What happened to the internet?

[Endus]

there is no such thing as a right to be an asshole.

Well, technically, you kind of do have a right to be an asshole.

It's just that everyone else has the right to call you an asshole, and to choose to have nothing to do with you. Your boss has the right to fire you for being an asshole, your friends and family have the right to cut off contact because you're an asshole, you can get banned from local businesses because you're an asshole.

You've got the right to be an asshole, but nobody else has any obligation to put up with it. That's the part they seem to miss, every single time.

[Has lost its way]

It comes, usually, out of pain, fear, and pride.

Having your worldview broken down is psychologically painful, you need to lose pride in yourself due to fear of if you turn out to be wrong on some issues.

But we build up pride in this culture; pride for doing nothing.

Seems tragic. We are throwing away something truly magical for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Then your problem is that you aren't paying any attention to my posts, because I never said anything of the sort.

So.. wait here is the problem the post before this you said that people have the right to judge you by your conduct and that you have to deal with the repercussions of that.

If you also believe in hate laws how to you reconcile those two beliefs together? It might be possible that I misunderstood you and I have no desire to start a fruitless back and forth but those two beliefs can't really be held at the same time.

[Endus]

So.. wait here is the problem the post before this you said that people have the right to judge you by your conduct and that you have to deal with the repercussions of that.

If you also believe in hate laws how to you reconcile those two beliefs together? It might be possible that I misunderstood you and I have no desire to start a fruitless back and forth but those two beliefs can't really be held at the same time.

Because laws against hate speech penalize people for their conduct and behaviour, when they engage in illegal and abusive conduct.

Hate speech itself has fuck-all to do with anyone's behaviour or conduct, by definition.

The only way you're trying to shoehorn this argument in is pretending that hate speech is a reasoned position based on individual conduct, which by definition it is not and cannot be.

[Halicia]

Some of us enjoyed some aspects of the wild west but didnt like the rampant distribution of child porn.

I think nostalgia glasses blind a lot of people.

(modern) Search Engines and Amazon have created a new internet that most people couldn't live without.

Got a song stuck in your head but don't know more than two random words ? Within three seconds of googling it you can be listening to it on youtube.

Seen some random snack on an anime you're curious about ? Amazon will have it on your doorstep tomorrow.

If there's one thing I kinda miss about the "old internet", its the communities and hobbyists. I'm sure they're still out there somewhere... but instead of being the mainstream of the internet, nowadays, they're the ones that are on the fringe.

[Has lost its way]

Because laws against hate speech penalize people for their conduct and behaviour, when they engage in illegal and abusive conduct.

Hate speech itself has fuck-all to do with anyone's behaviour or conduct, by definition.

The only way you're trying to shoehorn this argument in is pretending that hate speech is a reasoned position based on individual conduct, which by definition it is not and cannot be.

So... because it is a law it validates what appears to be a extremely hypocritical stance to hold? Why by definition can it not be? If people claim to be part of a renowned violent ideology why would it be wrong for people to hold them to your standards you impose on other groups not protected by hate laws?

[Spiffums]

The extreme left happened, that's what

But real extreme left hasn't been tried yet.

[Endus]

So... because it is a law it validates what appears to be a extremely hypocritical stance to hold? Why by definition can it not be? If people claim to be part of a renowned violent ideology why would it be wrong for people to hold them to your standards you impose on other groups not protected by hate laws?

There is no hypocrisy, at all.

Hate speech definitively cannot be about individual actions or conduct, because hate speech by definition is about identifiable groups.

And nobody has any issue with taking action against someone part of a "renowned violent ideology", like the KKK or the Nazis. That is, again, not hate speech.

Your entire position is based on a willful refusal to acknowledge what "hate speech" fundamentally is, so you can fuck around and defend it through dishonest and misleading bullshit.

[Has lost its way]

There is no hypocrisy, at all.

Hate speech definitively cannot be about individual actions or conduct, because hate speech by definition is about identifiable groups.

