When are people gonna realise these decentralised social platforms all suck. Plus they never actually are decentralised otherwise there would be loads of spam, child porn and other horrible things. Good example is Dtube people think it's decentralised, go post a LEGAL porn video without marking it as NSFW and it's gone from their home page. Sure it's still out there and accessible if you have the IPFS link and if anyone is actually seeding it but no one is gonna see it.
I mean, technically such a thing if done properly could exist. Imagine a decentralized social media where all posts are recorded and immutable. Then yes, lots of bad content could exist. But users/servers who hold the data would be liable then for holding that data and well... it gets weird. Do the police raid Grandma's house because little Johnny loaded up this new social media to talk to his friends but because it downloaded all the bad with all the good he's now a juvenile criminal? Is data illegal? Is the mere presence of pixels on your screen means for incarceration? Blockchain will challenge all these ideas.
Not a fan of people who mix up fascism and socialism.
Fascism is about merging both economic and political power, usually under the auspices of a single authority (read single person)
Socialism is about creating safety nets by taxing those who can afford to take the economic hit. Although some may argue that nobody can afford to take any economic hit, there is a marked difference between someone who will have to sell their only house and someone who has to sell their fifth house. Socialism is reactionary to the corporate greed infrastructure which has rigged labour markets to systematically underpay average workers, while paying extreme amounts of money to the ceos and shareholders. Although bitcoin is a good start to rectifying market inequality from banks rigging the monetary system, bitcoin cannot fix labour market rigging, and systemic worker underpay. And rightwing trickle down economics only exacerbates the problem of cheating and market rigging.
hitler used clever wordplay. Look up some dictionary terms, and study your goddamn history. The entire nazi party used clever advertising and lies to disguise their party, just like how north korea is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" according to their own name. stick to the dictionary.
I’m going to bet out of you and Hitler, only Hitler has produced a political book. Also I’ll bet of you two, only Mr Hitler has led a political party. Bottom line, out of you and Hitler, only Hitler is a political expert. But if you think you’re such an expert, maybe you should start your own nazi party?
(Hint: you replied to a shitpost)
I did reply to a shitpost, but only because I value truth, well defined arguments, and logic. The cesspool of memes, illiterate hatred for people based on the fact that they are not part of your in group and general shit throwing that has infected the online discussion is extremely toxic. The problem is that you want to play political football with topics that are of moral relevance, more than political relevance. If you say that any human child deserves to sit in a cage instead of running free and being a kid, you have a warped sense of morality. The only reason that this has happened is that the current american president has a warped sense of morality, and you happen to agree with some of his political stances, and so therefore you feel like you have to agree with all his political stances. Instead of being nuanced and saying that the president is a shit leader on morals about locking children up, but a good leader on recognizing jerusalem as israels state capitol, you say he is a good leader on both topics, because you don't have the internal values to know what you stand for. And so, when someone comes along that says the president has shit morals about the border, you default to trolling as a way for you to respond because you don't have good arguments for why you support basically torturing children who are legally innocent, but also want to defend your president. You only do this because your emotionally invested in this president. Ask yourself... why? And is your infatuation with your president after what he has done rational? And has he gotten the results that you hoped for? Past presidents landed men on the moon, won wars, and oversaw the victory over communism. This president has so far downed a bunch of cheetos, gotten into twitter fights, and caused drama. He has not delivered on any of his promises, and delivering on promises despite opposition by others is what a good president does.
> I value truth, well defined arguments, and logic
Same. That’s why I like to point out holes in people’s logic, such as the citizens united post that you are probably busy responding to right now. The Hitler post was mostly a joke, but I will point out that it is technically correct in that regardless of the opinions of other political experts, Hitler did brand his party as nationalist socialist. Arguing about that can be done, but is ultimately about as (non)productive as arguing about if real socialism has ever been tried: people who can’t agree on premises arguing over conclusions.
But you make a rather pointed assumption about me supporting Trump. I don’t really care about Trump (only about cold, hard logic) although I do share your sentiments on caging children. Who, exactly, is responsible for that isn’t entirely clear to me, but given where the buck stops, it’s probably Trump (*). On the other hand, given my love for logic, I see about as many offenders from both camps, for and against Trump. When I point out holes in pro-Trumpers’ arguments I get called a communist, when I shoot down anti-Trump arguments I get called a fascist. What’s fascinating to me isn’t the readiness to project political partisanship by partisans, but their resistance to the very idea that their arguments might have holes.
