paint a picture of a fairly remote possibility, but it does raise the question of how "freedom of the press" works if no one will sell you a printing press.
Discuss.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple. Speech =/= Internet hosting.
Speech literally costs nothing. Get up on your soapbox and rant all day (or at least until the cops drag you away for disturbing the peace). Anything other than your own hot air, you have to pay for, which means you have to get people to sell to you, which has never been guaranteed. Why do you think so many unpopular opinions were circulated by handwritten pamphlets long after Gutenberg?
No Platform = No Views But The Dominant Paradigm (Score:2)
We live in Leftist times, under governments dedicated to equality and diversity, and therefore Leftist views are uncontroversial and for that reason, perceived as "inoffensive."
It is the same thing as someone in the Soviet Union saying that they support the Party. Well, who doesn't? Vaclav Havel makes a good point with "The Power of the P [vaclavhavel.cz]
Re:Honest Thought: Free Speech + No Platform = ? (Score:4, Insightful)
The ISP level is where the no-platforming line should be drawn, so long as ISPs are government-granted monopolies. There is no barrier to choice in social media platforms or web hosts, but most people in most municipalities have one or at most two choices of ISP, so they must be required to be common carriers and not discriminate based on content.
If there comes a day when anyone can connect to any... I dunno, wireless patch network or something like that... and there's no barrier to choice in ISPs either, then the ISPs are free to no-platform you too.
So it's going to remain a sewer for trolls? (Score:2)
That seems like a pretty stupid use of the shitload of money that's going to be required to buy this thing. Maybe he could just get therapy for his emotional problems with it and the world would end up a better place, instead of just perpetuating the self-congratulatory bullshit of the "Extreme free speech" community on 4chan.
But that would require the ability for introspection, which this cat clearly lacks. So never mind--buyout 4chan it is!
Bold new opportunity in under-served area (Score:2)
...because we were so far unable to hear unpopular things on the Internet, which is heavily censored.
From way over at the other end of the political spectrum, I don`t think the issues that Amy Goodman & co at ``Democracy Now`` like to follow are as well-covered by larger media outlets as they `should` be, but, I don`t imagine that CBS has other priorities because of some dark conspiracy; Amy`s fave topics just get lower ratings.
As for *COMMENTS* ... as for the notion that The People are unable to be hea
The Alt Right Arose Because Of Self-Censorship (Score:5, Informative)
The Left has gained such control over media, academia, and government that certain ideas were entirely banished from the public eye. This left us with "cuckservatives," or neoconservatives who believed in Leftist goals through conservative methods, as the only option to the Left. That option was not an alternative, so the Alternative Right [blogspot.com] arose.
Censorship can occur through many methods. It is not merely a legal term; it means disallowing your ideological opponents from expressing necessary ideas as a way of weakening them. Doxxing people, getting them fired from their jobs, and otherwise destroying their lives is a means of censorship. This is why anonymous internet forums like 4chan came about: people wanted to talk about these taboo things.
Milo is "alt lite," according to most, in that he is from the libertarian tradition of anarchy with free markets more than the Alt Right mainstream of opposing equality. He will be fair as an owner of a free speech site, as there is nothing on record showing him ever supporting censorship or trying to censor others.
Re:Well, shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not actually sure who I want in charge of the place less, him or Martin Shkreli.
Hey if they both bought it maybe it could bankrupt both of the bottom feeding fuckers
Re:Well, shit. (Score:4, Interesting)
This guy is less harmful than Martin Shkreli overall, and certainly far less potentially dangerous. He's an icon and popular writer in alt-right circles as well as their leading "gay Uncle Tom" figure, and a leading social media harassment campaign coordinator. He hacked the accounts and organized the mass-trolling of Leslie Jones for, as far as I can tell, having the audacity to be black and female in a comedy movie.
That said, he's never sent the price of any life-saving medication through the stratosphere. He's hardly more powerful or dangerous than any Average Joe with seriously fucked-up ideology and a computer, and there are like a dozen of those who post regularly on Slashdot :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Shkreli is likely to end up in jail in the not so different future, so I don't really consider him to be very powerful or much of a threat at all. At the moment he's just an impotent little weasel that for some strange reason still garners some publicity, but none it good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
My bad, he actually didn't carry out the hack himself, he just incited it:
https://thinkprogress.org/lesl... [thinkprogress.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm not sure what Shkreli would do with it, but with Yann... whatever I'm rather sure. He's just some self-absorbed, narcissist loudmouth that wants a way to stay in talk. Otherwise, he's mostly harmless, just don't pay too much attention to him and he'll go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Shkreli is probably his backer.
They just had an "art" expo over the weekend.