And nobody has any issue with taking action against someone part of a "renowned violent ideology", like the KKK or the Nazis. That is, again, not hate speech.

Your entire position is based on a willful refusal to acknowledge what "hate speech" fundamentally is, so you can fuck around and defend it through dishonest and misleading bullshit.

I don't think this will be productive and will just end up in a circle like last time. So while I don't agree with you in the slightest I don't see it as productive to continue.

[Super Kami Dende]

The UK government does not pander to the left wing in the slightest.

Lol righto. I'll believe that when I stop seeing pandering to Social Justice retards.

[Slant]

I can't even parse what you're trying to say, here.

People are free to respond to the conduct of other groups, and to make their own choices. It's just that everyone else is also able to respond in kind, to them; that's where the bitching comes in from these people.

Hate crimes aren't relevant to this at all, because they are crimes; speech that perpetrates a hate crime is, by definition, not protected speech, to begin with.

Yo, guys. This is what I meant earlier, when I said free speech in the US isn't limited. You can ignore it, but that won't make it untrue. And this is why you lot aren't getting anywhere in this discussion, because the premise is not free speech, it's the removal of anonymity. This is about consequences to free speech, not free speech itself. That you feel obliged to stop posting your extremist views because your family, friends or employer might read it and have a talk with you about it is not removal of free speech. You can still post whatever you like (within the legal limits), but you may have to do some explaining about what you say...

[Endus]

Yo, guys. This is what I meant earlier, when I said free speech in the US isn't limited.

I want to underscore that I was responding to HLIW's comment about "hate crimes" regarding speech, which don't exist in the USA in a legal sense, so my response was presuming a non-US context.

But yeah; even in the USA, speech isn't unlimited. I'm just commenting before someone ignores what you're getting at to attack an irrelevant detail.

This is about consequences to free speech, not free speech itself. That you feel obliged to stop posting your extremist views because your family, friends or employer might read it and have a talk with you about it is not removal of free speech. You can still post whatever you like (within the legal limits), but you may have to do some explaining about what you say...

Really, we have a word for all this. A word we've stopped using, for some reason.

That word is "shame". That feeling that you don't want your friends and family and employer to find out what you said online? That's "shame". You're ashamed of your own conduct.

And rather than take agency of your own behaviour and your ability to change it for yourself, you want all of society to change so you don't have to feel the shame you already feel. And that's absolutely fucking ridiculous, guys. Take some damned responsibility for your own decisions and choices. Because you can make different choices, like, any time you want; nobody's making you do things that make you ashamed of yourself.

[Theodarzna]

How did we get to where we are now? A world were there is a strong push towards real-id systems where it is getting harder and harder to just have fun.

You want to banter in a video game? The company will stalk you on twitter and facebook and ban you like overwatch.
You want to share a controversial opinion? In Germany they arrest you.
You want to jerk off? Need a license for that in the UK.
You commit "hate speech" a nebulous term no two people can agree on what exactly it means? Your bank cuts you off from your accounts...

Just what the hell happened? Is this just a case of thousand cuts over a long period of time that no one really noticed? Is there anyway to reverse this trend especially since it seems major finical institutions seem to pull services from sights that allow things they find offensive.

How did we get here and more importantly is there anyway to return the internet to its glory days?

What modern mass democracies like is Gatekeepers and the ability of those gatekeepers to cultivate a centralized narrative. The elite classes have long been lamenting that they really don't set the tone and tenor of conversation and thought. The goal now is to have gatekeepers over the web since letting the proles think leads to them thinking things off script.

[czarek]

These same happend what happend with WoW. ITS DYING

[Theodarzna]

This applies to a bunch of stuff, but the one that seems biggest today is globalism. Some see globalism as "We can eat great Indian food" others see globalism as "My job went to China".

At the moment the negatives of globalsim seem to outweigh the positives, at least if we are talking about the ecosystem and human fulfilment, and not GDP.