(*) how could it not be Trump? Well it probably is, but here’s how: in my opinion, it is POSSIBLE that Trump is just a semi-fascist and really more of a centrist, but he gives room to rather darker forces in the republican party. So it could be that Trump isn’t terribly involved other than rubber stamping proposals from his republican fascist party members. But all I’m saying is that I’m not completely able to rule this out, it still seems more likely that it’s Trump, and even if what I described is true that certainly doesn’t absolve Trump from responsibility.
Btc is just numbers in a wallet. I don't have to put up with joe schmoe arguing about why its ok for a brown kid to die of neglect in a cage on the texas border because he is an illegal immigrant. They are fucking humans for christ sake. I wouldn't treat a dog the way ICE treats those children, and children are so much more valuable than dogs.
“Brown kid to die of neglect”
Holy shit. This is the new leftist talking point that you psychos just repeat like robots. Do you not understand the difference between concentration camps and what we have at the border? The people at the border LITERALLY risked their lives traveling 1000s of miles and being raped just to get to the place you call a “concentration camp”. Lol. You are soooo fucking retarded it hurts
What we have on the border are concentration camps. Overcrowded 5x beyond capacity, and people are dying of easily preventable diseases, and lack of sanitation. In addition, migrants are being abused, case in point multiple instances of migrants being told to drink from toilets, and multiple cases of reported rape, multiple cases of beatings. They are humans, and they are the subject of a mass atrocity.
Yes, the supreme court made that ruling. However, citizens united was a 5-4 vote. It also was a partisan vote, with the ruling being made by conservatives who historically have a vested interest in being able to take donations from corporations. Many people including myself consider citizens united to be extremely detrimental to the country as a whole, and the primary agent of corruption of the american system of governance by special interests and corporations. As a result of money= speech, the entire system of governanve has been suborned and america's congress is not a government by the people for the people but is now a system of governance by the rich for those with enough money to bribe congressional members with excessive campaign donations. As a result, legislation that needs to happen for average americans is ignored and overlooked, while legislation that is beneficial for the minority upper class is fast tracked, even if it is detrimental to the majority of americans. The citizens united ruling changed our nations system of government from representative democracy to something resembling a kleptocracy. If citizens united were implemented in eth governance, everyone who had eth could vote, and the majority eth holders could vote that they get more payouts in PoS or mining. Thats literally how america works these days. Bribe a politician, carve your loophole, and then after having unfairly bent the rules, exploit the fuck out of the people around you. Bitcoin and ethereum were designed to make code law and to get away from this system of systemic corruption. And yet here you are, defending money= speech because you don't understand how democracy or governance works, and you come to the game wanting to play political football for your team of choice rather than spending time understanding the power structures, and understanding what used to be before the power structures usurped our democracy. America is falling apart at the seams. Yes, we have the most billionaires, but we also have the most crumbling infrastructure, the most corruption, the most poverty, and the most financial destitution of most first world countries. And to be frank, I would rather have an up to date infrastructure, decent financial infrastructure, low debt, and a well educated populace more than the most billionaires. Billions of dollars in the bank just sitting there does nothing for the economy. It artificially inflates the dollar, which is bad for the btc and the eth valuation, and it also reduces per capita spending of each household. Its bad for gdp, and it hamstrings the economy. And before you say I know nothing about the economy or money, I have been investing in btc for three years, and I took multiple economics classes and I have a degree in computer science, and I have spent the last year delving into how the economy runs in order to try to build models on how to invest in btc. And, as far as results, I cashed out in december 2017 because my model suggested btc was a bubble (no shit sherlock), and I bought in march 2019 based on trump's tarriffs and looking at factors in my model and weighting them. And guess what? I outperformed the market and the people who averaged into btc. I did it by being politically savvy, and understanding the levers of power, and understanding what is driving these cycles.
As an aside, I am looking at btc going to 50k this year, and eth going to 1.5k. I am currently bullish on eth/btc due to the low ratio, and due to google integration of eth, and due to how power tends to dominate value in mindshare/winner take all scenarios.
