Can we have a FSX_Politics base? This is getting annyoing to see
everyone bitching - complaining about it.
If I wanted to see this shit I can get on FB or other social media platforms or watch the news. It's getting old.
If FSX_Politics did exist, I certainly wouldn't look at it.
Can we have a FSX_Politics base? This is getting annyoing to see everyone bitching - complaining about it. I personally do not care about politics at all. If I wanted to see this shit I can get on FB or other social media platforms or watch the news. It's getting old.
That all said, I have found there are participants here who seem ok with discussing politics until someone questions their stance, then they cry "but politics!" like they are not the ones who made the discussion political to being with. Keep your eyes peeled and you might notice that as well.
Can we have a FSX_Politics base? This is getting annyoing to see
everyone bitching - complaining about it. I personally do not care about politics at all. If I wanted to see this shit I can get on FB or other social media platforms or watch the news. It's getting old.
I prefer the current rule of "no politics or religion on fsxNet". Like Scuz said, there are other places to go if you want (talk|argue|spew) those topics.
If FSX_Politics did exist, I certainly wouldn't look at it.
I posted one of my responses over on Dovenet Debate as I know at least a couple of the thread's participants also post there.
FIDO Politics, and several other FIDO political echoes, are also
available to those who would like to discuss politics.
That all said, I have found there are participants here who seem ok with discussing politics until someone questions their stance, then they cry "but politics!" like they are not the ones who made the discussion political to being with. Keep your eyes peeled and you might notice that as well.
You'll see I have posted a request (I seem to have to do this from time
to time) requesting folks take that subject to an othernet.
Understandable, but it is tiresome. It's everywhere. Radio, TV, Social Media. It just gets old hearing about it 24/7. I respect everyones opionion when it comes to politics no matter which side they are on and that's what is great about the US, we can have open opinions.
hatThat all said, I have found there are participants here who seem ok with discussing politics until someone questions their stance, then they cry "but politics!" like they are not the ones who made the discussion political to being with. Keep your eyes peeled and you might notice
has well.
I agree things can be viewed by everyone differently / subjectively but if
subject matter is into which leader of a country did or didn't do xyz, whatn
country may/may not do to another etc. etc. I think it's fairly clear to all it's a political thread emerging.
If FSX_Politics did exist, I certainly wouldn't look at it.
Dumas Walker wrote to SCUZ <=-
Changing the subject slightly to social media, I agree. There is too
much of it there and a lot of what is there is misinformation. The
people who are constantly freaked out about what (politician name here)
is up to are the ones that spend way too much time on Meta or X.
Dumas Walker wrote to AVON <=-
Agreed, which is why it is funny when the person who starts the
discussion suddenly starts crying foul. If you don't want to discuss
it, don't bring it up. ;)
Changing the subject slightly to social media, I agree. There is too much of it there and a lot of what is there is misinformation. The people who are constantly freaked out about what (politician name here) is up to are the ones that spend way too much time on Meta or X.
I'm getting frustrated with the whataboutism. Defend your position, see
if you can convince the other side.
The last bot free service on the planet other than face to face meetups.
AI bots and ScamBots have INFESTED
just about every form of
communications to the point it is
now virtually impossible to tell
the bots from real people.
FB is totally BORKED!!
Sending me notifications for posts I've seen more than 24 hours prior,
Not showing me time critical posts until the events have already
passed.
AI bots and ScamBots have INFESTED just about every form of
communications to the point it is now virtually impossible to tell the bots from real people.
Geri Atricks wrote to All <=-
AI bots and ScamBots have INFESTED just about every form of
communications to the point it is now virtually impossible to tell the bots from real people.
slacker wrote to Geri Atricks <=-
Agreed. It's getting really bad. The only social media type thing I'm
on these days is Reddit and some subs are just flooded with bot posts. (Looking at you /r/AITA and the like)
Agreed. It's getting really bad. The only social media type thing I'm
on these days is Reddit and some subs are just flooded with bot posts. (Looking at you /r/AITA and the like)
Yeah, twitter and Reddit are both champions of The Story That Never
Happened.
Geri Atricks wrote to All <=-
AI bots and ScamBots have INFESTED just about every form of communications to the point it is now virtually impossible to tell th bots from real people.
I wonder how much of the total internet traffic is AI slop and bots now?
For these reasons primarily, I am leaving Social Media and retreating back to the good ole pre-internet BBS. The last bot free service on the planet other
than face to face meetups.
boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
On 03 Apr 2026 at 08:35a, poindexter FORTRAN pondered and said...