The way I see it, if Milo is the "face" of the deal, he's more publicly acceptable than the widely hated Shkreli.
Whereas if Shkreli bought it up-front, it'd probably tank immediately as people fled his obnoxious presence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Neo-nazis. I think even anti-death penalty ACLU lawyers would have been happy to pull a lever at the Nuremberg gallows.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and also the freedom to be a lying leftard knee-jerk SJW. They go hand in hand
No they don't. If you believe in free speech, you must believe in free speech for people that disagree with you, but just because you believe in having the right to say certain things doesn't mean that you believe in free speech. Milo definitely believes in his right to say certain things. He's far less into other people having the right to say things that contradict him.
Re: (Score:3)
The First Amendment protects people from government interference in their speech (with certain exceptions). It does not stop Twitter from banning him (which they did) should they decide to do so.
Milo never argued the First Amendment makes it illegal to do what Twitter did. This might just be the biggest straw man of all time... pretending that people who support free speech are trying to misinterpret the constitution.
And Milo seems to deliberately distort the idea that just because we have freedom of speech in the U.S., it doesn't require anyone to allow him on their privately owned or publicly traded forums.
You people are the ones who are grossly distorting the idea of free speech [xkcd.com] (yes, I just linked xkcd as an example of how NOT to do something), although I'm not certain if you're doing it deliberately. Free speech has a definition outside of constitutional law and even outside of any
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, and also the freedom to be a lying leftard knee-jerk SJW. They go hand in hand, and fuck you for sniveling about it.
For someone who purports to defend free speech, you're pretty intolerant of those who don't share your views.
Yep, by attempting character assassination rather than trying to invalidate his point you are practising your own form of censorship. Censorship is not just done by governments, companies, religious organisations, communities and individuals can all be censors, all it requires is that a dissenting opinion be suppressed by force. About 10 years ago, an episode of Top Gear was filmed in the American
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you don't think his fabricated Leslie Jones tweets show an underlying racist worldview? I mean, why did he even start that war? What was the intent?
Re: (Score:2)
He's a pretty effective troll. I think he targeted her because of the Ghostbusters frenzy the alt-right whipped themselves into, and her past tweets indicated she would respond poorly to racist remarks. Trolls use what tools they can to get a rise out of someone - it doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm fine with it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"when you say "freedom of speech" you mean the freedom to be a white supremacist neo-nazi hate monger."
Definitely! Or maybe freedom to be advocating a homosexual lifestyle, or freedom to be a pornography spreading filth monger, or freedom to instruct people about making bombs or cooking meth.
Yes, in the USA there is a First Amendment, but that only provides a little protection against government censorship. It does nothing to restrain the militant, hate-filled SJWs from using every tactic imaginable, including brute force, to stifle speech that they don't like.
Creating a forum for unpopular opinions and controversial material is an entirely noble enterprise
Re: (Score:3)
Is fabricating tweets by an actress because you don't like a movie reboot a noble enterprise?
Apples to Orangutans (Score:2)
The best way to defend against speech is to let people hear it and either ignore it or learn to argue against it. Free speech is essential for this reason, and if that was not the case the world and US would never have been able to improve. Not just science and technology, but overall social improvements. We would not have Government Welfare if not for people advocating an unpopular position, as one easy example.
What you are doing is attempting to claim that every person involved in a movement is respons
Re: (Score:3)
Free speech is not a blank check, and private organizations are not bound by the same restrictions as the State. Milo can say what he likes, and maybe he can even buy a website to say it, but he crosses that redline too many times and he might very well find himself in front of a judge defending himself against libel.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech is not a blank check, and private organizations are not bound by the same restrictions as the State.
No their restrictions are even more strenuous. You see, we can boycott them, ignore them and "shadow ban" them just like they do to us. Which is why Twitter is quickly going on the shit heap of history, much like your failed fascist ideologies.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>>but let's not pretend he's doing/being something noble.
Sure he is. In fact, he is providing a vital service. He is shining a big searing spotlight on how free speech is being restricted on college campuses, and all the hypocrisy that entails. Of course, one has to be outlandish and outrageous to cut through all the noise and attempts to dampen the message, but that seems to be something Milo revels in, so maybe he is uniquely qualified for the job.
>> white supremacist neo-nazi hate monger
You S
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I'm fine with it.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Your freedom of speech is an individual right to speak without Governmental interference; when you put on an organisations uniform, you appear to be a representative of that organisation not an individual. If you say things that harm your organisation, you will likely be removed from that organisation. Colin Kaepernick is just a spoiled middle-class kid trying to pretend he's ghetto; he was playing an image game and it blew-up in his face. The NFL has ratings problems and the brass will gladly duct their re
Re: (Score:2)
you mean the freedom to be a white supremacist neo-nazi hate monger
That's what freedom is for. You don't need free speech protections to say what people want to hear.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the same type of thing the racists and nazis might say. Your excuse for hatred and violence mirrors theirs: "People who aren't like us are doing nasty shit."
