[dewey]

I think it's a bit weird that instead of using this to promote their values (Decentralization, Freedom, Privacy as mentioned on their landing page [0]) they are essentially pressuring pod admins to take down the content.

I know they could just setup their own Pod but these values are what makes them any different from the likes of Twitter and I would've expected them to stand by them a bit more.

[0] https://diasporafoundation.org/

[bellerocky]

> I think it's a bit weird that instead of using this to promote their values (Decentralization, Freedom, Privacy as mentioned on their landing page [0]) they are essentially pressuring pod admins to take down the content.

Yeah that's probably because the ISIS is known for suicide bombings, cutting off heads, video taping it so that the families and friends of the victim can see how gruesome their loved one died, killing unbelievers and tying multiple women to poles at the Mosul Dam to be raped. Not exactly the kind of thing you want to use to promote your values unless you're a psychopath. What the fuck.

[ryusage]

The whole point of their platform is that it's not controlled by any central authority and is resistant to censorship, control, breaches of privacy, etc. The fact that even some of the most horrific and undesirable content, that which people most adamantly wish to censor, CAN'T be censored, is a strong proof that their network works.

All they need to do to is say, "Censoring this is not possible", as they seem to be doing, and that promotes their software. They don't need to talk about, approve of, or even be aware of the horrific things that ISIS does. It's enough to know that people really, really don't like what they're posting.

On the other hand, by actively attempting to censor the content, as Diaspora also seems to be doing, they're also sending the message that they don't actually truly believe in openness as a value, deep down, even though they designed their software to provide it. That actually hurts them a bit in the long run, I think.

[dewey]

So it's "Freedom of Speech" (but only if we like it)?

[bellerocky]

Seems like you're confused here. Freedom of speech is about citizens and their government, not citizens and private entities. Having said that, freedom of speech has never meant that you can say whatever you want, and the courts have supported this. Right now there are people in jail for threatening politicians on Twitter. So yes, freedom of speech is a limited right. It's not a right to encourage people to rape, murder and pillage, is that really so shocking to you?

[tinco]

Free speech is about humans expressing their thoughts, whether they be love or hate. That in many countries free speech is limited to prevent propaganda for 'dangerous' causes like rape, pillaging and terrorism is an evil deemed necessary by most.

So yes, for a true believer in basic human rights it can be shocking that we have restricted ourselves (as voters in democracies) in our right of free speech, and can feel that when trying to aid universal free communications ( by hosting pods).

Note that I myself support the restrictions on free speech as they are although I am keenly aware of the danger and evil of it.

[bellerocky]

> So yes, for a true believer in basic human rights it can be shocking that we have restricted ourselves (as voters in democracies) in our right of free speech, and can feel that when trying to aid universal free communications ( by hosting pods).

The video being "suppressed" is of the gruesome, intimidating murder of James Foley, a journalist who risked his life for a profession dedicated to 1st amendment principles. Being intolerant of intolerance is perfectly ok for me. Maybe not you, because you're kind of extreme and not really thinking through things in my opinion, but ok whatever floats your boat.

[judk]

So perhaps it's best to, at his death, not destroy the principles he lived for.

[logfromblammo]

Freedom of speech has always meant that you can say whatever you please, in the sense that the speech cannot be rightfully prevented. Just because someone cannot gag you does not mean they can't slap you in the face after hearing what you say.

The freedom is about lack of prior restraint. It does not absolve you from the consequences if your words cause another to be harmed.

You can shout "Fire!" in a crowded club, if there is a fire in it. You can even shout "Fire!" in a crowded club if there is a bomb in it, hoping for a more orderly and less panicked evacuation. You can also shout "Fire!" in a crowded club if you like the Ohio Players or P-Funk. But if you make a false alarm and someone gets an injury in the resulting panic--even if it's just fewer sales at the bar because everyone left--you'd better be prepared to accept the consequences. And it isn't enough that your words could have caused harm, there has to be some actual harm and some actual intent to cause mischief.

So if you stand before a crowd and encourage people to run riot and sack the city, the consequences you face are going to be a lot different if that crowd is a rotary club meeting or if it is an unruly mob with pre-sharpened pitchforks. It is absolutely your right to do it, but if you do it with criminal intent, expect to be punished for the damage that you caused.

[aestetix]

>> Right now there are people in jail for threatening politicians on Twitter.

