matrix07012 @matrix@gameliberty.club

Shoutout to my dad's windows 11 pc for having all the install instructions being white text on a white background and having the 'accessibility options' grayed out the whole time so we can't even turn on high contrast mode

:kfc:
Screenshot_20221219-072723-984.png

@matrix lolicon AND siscon, thank you very much!

@dushman DEAR GOD NOOOOOO

Answers to 12 Bad Anti-Free Speech Arguments: Featuring That XKCD Cartoon Everyone Likes to Quote!

25/05/2021 Greg Lukianoff

I don’t know how common this concept is, but the “words as weapons to replace physical weapons” idea was new to me.

While the United States Constitution limits only governmental behaviour on its face, its application sometimes requires the government to protect you from being censored by other citizens. For example, the government has a duty to protect you from being attacked by a hostile mob that doesn’t like your ideas or having your public speech disrupted by a heckler’s veto.

I did not know that.

The real surprise to me was in this point, copied in full:

Assertion: But you can’t shout fire! in a crowded theatre.

Answer: Anyone who says “you can’t shout fire! in a crowded theatre” is showing that they don’t know much about the principles of free speech, or free speech law—or history.

This old canard, a favourite reference of censorship apologists, needs to be retired. It’s repeatedly and inappropriately used to justify speech limitations. People have been using this cliché as if it had some legal meaning, while First Amendment lawyers roll their eyes and point out that it is, in fact, as Alan Dershowitz puts it, “a caricature of logical argumentation.” Ken White has already penned a brilliant and thorough takedown of this misconception. Please read it before proclaiming that your least favourite language is analogous to shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

The phrase is a misquotation of an analogy made in 1919 Supreme Court opinion that upheld the imprisonment of three people—a newspaper editor, a pamphlet publisher and a public speaker—who argued that military conscription was wrong. The court said that anti-war speech in wartime is like “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic,” and it justified the ban with a dubious analogy to the longstanding principle that the First Amendment doesn’t protect speech that incites people to physical violence. But the Supreme Court abandoned the logic of that case more than 50 years ago. That this trope originated as a justification for what has long since been deemed unconstitutional censorship reveals how useless it is as a measure of the limitations of rights. And yet, the crowded theatre cliché endures, as if it were some venerable legal principle.

Oh, and notice that the court’s objection was only to “falsely shouting fire!”: if there is, in fact, a fire in a crowded theatre, please let everyone know.

(I tried to copy the emphasis, but haven’t included the links - check the piece for those.)

@DaoHeShen @JapanAnon
Some general notes:
-elon wasn't the only one who "bought" twitter. From what I remember there were other people backing him.
-twitter before the buyout has full plans to get into federation. Kinda interesting that the majority of stuff mentioned that was banned is involved with fedi or has plans for fedi.
-loli hashtag got banned, which is a dead giveaway that other interests may be "pulling the strings". An app store, government, you name it.

As I've mentioned the only way to reverse twitter downfall was to basically reverse all the bad decisions made by twitter over the past decade and to unban all the people who didn't need it. Also to get rid of the rampant policing of speech and no-no words

So far twitter hasn't actually done any of this. A lot of the old moderation policies still exist (shadow banning) you still get banned for bad speech. There are still people that need to be unbanned.

Twitter has actually gone backwards. These link bans are terrible. You can't justify telling people "no you can't link your shit here" that cuts out 99.9 percent of the userbase. Like what are you supposed to post on Twitter then? You can't say the nigger word, you can't say Loli, you can't see lewd art without shadowbans, and now you can't post links. It's fucking Twitter for kids over there.

...which Pokemon are most likely to get a human female pregnant?

We already know about the Vaporeon thing. But there has to be a least a few Pokemon that can impregnate humans.