Geri Atricks wrote to All <=-
AI bots and ScamBots have INFESTED just about every form of communications to the point it is now virtually impossible to tell th bots from real people.
I wonder how much of the total internet traffic is AI slop and bots now?
I think a lot of it is.
There is a lot of bots on X, and a lot of scammy accounts, particularly from India. But slop has been around a while. I noticed, even many
years ago, you would search for a topic for which there should be many
old pages, but Google would return new pages, brief "introductory'
pages on old topics, like old Unix utilities and the like.
boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
On 03 Apr 2026 at 08:35a, poindexter FORTRAN pondered and said...
Geri Atricks wrote to All <=-
AI bots and ScamBots have INFESTED just about every form of communications to the point it is now virtually impossible to te bots from real people.
I wonder how much of the total internet traffic is AI slop and bots
I think a lot of it is.
There is a lot of bots on X, and a lot of scammy accounts, particular from India. But slop has been around a while. I noticed, even many years ago, you would search for a topic for which there should be man old pages, but Google would return new pages, brief "introductory' pages on old topics, like old Unix utilities and the like.
In my experience Mastodon hasn't been taken over like this yet, but give it time and it might be.
Mastodon servers from what I know require a lot more horse power to run than bbs's though.
In my experience Mastodon hasn't been taken over like this yet, but g it time and it might be.
Mastodon servers from what I know require a lot more horse power to r than bbs's though.
I almost forgot about Mastodon...
Khronos wrote to boraxman <=-
In my experience Mastodon hasn't been taken over like this yet, but
give it time and it might be.
Mastodon servers from what I know require a lot more horse power to run than bbs's though.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
* Origin: telnet://cwshack.ddns.net:2330 (21:2/153)
boraxman wrote to Khronos <=-
I almost forgot about Mastodon...
Mastodon is federated right? Is there some central control? I'm wary
of platforms where there is undue censorship.
In my experience Mastodon hasn't been taken over like this yet, but give it time and it might be.
Mastodon servers from what I know require a lot more horse power to run than bbs's though.
Mastodon is federated right? Is there some central control? I'm wary of platforms where there is undue censorship.
Please pardon my ignorance, but other than the prehistoric ancester of the elephant, I've never heard of this Mastodon. Please enlighten me.
Khronos wrote to boraxman <=-
In my experience Mastodon hasn't been taken over like this yet, but give it time and it might be.
As long as the feed remains chronological and I can block/mute accounts
I don't want to hear from, I think Mastodon has a fighting chance. I've
already seen some servers get blacklisted, I think fracturing is more
of an issue than signal-to-noise ratio.
I almost forgot about Mastodon...
Mastodon is federated right? Is there some central control? I'm wary of platforms where there is undue censorship.
i don't recall if it was around here (bbs scene) or elsewhere but
someone had mentioned some of the mastodon clients that would be the
most useful (phone) come pre-configured to ban a collection of various servers for reasons you may or may not agree with.
the problem is you don't really get to choose..
I almost forgot about Mastodon...
Please pardon my ignorance, but other than the prehistoric ancester of
the elephant, I've never heard of this Mastodon. Please enlighten me.
I almost forgot about Mastodon...
Mastodon is federated right? Is there some central control? I'm war of platforms where there is undue censorship.
No central control, more of an anarcho-centric coalition. Each node has
their own policies and themes, and if they choose, they can block
specific nodes (and their users) based on whatever.
If you don't agree with the editorial bent of the node you're on, you
can pick another node - or start your own. And, you can easily
redirect your follow list and users to your current location. For
example, I started off on mastodon.social, the main server. After
playing with tildes, I found tilde.zone and wanted to use that as my
URL and my main instance. With a few settings, I was able to copy over
who I followed, and make mastodon.social point people to my new
location.
On 08 Apr 2026, boraxman said the following...
I almost forgot about Mastodon...
Mastodon is federated right? Is there some central control? I'm war platforms where there is undue censorship.
i don't recall if it was around here (bbs scene) or elsewhere but
someone had mentioned some of the mastodon clients that would be the
most useful (phone) come pre-configured to ban a collection of various servers for reasons you may or may not agree with.
the problem is you don't really get to choose..
speech. Elon has done well with X in this regard. The thing with
can find some place which has an editorial bent that doesn't conflict
with you, but thats just another echo chamber.
I think I prefer just to have a single, proper open network with free speech. Elon has done well with X in this regard.
the problem is you don't really get to choose..I can pretty much already tell the politics of a group or movement or scene, where they ban servers. That alone is a big turn off from the technology.
