Nah so far it was just Katie McGinty who brought it up, but I think it was an attempt to just look like she knew what she was talking about not necessarily asking for a backdoor into encryption.
The Democrats are going to fuck the technology world over on this. If Hillary takes a strong anti-encryption stance I won't vote for her in the general election.
Pretty sure every viable Republican candidate is anti-encryption (among a lot of other unsavory stances), so it's not like you can not play the game.
That joke was way better in its original context. The setup by the news headline and the punchline as a snide comment had a much better payoff. Sometimes copying a joke you saw as a screenshot into plain text means you lose a lot of the humor.
It is really interesting having a somewhat unique context on things when it comes to the US reaction to the Paris attacks. My wife and I were actually in Paris the night of the attacks, so we got to see first hand what the city was like during the days immediately following. It was surreal being on the other end for once where all of our friends were spamming us with messages asking if we were okay. And then in the days following, the ridiculous amount of fear on display in the US was just disgusting. Nowhere in Paris, you know, the city that actually got attacked, did we see any of this fear. Sadness, yes. But no fear. Security was increased around monuments and in the metro/train stations (mostly in the form of more military, people were not getting scanned or patted down or questioned or anything else), but the people as a whole just went about their business as usual. The whole refugee thing has been the most disgusting. The majority of our governors proved themselves to be utter chickenshits while France has doubled down on helping Syrians get to a safe place.
After being asked if we were okay, the next most asked question we got was, "Can you get out of the city?" Yes, we could have if we wanted to, but we had no desire to leave before we intended. At no point did we feel unsafe, even when we were in the area of what the attacks happened. As I said, there was no sense of fear anywhere. Wish I could say the same now that we're home.
It's honestly a bigger cesspit than 4chan. At least on the chans, you can be assured that people are just trolling one another.
But I think Voaters actually believe what they're saying.
I much prefer it to reddit, where the agenda-laden curation is way out of hand. Voat is full of absolutely vile excrement, but there's also actual conversations going on there and debates being hashed out. You just have to curate the content yourself instead of depending on mom and dad to do it. Which is sort of how it ought to be.
Having free speech means also having speech you don't like. To me, it's worth it. To others: not. So it goes. Forcing hateful people to shut up doesn't make them stop being hateful, but that's just one aspect of the issue. The more important one, to me, is that using the excuse of safe spaces/insert-your-preferred-nomenclature-here becomes cover for pushing other political agendas.
Just like reddit is free to curate the speech on their site, people are free to get tired of that and want something a bit less paternal.
But of course, yes, there's a lot of vile garbage on Voat. There is in the world, too. Voat just does what the internet itself does: makes it easier to see (which tends to upset people who like to pretend it's not there.)
It is really interesting having a somewhat unique context on things when it comes to the US reaction to the Paris attacks. My wife and I were actually in Paris the night of the attacks, so we got to see first hand what the city was like during the days immediately following. It was surreal being on the other end for once where all of our friends were spamming us with messages asking if we were okay. And then in the days following, the ridiculous amount of fear on display in the US was just disgusting. Nowhere in Paris, you know, the city that actually got attacked, did we see any of this fear. Sadness, yes. But no fear. Security was increased around monuments and in the metro/train stations (mostly in the form of more military, people were not getting scanned or patted down or questioned or anything else), but the people as a whole just went about their business as usual. The whole refugee thing has been the most disgusting. The majority of our governors proved themselves to be utter chickenshits while France has doubled down on helping Syrians get to a safe place.
After being asked if we were okay, the next most asked question we got was, "Can you get out of the city?" Yes, we could have if we wanted to, but we had no desire to leave before we intended. At no point did we feel unsafe, even when we were in the area of what the attacks happened. As I said, there was no sense of fear anywhere. Wish I could say the same now that we're home.
The majority of the past 20 years have been used by various parties to sell panic to the American people as a wedge issue. Fear is pretty easy to spread, as it turns out. A very large part of our political process is based on it entirely, which is depressing. See: LGBT issues, refugees, terrorism, "socialism", etc etc etc
There's nothing left of mainstream American political debate but wedge issues. RIP the Fairness Doctrine, among other things.
Example of shit being posted on voat and then being addressed beautifully:
OP gets a fair number of upvotes for basically calling all trans people full of shit. Top commenter, who is not a fan of "SJWs", posts a pretty comprehensive explanation of the science behind gender dysmorphia:
Entirely correct? Probably not. You could probably correct him on a point or two. If this sort of crap were addressed in a more open forum, a better rebuttal/explanation could have resulted from a wider pool of participants, but voat's pretty small.
On reddit the OP would just have been deleted, then reposted in the "dark" subs and circle jerked over as proof of how oppressed everybody is by progressives, with no brilliant rebuttal.
Addendum: went back to Voat for an hour or two today. It's gotten way worse there overall. This I'll agree with. Atko is a well meaning, but overwhelmed landlord.
I still think reddit's curation of content is whacked out when it's creating the expectation of an open platform for discussion and then silently pruning it based on the whims of a handful of moderators on uber popular subs, but voat is just a different flavor of circle jerk because it employs mostly the same well intentioned but ultimately broken mechanisms for moderating discussion. Poop.