I'd go and look at China's methods of state censorship and thought control; in essence, the powerful fear the internet and its ability to rock the applecart and thus suppression is prefered.

Mark my words, by 2030, Chinese style censorship and policing will be the norm in all western states.

[Has lost its way]

I'd go and look at China's methods of state censorship and thought control; in essence, the powerful fear the internet and its ability to rock the applecart and thus suppression is prefered.

Mark my words, by 2030, Chinese style censorship and policing will be the norm in all western states.

Perhaps it will... so long as the chans stand in some from or another even in Tor form though there will always remain hope.

[Theodarzna]

Perhaps it will... so long as the chans stand in some from or another even in Tor form though there will always remain hope.

Not really. In the West, there will be repression with Western characteristics. Say the wrong thing and you will be for example unable to use any form of banking service, make any form of money, or support yourself. The West will use the same public private partnerships to skirt the arcane laws that prevent the State from seemingly directly doing anything. But the interest in Gatekeepers being in place to make sure nobody has, voices, or spreads an unautharized thought will be there.

The West will have Woke Capitalism, which is just oligarchy with rainbow flags and 10-year-old boys in drag.

Yep, for the most part, we (the US and EU) already have some of it now, it is just a better-kept secret.

AI, video surveillance, and collecting meta information on people to figure out who is, or is not a "danger" to society, is already here, and will only grow. And the gatekeepers be they government agencies, the "elite", or the endless marketing we are bombarded by every day, all have a narrative they want to maintain to remain in power, comfortable, and profitable.

Rod Dreher's Benedict Option to me seems the only real practical form of resistance to it. But even then, such communal projects could easily be state-sanctioned destroyed.

[Endus]

Hell no.

There's a big difference from having to endure harsh consequences in real life for expressing ideas that are not popular in this time and age, and actual shame, for doing something bad.

Nobody's taking issue with "ideas that are not popular".

They're taking issue with ideas that are abusive and mean-spirited and hateful.

Popularity has fuck-all to do with anything.

[tumppu]

Mark my words, by 2030, Chinese style censorship and policing will be the norm in all western states.

I'll take that bet. How much is it for?

[Theodarzna]

I want to underscore that I was responding to HLIW's comment about "hate crimes" regarding speech, which don't exist in the USA in a legal sense, so my response was presuming a non-US context.

But yeah; even in the USA, speech isn't unlimited. I'm just commenting before someone ignores what you're getting at to attack an irrelevant detail.




Really, we have a word for all this. A word we've stopped using, for some reason.

That word is "shame". That feeling that you don't want your friends and family and employer to find out what you said online? That's "shame". You're ashamed of your own conduct.

And rather than take agency of your own behaviour and your ability to change it for yourself, you want all of society to change so you don't have to feel the shame you already feel. And that's absolutely fucking ridiculous, guys. Take some damned responsibility for your own decisions and choices. Because you can make different choices, like, any time you want; nobody's making you do things that make you ashamed of yourself.

Or, and this is a plausible explanation, people fear reprisals from an extremely powerful cohort of people whom seemingly have the loving adulation of elite institutions and media. Much like say a journalist might have fear of being hacked to pieces and their mutilated corpse dumped in a swamp for reporting on the truth.

[Endus]

How is this different from what Religion tries to do?

The only difference, really, is that instead of do "good" because "God" said so (or this is how most people take it now), you are basically saying "Do good, because society says so." And instead of punishment being a spiritual/psychological one, you threaten people with jail, etc.

Good luck with trying to compete with God, or as "God is dead", the ever growing Ego of humanity.

1> To paraphrase Penn Gillette; if you need religion to tell you to not do awful things to people, you're an awful person. I'm an atheist, and I rape and murder as much as I want to. That amount is "zero", because I'm not a monster. If you're holding yourself back from doing such things because "God said so", you're a horrible human being and you're one bad day away from destroying innocent people's lives.

2> The law isn't "because society said so". Phrasing it that way is deliberately dishonest.