I wonder about the free speech claim, too, since evidently one cannot
say, "cis", so far as I understand. Which really cuts down on discussion of cis fatty acids. And Musk amplifies his own voice over others.
But I'll do my best to leave the topic alone, as it'll get into politics
a little too quickly, I imagine. As likely does _anything_ Musk.
Possible that everything is an echo chamber, to _some_ extent. Since the people into various places are into those places for a reason.
E.g., we're all on BBSs, and that's going to limit which sort of people are here.
And FSXnet has a few rules that differentiate it from other networks,
thus also selecting people (or things discussed), to whatever extent.
But chatting on FSXnet is significantly more pleasant to me than elsewhere, and whether or not people consider it an echo chamber, I'd vastly prefer it over places where "engagement" means rage bait and controversy.
Here, it feels like we have at least a little more, "consider the people behind the screen", and thus it feels a bit more human than I seem to be able to get over much of the rest of the internet.
(Probably doesn't hurt that people/bots using LLMs haven't spent a whole lot of time writing messages here, too.)
Re: Re: Social Media
By: boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Thu Apr 09 2026 01:40 am
I think I prefer just to have a single, proper open network with free speech. Elon has done well with X in this regard.
No... free speech at all costs is not healthy, and X isn't even that.
It's free speech if Elon agrees with you (mostly), but X is now really quite well known as being a toxic shithole.
Look what gets amplified there... I'm sorry, but by just about most any reasonable standards, X is not a good place.
the problem is you don't really get to choose..I can pretty much already tell the politics of a group or movement or scene, where they ban servers. That alone is a big turn off from the technology.
Like a BBS, you can set up your own and federate with whoever you wish,
or whoever will tolerate you.
I don't understand the notion of forcing extreme speech on people as
being a good thing.
What do people get banned for? Is there censorship?
particular point of view blocked. There are some extreme banned accounts (violence, CP, etc, which is fine)
I'm not sure whether the issue some people have is because they are reading things they don't like, or because they are unable to put forward their particular views.
What do people get banned for? Is there censorship?
I would suggest that getting banned isn't the only measure of
censorship. If thier algorithm has been tweaked to only amplify certain takes, then what would you call the takes that fall outside of that?
particular point of view blocked. There are some extreme banned acco (violence, CP, etc, which is fine)
I don't recall them shutting down Grok.
Both, I believe. When one eventually realizes they're sitting at the
nazi bar, that drives many away.
However, I appreciate your discussion on it!
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
One has to be careful here. Are you seeing certain views because they are amplified, or is it because they are more prevalent than you think.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here...particular point of view blocked. There are some extreme bannedI don't recall them shutting down Grok.
acco (violence, CP, etc, which is fine)
Again, I find it concerning that so many today think it a positive strategy to disengage and segregate themselves, and not listen to challenging ideas.
By being exposed to other views, you have your own views challenged, and what you perceive to be right is tested. Now, you may find out you are wrong. But even if you are right, and the view you are exposed to is wrong, you now know better why you are right. You now know WHY they are wrong.
I had a work colleage tell me he went on X a bit, saw views he didn't like and leave. To me, someone like that has no business weighing in on anything. They forfeit their right to have their opinion on topics taken seriously.
I think this thread is dangerously close to being off-topic as
political, so we'll try and keep this narrowly focused.
Your statement quoted above misses the point that we're speaking specifically about X, and it's very clear how the platform has been bent since Musk took over. It wasn't hidden, it's not an opinion that "oh
it's now not what I believe in", it's been very clear what his goals
were and what's been implemented.
Grok is or was generating CSAM, but they haven't pulled Grok off the platform.
It's people's right to not be forced to listen to hate speech, racist speech, calls for genocide, disagreeing with people who want to 'other' everybody who's not just like them, disagreeing with disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theory, people who are just wrong, oh, and
did I mention hate speech?
Nobody has the right to force themselves on others, and free speech
isn't a crutch to try and do that with.
Are you familiar with the intolerance paradox?
Are you familiar with https://xkcd.com/1357/ ?
This all assumes a well-educated, rational person, acting in good faith, capable of introspection.
There are untold millions of people in the world who lack education, aren't rational, choose not to act in good faith, and are either
incapable or unwilling to be introspective, or some combination of these attributes
Social media is designed specifically to dissuade the kind of consideration you're talking about. Posts sink or swim on popularity,
not merit. Popularity drives engagement, engagement generates ad views,
ad views generate revenue.