I still say Voat is the better platform for having an actual conversation if only because at least large swathes of the conversation don't end up deleted because somebody got upset. You may have to dig, but in general you can see it all.
This "agenda-laden" curation does not happen on any of the reddits I frequent, so I still just assume you're spending a lot of time in terrible reddits.
I think it takes more effort to see it than you're likely to be interested in putting forth. For me, I'm generally bored and demotivated at work.
/r/news and /r/worldnews are a little ridiculous when it comes to moderation. There's worse offenders but they're mostly irrelevant subs (except for the fact that they're read daily by tens of millions of people that is.)
It's more or less impossible to audit Reddit fully but it is possible to catch glimpses here and there that people bring to light. You may not see agenda driven censorship but are you confident there's none? Why?
And for the record I'm not talking about some of the runaway social justice stuff that many people (including voat users) assume is the major problem with Reddit. Mostly that's trolls trolling trolls.
I'm talking about US federal politics and world events. Like the TPP that you're barely allowed to discuss on default subs as an example.
No doubt a lot of it has to do with giving some volunteer power over what a million people see every day and the natural consequence of that. If it was easier to "compete" with established subs it wouldn't even matter.
Holy crap, the video in the article mentions /pol/ by name. The video ends with "Stay white!" Supremacists argue that the protesters assaulted first and are therefore at fault, but this is premeditated as fuck.
Supremacists ALWAYS argue that those filthy not-whites must naturally have done something to deserve it. It was clearly premeditated but I'm glad that this evidence will put these sick fucks where they belong.
Leigh Sales - "Europe's refugee challenge and now its terrorism fears have pushed from the front pages what had been the Continent's biggest crisis in years, it's financial woes. Tensions between countries were writ large over the economic catastrophe in Greece. So what will those frayed relationships mean for Europe's prospects of now working together on security? "
I keep reading the claim that the US air dropped some huge quantity of arms and ordinance to ISIS but no source that tries to document it. Where's that coming from? Trump? The interwebs?
Comments
Unsurprisingly, the xenophobes in that thread are also the most ardent believers of Gamergate on that forum.
I fucking hate people so much.
But I think Voaters actually believe what they're saying.
Vaoters
Voters
....
Oh shi-
Somehow, I don't think those are the 72 virgins they were planning on.
Time to trawl my FB feed and see if I saw it earlier and forgot so I can attribute the thing.
After being asked if we were okay, the next most asked question we got was, "Can you get out of the city?" Yes, we could have if we wanted to, but we had no desire to leave before we intended. At no point did we feel unsafe, even when we were in the area of what the attacks happened. As I said, there was no sense of fear anywhere. Wish I could say the same now that we're home.
Having free speech means also having speech you don't like. To me, it's worth it. To others: not. So it goes. Forcing hateful people to shut up doesn't make them stop being hateful, but that's just one aspect of the issue. The more important one, to me, is that using the excuse of safe spaces/insert-your-preferred-nomenclature-here becomes cover for pushing other political agendas.
Just like reddit is free to curate the speech on their site, people are free to get tired of that and want something a bit less paternal.
But of course, yes, there's a lot of vile garbage on Voat. There is in the world, too. Voat just does what the internet itself does: makes it easier to see (which tends to upset people who like to pretend it's not there.)
There's nothing left of mainstream American political debate but wedge issues. RIP the Fairness Doctrine, among other things.
OP gets a fair number of upvotes for basically calling all trans people full of shit. Top commenter, who is not a fan of "SJWs", posts a pretty comprehensive explanation of the science behind gender dysmorphia:
https://voat.co/v/whatever/comments/677306
Entirely correct? Probably not. You could probably correct him on a point or two. If this sort of crap were addressed in a more open forum, a better rebuttal/explanation could have resulted from a wider pool of participants, but voat's pretty small.
On reddit the OP would just have been deleted, then reposted in the "dark" subs and circle jerked over as proof of how oppressed everybody is by progressives, with no brilliant rebuttal.
I still think reddit's curation of content is whacked out when it's creating the expectation of an open platform for discussion and then silently pruning it based on the whims of a handful of moderators on uber popular subs, but voat is just a different flavor of circle jerk because it employs mostly the same well intentioned but ultimately broken mechanisms for moderating discussion. Poop.
I still say Voat is the better platform for having an actual conversation if only because at least large swathes of the conversation don't end up deleted because somebody got upset. You may have to dig, but in general you can see it all.
/r/news and /r/worldnews are a little ridiculous when it comes to moderation. There's worse offenders but they're mostly irrelevant subs (except for the fact that they're read daily by tens of millions of people that is.)
It's more or less impossible to audit Reddit fully but it is possible to catch glimpses here and there that people bring to light. You may not see agenda driven censorship but are you confident there's none? Why?
I'm talking about US federal politics and world events. Like the TPP that you're barely allowed to discuss on default subs as an example.
Holy crap, the video in the article mentions /pol/ by name. The video ends with "Stay white!" Supremacists argue that the protesters assaulted first and are therefore at fault, but this is premeditated as fuck.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4358024.htm