Do you have a source for that? I would be very interested in seeing the details.

[bellerocky]

Yes, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/obama-twitter-death-thre...

Just google "Secret Service twitter" or follow the @SecretService at https://twitter.com/SecretService They're not shy about this. It's probably illegal to threaten anyone's life or really any kind of violence on Twitter, not just politicians. I doubt threats of violence are protected speech.

[worklogin]

To reiterate:

* Freedom of speech is freedom of restriction from government.

* Calls to violence and videos of murder are not covered by the 1st amendment.

[lukeschlather]

Freedom of speech is clearly enshrined in the US Constitution as freedom of restriction from government, but freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. It's kind of an academic distinction if a multinational corporation like Twitter is restricting it or a government.

[waps]

Legally you are extremely wrong.

You could mean either :

1) US freedom of speech, which is only freedom from government interference with political speech, and obviously US-only.

2) UN "international" freedom of speech. Has 2 major problems

* cannot actually be used to sue anyone for denying it, unlike the US law

* has been repeatedly judged to not even cover "muhammad is an asshole", despite that obviously being political speech in a third of the countries that signed it. Same goes of Chinese and EU politicians, EU royalty, Thai royalty, and a myriad of other cases.

[lukeschlather]

In political philosophy (at least the standard USA political philosophy I learned in school) rights are things that we agree in principle people should be allowed to do. Laws are made to protect rights, but they are not the source of those rights. Rights are founded in our collective moral beliefs.

[bcoates]

Says who? If you believe the Supreme Court, calls to violence are core political speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware). I'm not even sure what law distributing videos of murder would break.

[LukeShu]

"Fighting words" are not protected speech (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire).

Calls to violence are generally not protected; though Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled that the call to violence must be likely to actually incite violence.

[JoeAltmaier]

Obscenity, right? That's not just about sex.

[chc]

Beheading people is not speech; it's violence. You're arguing for freedom of violence.

[u124556]

The beheading is beyond our control, but should we not talk about it?

[chc]

Should we not recruit people to behead other people? No, we should not. We're still beheading people in that narrative.

[kumar303]

I'll admit I'm somewhat conflicted. You can arrive at similar conclusions thinking about it as child pornography. In both cases it does seem like censoring the material is the right thing to do.

However, my conflict comes from the fact that censorship doesn't really solve the root problem. In child molesters, the problem is better treated in psychiatric care and in extremism the problem is better treated through education, peace, and tolerance.

[bellerocky]

My comment was specifically a criticism of the idea that diaspora should use its inability to remove ISIS murder videos as a promotional opportunity. Having said that, if I owned a diaspora pod and there was a mechanism for it, I'd remove ISIS content.

[rjknight]

Sounds like a good argument for letting them vent on the internet instead, then.

[bellerocky]

They're not venting, they're recruiting and spreading fear.

[Alupis]

And radical Christian groups in the US aren't?

[bellerocky]

Maybe, I don't know, how is that relevant? What is your argument? You think if a radical Christian group posted videos of murders online Twitter wouldn't ban it? What? Who are these people commenting today? Where did they come from?

[Alupis]

I don't think anyone really takes issue with Twitter pulling down content -- they are a private company (as-in not controlled by the govt) -- but when a government starts censoring material (like in the UK were linking-to, or even viewing of this sort of material is considered illegal), that's where things get not-OK.

What I find more outrageous was that the reporter apparently was held captive for 2 years... without anyone (in the public) knowing. Bergdahl was held captive for 5 years and luckily was returned in a controversial exchange. What is going on that we are not able to protect and/or recover our people?

Seems to send a clear message that if you get captured by an extremists group like ISIS, the government won't come running in to save you, nor will the public even know you are missing -- fore the government doesn't want to stir public opinion into favoring some sort of military action. So, in essence -- you are all alone out there, potentially for years, or worse. -- That is outrageous to me.

[sp332]

They gave people the power to post really offensive and harmful things, but that doesn't mean they have to be happy when it happens.

[kordless]

They gave people the ability to post things without threat of censorship.

Whether or not they thought through the ramifications of all edge cases, how they feel about it, and what they do about is another matter entirely.

[sp332]

Diaspora is just a web app. If you already have a web server, you have the ability to post things without censorship. Diaspora doesn't add any anti-censorship abilities on top of that. In fact their main selling point is keeping things private.