An example:
Nobody on Twitter ever said "You've given me food for thought, thank you for sharing this cited evidence supporting your claims regarding which
way to face the toilet paper roll. I will consider this and possibly reshape my views."
Because that's an end of a discussion.
What we get however, is "You're an idiot. Toilet roll facing forward is obviously what god intended (Lavatories 7:4-6). I will shoot you in the street if I find out you face it backwards."
Then you get likes from the forward-facing camp, and angry replies from the backward-facing camp, and Twitter makes more money. This post has engagement, floats to the top, seen by more people, the cycle continues.
Nothing of value is added to the world. Neither side is re-evaluating their views. Neither side is any the wiser. Even if one side was at some point interested in hearing dissenting views, they were ratio'd by the reply, and they get nothing
I don't know about you, but if I was a customer at a business, and other customers told me I should be dead because I had some physical trait, or was born in some particular country, I probably wouldn't go back. Heck,
if they were saying those things to a customer other than myself, I probably still would leave.
Perhaps the view he didn't like was "You're either with us, or you're the enemy."
Social media was a mistake.
Cheers,
RetroSwim
I sort of agree. It does assume a rational, intelligent and well rounded person. I would NOT say educated, as a lot of education now is just indoctrination and many are probably better without the so called education they got.
People do come to their own conclusions, but its
easy to blame algorithms when you dont want to admit that.
Now, this is not a popular opinion of mine, but I think the other issue
is I think that people should really stick to their own personal lives, and not get engaged in politics unless they ARE well rounded.
My issue is more with people who simply think that anyone who doesn't agree with them is evil and should be shut down. I hear that all too often.
Social Media is both a blessing and a curse. It really does depend on
the maturity of the person engaging with it.
Retroswim wrote to boraxman <=-
Social media is designed specifically to dissuade the kind of consideration you're talking about. Posts sink or swim on popularity,
not merit. Popularity drives engagement, engagement generates ad views,
ad views generate revenue.
Social media was a mistake.
Social media was a mistake.Yes. In addition to people doing the things you mention, you also
have the bot farms that are set up to drive social media engagement by contributing to arguements.
Social media was a mistake.Yes. In addition to people doing the things you mention, you also
have the bot farms that are set up to drive social media engagement by contributing to arguements.
I wonder if there are any real people left on social media at all, or just the bot farms? At least FB's UI doesn't give me the impression it's intended for human beings to use.
Educated not necessarily meaning some predetermined level of formal
study, moreso having some basic idea about the world beyond one's
bedroom walls.
For instance, when people were confusing Georgia the country, with
Georgia the state, and confidently entering discourse about electoral fraud on that basis. You don't need university to not be that stupid.
Perhaps that kind of thing falls under "well rounded"?
I'm more blaming the algorithm for disincentivising earnest conversation. Intelligent, rational, well-rounded people won't bother contributing well-thought-out posts, knowing they will be swamped with rage-baiting trash, and never seen.
For real!
But alas, it's hard to "know what you don't know". Everyone thinks they are well-rounded! lol
Agree, that's unhelpful regardless of the context.
Maturity on social media is in short supply, sadly haha!
Cheers,
RetroSwim
Yes. In addition to people doing the things you mention, you also have the bot farms that are set up to drive social media engagement by contributing to arguements.
It is a big mistake.
I wonder if there are any real people left on social media at all, or
just the bot farms? At least FB's UI doesn't give me the impression it's intended for human beings to use.
Jegor
Often people ask me for my opinion on this or that, and sometimes I just say "Its not for me to say", for example, if asked about
Israel-Palestine or something like that. I can't be bothered arguing things that don't matter to me and rather than risk appearing dumb
"It's not something I felt the need to explore" is a better response.
Thats kind of why I like it here... No bots!
Your statement quoted above misses the point that we're speakingI don't know and I have to judge for myself. I don't really trust other peoples opinions, because they could very well be someone that sees some
specifically about X, and it's very clear how the platform has been bent
I heard of this. Is this something particular to Grok, or is it an AI flaw in general? Agree it should be curtailed until it is fixed.
The xkcd misses the point of free speech and gets it backwards. Free Speech was NOT about giving you the freedom to say what you like. The reason that Free Speech was deemed important, and as described by Mill, was that it was necessary to determine truth, correct misinformation and challenge incorrect ideas. It was not just to allow you to express
I'm more blaming the algorithm for disincentivising earnest conversation. Intelligent, rational, well-rounded people won't bother contributing well-thought-out posts, knowing they will be swamped with rage-baiting trash, and never seen.