Re:I'm fine with it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that even moot, the founder of 4chan and a guy renowned for his protection of free speech, had to ban all the GamerGate harassment. It's not that he particularly wanted to, it's that legally he had to or no-one would want to host or advertise on his website. In other words, it wouldn't be able to pay for itself. Plus, he would be dealing with a lot of log requests from law enforcement.
8chan only manages to ignore harassment and child porn because it's small and doesn't cost much to run. So depending on your personal definition of "SJW", you might find that Milo is one of them when he is forced to delete threads and wield the banhammer.
I also wonder where Milo would find the time for 4chan, considering he works for Breitbart and tours and is supposed to be running that college scholarship fund that is already behind schedule.
Re:I'm fine with it.. (Score:5, Interesting)
He had to do absolutely nothing at all.
That Gamergate had anything to do with hatespeech at all is a blatant lie, made up by Gawker and their ilk and repeated ad nauseum by everybody else.
Why? Because that was easier than admitting that, yes the gamers were right, there was no ethics whatsoever to speak of in gaming journalism, everyone whas sleeping with each other, discussing on what to report and what not to mention etc...
It really is outrageous for gamers to demand just a minimum of standards in the way of journalistic integrity.
I was there on 4chan back in August 2014 when it really started: No hatespeech whatsoever. Any post even slightly hinting that violence of any kind was appropriate was reported and taken down quicker than even child porn. On Twitter and the other, moderated, social medias, the situation was even more tame: A Data scientist ran a statistical analysis on tweets containing the #gamergate hashtag and found that less than 0.2% of them were hostile in any way. Keep in mind that this tag was also used by the SJWs and the trolls (of both sides).
All supposed death threats (which by the way happened before that tag was even created, meaning that they were not even part of Gamergate) have been thoroughly debunked.
I think what really made the mass media (well video game mass media at least) so angry, is that this bunch of outcast nerds did not keel over and die when ordered/expected to, but instead had the audacity to fight back, completely politely. And what a fight it was: Using only polite emails and even paper letters, they got pretty much every single advertiser to pull out from Gawker and their subsites, contributing to its well earned demise, they got the FTC to update its guidelines on hidden advertising, they got an apology for the creator of Sins of a Solar Empire who had been falsely accused of rape, they greenlit a steam game from a femminist that had been bullied (including death threats) by other more extreme femminists for not being as rabid as she was supposed to be (Seedscape), they made The Escapist and even IGN adopt an ethics codex and of course they got many of the ringleaders of those 11 articles along the "Gamers are dead" line fired (those articles were released completely coincidentally all on the same day, I am sure the secret GamesJournoMailinglist that Milo uncovered later had nothing to do with it). Not officially of course, but many had their contract not renewed or were let go for "creative differences".
Meanwhile moot was spending weeks in europe with his not-girlfriend who was a SJW and at that time writing an academic paper about him.
It is kinda sad that currently the most objective article on GG is the one on encyclopediadramatica. The one on wikipedia is so biased that even Jim Wales spoke out against it. Of course they cite sources (mostly from Gawker) so by Wikipedia standards the article is fine.
Re: (Score:2)
The journalistic integrity angle is pretty weak because it all started as a reaction to a lie about a female game developer having an improper relationship with a journalist.
The simple, undeniable fact is that 4chan banned discussion of GamerGate because of all the harassment. It's kind of incredible that you now consider moot to be an SJW or heavily influenced by one, when the guy bent over backwards to defend free speech and all the bullshit that people on 4chan got up to. 4chan is hardly known for it's s
Re: (Score:3)
There is only one angle: the journalistic one. Everything else was tacked on top of it.
It was no lie either, she even thanked him in the credits of her "game", go get it, its free on steam.
There was no harassment whatsoever (no seriously, I have never ever seen a more civil and polite discussion on 4chan, on any board), thus the banning could not have been because of that. He defended free speech in 2011 and then claimed in 2014 that 4chan was never about free speech, one of the reason he became a persona n
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever Ars hoped to achieve by participating in that vile coordinated smear campaign, they did succeed in losing me forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Milo's all about freedom of speech. I don't know if he can keep the lights on at 4Chan
Well, as a fan of free speech, you'd think he'd have turned up to the employment tribunal [theguardian.com] that resulted from his seemingly failing to keep the lights on at a previous venture.
Re: (Score:3)
he meant free as in not paying for it.
Re: (Score:2)
> Milo's all about freedom of speech.