That said, although google integration WILL push eth to new highs, economic instability will push btc. Look especially for new sanctions, new spending restrictions, and new trading instabilities to drive down stocks and push btc to new highs. I would look to get out of the btc market after wars break out, as risk will have been fully realized by then. I fully expect america to go to war with iran, and to push bad faith with china. I partially expect a war with north korea to go down, and I expect trump to not honour japanese or south korean defense treaties when it does. This will be the time of maximum realized risk to stocks, and this is when a smart operator will diversify out of btc and into stocks, or into eth.
My current portfolio is 40% btc, 40% eth 10% link and 10% iota, with a smattering of alts.
> And yet here you are, defending money= speech
I’m not, I’m just stating a fact.
I could, though: 1) People’s right to free speech doesn’t cease to exist because they organize into groups. 2) exercising your free speech can cost money.
Now your job would be to invalidate one of these premises or the deduction which is the citizens united ruling. I’ll note you did no such thing in your wall of text, you just expressed your discontent with the result - a fair thing to do, but in no way does it invalidate the logic behind the ruling.
Ok, so the ruling said that corporations are persons, and by extension they have the right to free speech. I fundamentally disagree with the idea that a virtual human is a real human or has rights to speech at all whatsoever. The corporation is merely an extension of its board, and its ceo. Therefore when a corporation is making any form of speech, that speech is not the speech of the corporation but is an extension of its board. Now, the board members are more than welcome to make their own speech, but when the corporation speaks for them, AND they also make their own speech, the people who are speaking is the board. Not the corporation. Therefore, they are inflating the amount of speech in the system to be in their favour.
In addition to all this, corporations hold vast amounts of money, much of it safely protected from taxation due to corporate tax loopholes. When the corporation spends what is essentially untaxed monies, this puts the corporations donations at a distinct advantage compared to private citizens who have to use monies that do not benefit from the corporate tax loopholes the corporation has used. This again unduly inflates the speech value of the corporation if money=speech.
Lastly, and most insidiously, the corporation does not fairly reward all who are due rewards. If corporations paid fair wages, and didn't pay extremely high bonuses, this would not be an argument. However, when a corporation's upper management make grossly more than their employees (2,000 to 1 or more in some cases) that means that the corporation's profits that go towards speech go almost entirely towards upper management's interests. This means that speech is being stolen from those who are underpaid, and they are forced into silence by the economic realities that the corporations have placed upon them. This is even worse for corporations that set aside money for political contributions. In essence, they have basically given upper management and the board even more speech.
In a democracy, everyone should have the same amount of speech. If you decide to alter that amount of speech, you start to drift towards a system whereby you must have some special token to have speech. Now in communist china and communist russia, that token was being a card carrying member of the party. In african dictatorships, that token is having proved your loyalty to the local warlord. In america, that token is having become a member of the board or a ceo for a large corporation. This is a problem. America was founded to do away with hierarchical structures where some people had taxation without representation. Citizens united brings back that system.
If it were up to me, I would limit all political contributions to $50 per person, per campaign, with only us citizens being allowed to donate. I would outlaw all donations by shell companies or corporations. Candidates would also not be allowed to use their own monies. I would force all donations to be run on the eth blockchain, and only wallets of verified us citizens would be allowed to donate, and us citizens would have to create a new wallet to donate with. Obviously this raises privacy concerns, and privacy needs to be engineered into this system, perhaps some sort of blind verification model, but ultimately we need donation security, and incorruptibility.
So, it’s not that I can’t sympathize with your sentiments, I just think you’re barking up the wrong tree for technical reasons. But to begin with, I think your characterization of corporations’ free speech being a manifestation of the free speech of its members is useful, so I’ll happily take that approach. Now, when you say:
> Therefore, they are inflating the amount of speech in the system to be in their favour.
That is probably the essence of this discussion. I agree that they inflate their speech as you suggest, but I disagree that this would be wrong. Yes, everyone should have the same vote, but demanding everyone have the same ability to leverage their speech doesn’t seem reasonable. With your model above, we might as well talk about rich vs poor people instead, the same argument about imbalance in the reach of your free speech applies. I don’t think it is reasonable to say to someone ”sorry, but your free speech credits are up, you can’t express any more opinions until next year when your balance has been reset”, which is what it would amount to, saying that you have spent the maximum limit on some campaign. If absolute balance in reach is the goal, we would no longer be allowed to have newspapers, or even a box in a park called ”speaker’s corner”. So while I sympathize with your desire for fairness, I think the unintended consequences of an approach like you advocate would lead to even less fairness, and unacceptable limits on free speech.