My issue is more with people who simply think that anyone who doesn't agree with them is evil and should be shut down. I hear that all too often.
Agree, that's unhelpful regardless of the context.
boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I think I prefer just to have a single, proper open network with free speech. Elon has done well with X in this regard.
Mastodon, is that wouldn't that lead to echo chambers? Sure, maybe you can find some place which has an editorial bent that doesn't conflict
with you, but thats just another echo chamber.
I think for public discourse, it is important that people are exposed
to contrary ideas.
fusion wrote to boraxman <=-
i don't recall if it was around here (bbs scene) or elsewhere but
someone had mentioned some of the mastodon clients that would be the
most useful (phone) come pre-configured to ban a collection of various servers for reasons you may or may not agree with.
the problem is you don't really get to choose..
Adept wrote to boraxman <=-
But chatting on FSXnet is significantly more pleasant to me than elsewhere, and whether or not people consider it an echo chamber, I'd vastly prefer it over places where "engagement" means rage bait and controversy.
Here, it feels like we have at least a little more, "consider the
people behind the screen", and thus it feels a bit more human than I
seem to be able to get over much of the rest of the internet.
The Wanderer wrote to boraxman <=-
No... free speech at all costs is not healthy, and X isn't even that.
It's free speech if Elon agrees with you (mostly), but X is now really quite well known as being a toxic shithole.
boraxman wrote to The Wanderer <=-
What do people get banned for? Is there censorship?
Genuinely asking. I've heard people complain and leave because of what
IS said, but I haven't heard of people leaving because they've had a particular point of view blocked. There are some extreme banned
accounts (violence, CP, etc, which is fine)
The Wanderer wrote to boraxman <=-
It's people's right to not be forced to listen to hate speech, racist speech, calls for genocide, disagreeing with people who want to 'other' everybody who's not just like them, disagreeing with disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theory, people who are just wrong, oh, and
did I mention hate speech?
Nobody has the right to force themselves on others, and free speech
isn't a crutch to try and do that with.
Are you familiar with the intolerance paradox?
Are you familiar with https://xkcd.com/1357/ ?
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
* Origin: Yak Station - Some yakkin' happenin'... (21:3/233)
Jegor wrote to Mike Powell <=-
I wonder if there are any real people left on social media at all, or
just the bot farms? At least FB's UI doesn't give me the impression
it's intended for human beings to use.
The Wanderer wrote to boraxman <=-
Re: Re: Social Media
By: boraxman to The Wanderer on Sun Apr 12 2026 01:04 am
Your statement quoted above misses the point that we're speakingI don't know and I have to judge for myself. I don't really trust other peoples opinions, because they could very well be someone that sees some
specifically about X, and it's very clear how the platform has been bent
How is one supposed to see this as anything but "That goes counter to
my opinion and I'm not seeking out detail from credible sources?"
This is cognitive dissonance par excellence.
I heard of this. Is this something particular to Grok, or is it an AI flaw in general? Agree it should be curtailed until it is fixed.
This was Musk's forcing the Twitter team to make Grok "less woke". It's not a flaw in "AI", whatever that would purportedly mean.
The xkcd misses the point of free speech and gets it backwards. Free Speech was NOT about giving you the freedom to say what you like. The reason that Free Speech was deemed important, and as described by Mill, was that it was necessary to determine truth, correct misinformation and challenge incorrect ideas. It was not just to allow you to express
What Mill got wrong was that as described, "free speech" is exploitable
by fascists for authoritarian ends.
It's exactly what we see playing out in too many places presently.
The xkcd is referring to the people whining about being cancelled,
which, if you want to talk cancelling, should probably be a little
better defined as to what you mean.
Adept wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Nobody has the right to force themselves on others, and free speech isn't a crutch to try and do that with.
But, isn't censoring unsavory thoughts and speech by definition forcing
yourself on others?
It's the same thing as saying, "I don't invite jerks to my party".
The person is welcome to say whatever they want to say; just not in any place I am, and they don't get to force me out because of some weird "freedom of speech" where they make the place awful.
Certain sorts of places stop existing when you let the jerks run the place.
If he's not banned, or told that he has to not mention those things in this place, I'm not going to go to that event, or that site. Because
it's extremely unpleasant, and I find it odd that people think we
should have to listen to all the jerks because of "free speech".