He's also all about big brother spying on the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, this gets interesting. Elaborate, please!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does. Trolling and shitposting are speech. They are covered under free speech, like all speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The one demanding to be heard are the social justice cancer. They are the one claiming all platforms, "reclaiming" internet that they never owned or created, so them and only them can speak. They are the one specifically excluding peoples base on race (White) and gender (male). And they get hated for it. What did they expect? A Nobel prize? (LOL the Nobel comity is so stupid it might actually happen)
Shitposting is criticizing them. Shitposting is yelling at them. Shitposting is boycotting them. Shitposting
Re: (Score:2)
The term "social media" has become much more encompassing than it used to be. Nowadays any place two or more people can interact is being labeled as "social media".
Re: (Score:2)
It's like the bar in Mos Eisley but without the nice parts: scum and villanry, all day every day.
So ... it's like every other social media service?
Re: (Score:3)
Without those evile white men recognizing that these things are indeed horrible, we would still be in antiquity, ethics-wise.
Slavery, sexism and all other kinds of barbarity were "business as usual" for 95% of human history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of the Holocaust?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes. The Holocaust, the ultimate evil... (no seriously it was pretty bad, dont get me wrong).
10Million victims, more or less.
Chinese Civil wars usually dont get fun until they reach 20 million victims. (Not just the ones in the 19th century, they had several that made it into this order of magnitude)
Mongol Conquests: 25 Million
Communism is clocked at (conservatively) 100 million victims. (If we consider that Fascism was only created in a desperate bid to stop communism you can get easily as high as 150 m
Re: (Score:2)
I also remember the killing fields in Cambodia, the horrific oppression in Tibet, Rwanda (bonus points for the first one to blame this entirely on whitey), the Armenian genocide, etc. Some of these things happened pretty
Re: (Score:2)
So you just conveniently cherry pick dates. It's called moving the goalpost.
Re: (Score:3)
So you just conveniently cherry pick dates. It's called moving the goalpost.
No, you disingenuous twit. As I just clearly explained, the OP originally planted the goalpost by using the phrase "today's ills". In my original reply, I clearly indicated that I was addressing this specific topic via my use of the word "modern." You are the only one who is attempting to move the goalpost here.
Re: (Score:2)
angry white men how they're responsible for most of today's ills, whether rapes, mass shootings, extermination of species and people, child molestation and child rape
The only one of those that's even arguably true is extermination of species and people, and even that has the caveat of only applying to the last few centuries. Plenty of people and cultures were wiped out by non-white people farther back.
Re: (Score:3)
You know what happens when white men really become angry? Everybody else ends up in a mass grave, that's what happens.
Cambodia, Tibet, Rwanda, Turkey, Saddam-era Iraq, etc.
You want to argue Hitler trumps stuff like that, fine, but that requires admitting (rightly or wrongly) that the Jews have suffered the most and it also implies that they are non-white.
This might come back to bite you in the ass if you ever want to argue that some disputed cases of land theft in the immediate aftermath of that persecution were the worst atrocities ever committed and our current support of Israel is therefore entirely unjustified.
Re: (Score:2)
the Jews have suffered the most and it also implies that they are non-white. Jews are not white. They are, genetically, the same as Palestinians. No one would ever say a Palestinian was white.
You're thinking of Sephardic Jews. My post was implicitly dealing with Ashkennazi Jews, the primary victims of the Holocaust and the majority of the Jewish diaspora in America. You can argue (as many others have) that they are non-white as well. I don't hugely care myself, but other than some parts of the extreme right, I think the overwhelming majority of modern America treats them as white.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Why do you think he needs a new toy to yell "Look! I'm relevant!"
Re:really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, right? The 21st century is all about properly censored and curated 'safe spaces.' WTF is he thinking?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not exactly. It's the default space that allows expression. I suppose it does need protection from those who would try to take it over to impose their own limited views as the default. These typically take the form of anti-'harassment' and 'hate'-speech laws.
Re: (Score:3)
A generation of citizens, now old enough to vote, appear convinced that free speech is a completely meaningless concept (I'm not talking legal vs. illegal, but whether the term means anything at all) outside of a narrow discussion of the First Amendment. I sometimes try to suggest that maybe Twitter shouldn't censor people on political grounds by using an argument that phone companies don't generally go arou
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah. A site that was started in 2003 is 20th century, moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Equating free speech with shitposting and demanding to be heard and respected demeans free speech and needs to stop!
Wow. Massive straw-man right there, son.
Re: (Score:3)
There isn't a need for a haven, he just wants a place to be mean and disagree with me. Equating free speech with being mean to me and disagreeable demeans free speech and needs to stop!
FTFY