See this is the crux of the issue. Voting is about who gets into power. Political donations are what they do after they get into power. Ideally, a representative would poll all of his constituents on their views of what they should do for each bill, and then vote accordingly. The only part of representative democracy where representation is actually needed is crafting of bills. Thats the crux of the issue. the bills crafted will only be for the people who donate- not for the constituents. And when the corporations who donate happen to be from saudi arabia(republican) ukraine(democrat) or russia(trump) then those bills will be in favor of those countries, instead of being in favour of americans.
Dissenter Browser (with lightning integration) was dope until it stopped working on my Mac. Fucking apple, fuck you for censoring and restricting technology. The very firstdecentralized browser will not be stopped! You can ban it for now but Gab is already so far ahead of the curve when it comes to decentralized social media .
Lol. Dude. You are a PC weirdo. Gab is taking over and just like bitcoin and BitTorrent, you can’t stop it. It’s peer to peer. It’s decbtralized.
Keep using Facebook and google. Stay plugged into the matrix. Why are u even using bitcoin if you think decentralization and free speech are “repugnant”?
I support free speech. Part of free speech is being able to call others out for their shitty views and their hateful speech. Even if a platform has a decentralized design, if its user base is a bunch of hateful people, I have no desire or obligation to support it.
It's insane to say that you can't support Bitcoin if you don't support gab.
> It's insane to say that you can't support Bitcoin if you don't support gab.
You can support what ever, but indeed that is a bit not so logical, because this are the same problems.
Remember that bullshit "do not use bitcoin, people buy drugs or do illegal things like ransoms over bitcoin, bitcoin bad"?
So you feel you’re ok for hating racists. Now, some white racists hate black people for what the white racists perceive as anti-white racism from black people. That is, exactly the same motivation you have for your hate. Logically, you must defend and feel kinship with those white racists, even if you hate them, correct?
I'm justifying racism because I'm against racism? Also, where am I justifying hate? I said I'm not a fan of racists, and I don't like platforms that have significant racist communities. You think you're being clever, but you're really very lost.
Using Bitcoin is using a currency system that enabled illegal drug trade and the murder of other humans to occur. You're a dirty, bad, hateful repugnant person if you use Bitcoin, according to your own logic. (ok now really done have a great day buy the dip!)
The absolute, undeniable only difference between what you just said and what anyone else could say on a public forum, is only one thing: censorship.
To normal people who just want a place to talk and not be shut down, you just called them racists and repugnant to the point they cannot exist on traditional social media or else they would be censored, banned and shut out of the conversation.
Think about it a bit.
Social media sites have no obligation to allow all speech. My problem with gab isn't that they allow free speech, my problem is primarily with the community that developed on gab. I'm choosing to use gab not because they allow free speech, but because racism and other hate is pervasive among it's users.
My point was the only reason your hateful comment was 'allowed' here is due to censorship on this platform. You feel just fine calling regular people racists and repugnant from your safe, controlled, censored and protected platform that allows you to be hateful towards another group because it makes you one of the 'in' crowd. I hope you can see that, some how, some way. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just pointing out the reason you can stand on the ivory pedestal is because of censorship.
> my problem is primarily with the community that developed on gab
Your argument seems to indicate that an organization that allows people you do not like to be members is somehow not an organization you would be a part of.
Except, you probably live in the real world where your country affords these exact same people to live and develop and exist in your day to day life, just unseen. Racism and other hate is pervasive among Twitter users for example - do you use Twitter? Your position doesn't withstand scrutiny. I'm not going to go deeper into this; this forum isn't for this kind of stuff.
> Do you think it's preferable to have no limits for speech on a social media platform?
Sure, if that's what the platform wants. Isn't that what people have been saying for years when private companies censor certain views? *"They're a private company, not the government, so they're free to ban anyone they want. If you don't like it, go find another platform or start your own."* People did that... I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by it.