It used to be that online services claimed their role as an information distributor, not a publisher. in Cubby vs. CompuServe, CompuServe
claimed that they published content and didn't moderate, as they
Flash forward to present day, where Facebook and X manipulate feeds to show specific content to users, and the old 230 defense falls apart.
I suppose they're "too big to sue" now, or if 230 was breached, it'd
just be a cost of business for a billion-dollar service.
Nobody has the right to force themselves on others, and free speech isn't a crutch to try and do that with.
But, isn't censoring unsavory thoughts and speech by definition forcing
yourself on others?
I almost forgot about Mastodon...
Mastodon is federated right? Is there some central control? I'm wary of platforms where there is undue censorship.
I think I prefer just to have a single, proper open network with free speech. Elon has done well with X in this regard. The thing with Mastodon, is that wouldn't that lead to echo chambers? Sure, maybe you can find some place which has an editorial bent that doesn't conflict with you, but thats just another echo chamber.
I don't understand the notion of forcing extreme speech on people as being a good thing.
It's people's right to not be forced to listen to hate speech, racist speech, calls for genocide, disagreeing with people who want to 'other' everybody who's not just like them, disagreeing with disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theory, people who are just wrong, oh, and did I mention hate speech?
exist at all, which is entirely a different matter. If they had a
perfect filter that allowed them not to read anything from anybody they disliked, they would still sit in their little corner of the Internet, sweating and trembling because somewhere, somebody is posting the wrong opinion.
I use Usenet as a case study. Try engaging in any debate on usenet, and it is crazy.
What Mill got wrong was that as described, "free speech" is exploitable by fascists for authoritarian ends.
If he's not banned, or told that he has to not mention those things in this place, I'm not going to go to that event, or that site. Because it's extremely unpleasant, and I find it odd that people think we should have to listen to all the jerks because of "free speech".There is a lot to talk about in these two paragraphs.
If being forced to put up with people like that is what people think of "free speech", then I am against free speech. And find it odd that people _want_ that sort of thing, aside from when _they_ are the misogynistic jerk.
I don't understand the notion of forcing extreme speech on people as be good thing.
The issue I have is the sort of people who bans servers because they
have some user who is an extremist are typically extremists themselves
and therefore they get to lecture nobody as to the need of banning extremist views.
I like the BBS style approach.
It's people's right to not be forced to listen to hate speech, racist speech, calls for genocide, disagreeing with people who want to 'other' everybody who's not just like them, disagreeing with disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theory, people who are just wrong, oh, and d mention hate speech?
Just how does X force you to listen or read anything these days?
As far as I know you can block anything you dislike, being in X doesn't force you to interact with anybody else in the platform in particular.
My hypothesis is that people complaining that they have to deal with certain opinions on a platform are not really bothered because they actually have to interact with them. What bothers them is those opinions exist at all, which is entirely a different matter. If they had a
perfect filter that allowed them not to read anything from anybody they disliked, they would still sit in their little corner of the Internet, sweating and trembling because somewhere, somebody is posting the wrong opinion.
That is a very good point.
I wish I could bring Forocoches to the discussion. It is the biggest Spanish web forum. It is geared towards cars and car mechanics, but
their off-topic section is highly popular and it is known for an
anything goes policy.
There is no algorythm there promoting posts or content. It is as vanilla as you may expect a forum to be.
It is both glorious and depresing at the same time. There are lots of moronic people mixed with people who has interesting and well argumented things to say. There you can find all the unpopular opinions that used
to be blacklisted from curated social media and their counters. I like using it as an example of what society is actually like when it is not being curtailed. It takes all the ideas they told you are extremist and held only by a minority of derranged individuals and shows you about
half of the population actually backs them.
When you move into a curated social media in which only your opinion is acceptable, you are shielded from this reality. No wonder you can't
handle different opinions when you walk outside and it turns out your ideas are not half as opular as you used to think.
Arelor wrote to The Wanderer <=-
Fascist also benefit from water. Therefore, in order to fight Fascism,
we must ban water. No matter the cost of society as a whole.
What Mill got wrong was that as described, "free speech" is exploitable by fascists for authoritarian ends.
Just how does X force you to listen or read anything these days?
| Sysop: | digital man |
|---|---|
| Location: | Riverside County, California |
| Users: | 1,149 |
| Nodes: | 17 (0 / 17) |
| Uptime: | 95:27:30 |
| Calls: | 509,219 |
| Files: | 269,208 |
| D/L today: |
2,133 files (903M bytes) |
| Messages: | 469,439 |
| Posted today: | 2 |