That makes sense if the original statement was that capitalism is the only thing that can ever incentivize abuse.
If you assume that abuse can be caused or influenced by more than one thing -- which I believe makes sense but you might disagree -- then it doesn't matter what communism was doing if we're talking about capitalism.
There's a difference between laughing at and being outraged by. Pointing and laughing is perfectly reasonable, getting bent out of shape over imagined slights is paranoia.
Despite you using the word 'funny' I don't think you were laughing while posting that whereas the GP was.
It's easy to offend without intending to, so I don't get how your intentions are relevant. Yes it can be annoying and difficult to consider the impact of your words and how they might be perceived by other, different, people. It would be simpler if you didn't have to think about that at all. But is that really the argument? It's a big hassle and you'd rather not have to do it?
It is too big of a hassle. We should not have to overanalyze everything we say. It is not even possible. We don't speak in code, we speak in highly interprative languages. Many meanings and interpretations of a statement can be made. People from different ages, regions, religions, etc. will interpret things different ways. It is literally impossible to view everything you say through all possible interpretations. There is no way that any single person can know every possible interpretation of what they say.
> It is literally impossible to view everything you say through all possible interpretations. There is no way that any single person can know every possible interpretation of what they say.
100% agreed. Don't see how it relates to what I wrote however.
For me, it's a minor hassle and I move on. I think for many people, it's an easy thing to rebel against, and generates conflict where there is no need for it.
Instead of people correcting mistaken assumptions about themselves and moving on (which happens to everyone in many ways, not just trans peoples' gender), we have this stupid culture war about the topic.
I'm a roguelike enthusiast who's attempted to play HyperRogue many times but always get stuck on not understanding the geometry at all. Any tips from those who have?
> Freedom to do a thing implies protection from consequence, or you're not free.
This is a wild take on freedom. Do you seriously believe that free speech means that you should be able to say anything and be protected from any and all consequences?
I'm not sure what "any and all" means, but it certainly protects you physically and that implies that you get protection from criminal violence and harassment, and certainly should. No?
It's so vague, these one-liners, that we're talking past one another. Surely you don't think you should be able to doxx or punch someone in the face that has extremist views?
> Surely you don't think you should be able to doxx or punch someone in the face that has extremist views?
How could you possibly believe this in good faith? Consequences can also be, for example, people expressing their distaste in your speech and choosing to boycott your products if you're a business.
You said protection from consequences, not protection from criminal violence and harassment. If you meant protection from criminal violence and harassment, you should have said protection from criminal violence and harassment.
You honestly thought that people who raise their eyebrows at the phrase 'consequences to speech' advocate preventing boycotts or forcing people to continue buying products?
How about the real world consequences people could potentially be referring to: harassment, doxxing, job losses and violence. I've met plenty of 'punch a Nazi in the face' people to know that many people believe that as a consequence.
Again, if you wanted to convey a specific meaning of consequences you probably should have just said that. There's a lot of consequences you're protected from, and even more that you're not protected from.
I get subtracted points on every single reply to this thread by God knows who, but the point I've been trying to make is, when someone talks about consequences of speech, it sounds threatening.
Have you ever had a meeting where sensitive information was shared?
Zoom meetings are like those, but with the sharing of sensitive information transmitted over the Internet. Someone could easily record their screen and audio and capture said sensitive information for subsequent sharing -- or "leaking"-- with someone else.
Regardless of hosting, Parler seems to be dead in the water given how much of the Internet is accessed via mobile devices, and Parler being banned from all (both) major app stores.
Web apps still exist, and can be installed to the Android/iOS home screen. Sites like Gab which are banned from major app stores are designed to be used this way.
When I use Twitter or Facebook, I do so exclusively via Chrome on mobile. I want to give adtech companies as few native hooks as possible into my smartphone.
They definitely exist, and can be installed to home screens.
It is however a huge hurdle to user acquisition, which is the angle I was referring to. The obscurity of Gab kind of supports that point. All kinds of products and services can exist, but if you get booted of all the main channels you are doomed to be an obscure niche at best.
I created an account out of curiosity, and three of the default “Suggested Groups” were for QAnon conspiracy believers. One group has over 100k followers.
Because users have attendees leaking meetings and asking Zoom if there is any way to identify the leaker. This in turn informs Zoom that the ability to identify leakers is a desired feature for users. This might make the product seem more "secure" and "safe".
Since when is protecting privacy shady? There are a lot of confidential relationships that previously relied on meetings behind closed doors that now rely on teleconferencing: therapists, healthcare, courts, lawyers, students, etc. Those who are exposing their private information in confidence absolutely deserve to be protected.
Any of them, given the tools exist to do so. Also, the organization that is attempting to protect from the leak might not be the same organization that would be recovering from one.
Note that I don't disagree with your notion that abuse is abundant in all human societies.