The problem was that everyone had to have a particular author's plugin to see the extra content.
Some of them were better than others, allowing cross referencing, citation insertion, and a number of other sophisticated features.
I don't know if they still are around.
Sites like reddit and hn are really inverted versions of this concept, fixing the basic problem that most sites don't have commentary.
What may be an interesting hybrid is to search the commentary aggregators when you land on a site and then show the hn/digg/whatever comments and permit replying if the credentials are known
Also, if you start from an anti-censorship anti-moderation position, in this day and age, you are likely to attract the worst of society right off the bat.
I have zero confidence in automated hatespeech blocking ever since I had comments blocked multiple times for fighting racists with reason (which is, honestly, the only way it will be eliminated, just like it worked against homophobia and interracial marriage... I wonder how long it will take before we realize that if you ban it, you martyr it, and you merely send it off to fester on some darkweb somewhere)
Homophobia has been eliminated? Since when?
How could you possibly expect to control people saying things about your blog on a remote webserver?
There is no solution that is not worse than the speech.
This is not a problem that needs solving.
It's called Aether, and it only supports text. Each node stores 6 months of all posts. Every person votes for their own moderators of communities so you can basically choose your own moderation filter that you get.
I didn't personally like the idea that it has amnesia after 6 months, but surely eventually clients would support saving your own threads to keep locally.
So you could subscribe to your own trusted adblocking/flagging list.
You're right. My point would make sense only in case of an opt-in solution.
Censorship resistance doesn't necessarily attract the worst type of people although the phrase is has become a synonym for anti-moderation among certain crowds.
I’ve since moved to Firefox and gave up on the extension, but it might be an easy port...
They are mostly the same, and Firefox has a compatibility library that stubs most of the incompatibilities.
>Is it possible to avoid duplicates?
I thought about this as well in the past but never actually found a solution. Maybe someone here knows if there's research or an algorithm to uniquely identify the URL.
EDIT: I've just created a proof of concept that works:
The implied assumption here is that it's a "basic problem" that most sites do not have a readily-discoverable public commentary board.
Sites such as Reddit, HN, and Facebook are popular, readily-discoverable public commentary boards about other sites. This much is true. However, it is incorrect to say that the absence of this is a "basic problem" as stated above. Given the past few years* of events and discoveries about the human impacts of these public comment boards, it may be that we incorrectly solved a "problem" that turned out to be a feature keeping humanity from harming itself with its own speech.
* three examples, cited by paraphrase: "speech encouraging harm to others"; "coordinated worldwide attacks upon individuals"; "like counts may do psychological harm"
However I think that this hypothetical scenario will never happen because the idea will never reach this wide adoption. It'll inevitably be fragmented into a few segments with rules and moderation. Want comments from the theoretical physicist community? Subscribe to sci.data.org in your extension config. Want to know what 4chan folks think? Add unfiltered.comments.com to your config - it'll be an unreadable mess anyway and you'll need to make some non-trivial effort to add that url.
But I think there will be an archive with all the comments for research purposes: physically, it will be a big data server that keeps connections with all other data servers and pulls all the comments it can.
How is an open source browser going to ban an extension that throngs of people want?
OK. Explaining ruins the humor but I'll explain.
The pithy point I was making is that a bunch of words on a comment thread is not likely to harm humanity any more than the printing press did.
Or the writing on a toilet stall wall for that matter, now that I think about it.
The larger point I was alluding to is that the people who would call for the banning of text from a printing press are probably the people we should really be worried about.
Free speech says “yes”, but if you find a way to stably write sentences on the sky, you will quickly discover that the majority of people do not agree that free speech applies to writing in the sky.
There’s a nuance that we as tech haven’t explored properly between “you have the right to speak unhindered by the government” and “you have the right to impose your speech upon an unwilling audience”, which relates to why street speech generally can’t use PAs or bullhorns without triggering a local government response. Similarly, this is why coordinated protests must be super careful to block their rowdier elements.
Setting up a system of global commentary that “grafts”, “appends”, “overlays”, “applies” a collection of third-party uncontrolled speech onto a non-consenting website — so, literally, the addon linked by this post — could very well be considered “coordinating and imposing your speech on an unwilling audience”. This, then, is the ethical and social policy question.
Does this addon hinder free speech by encouraging and enabling unwanted, uncontrolled speech to be inserted into - using DOM overlays or browser sidebars - someone else’s controlled private forum?
For whatever reason, tech in general seems absolutely terrified to consider this question. I suspect that’s partly because it is a nuanced consideration that violates two popular tech precepts:
1) “uncontrolled speech is an inalienable right”
2) “anything that can be done technically must be permitted to be done”
Neither of those principles is true in general society, and so I hope someday tech confronts this dissonance and resolves it - rather than simply pretending that “this addon isn’t illegal” is sufficient to defend ignoring the wider ethical issues of its effects.
It's ridiculous to consider that to be "imposing your speech on an unwilling audience".
Your sky writing argument is also ridiculous as the difference between sky writing and a website should be obvious. The internet is not the real world.
You are being illogical and I'm done explaining.
NCSA Mosaic had the feature back in 1993. Check out this post from Marc Andreesen on the www-talk list: http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q2/0416.ht...
A rather obscure browser by the W3C called Annotea also had support for web annotations. I vaguely remember downloading and installing it just to try annotations.
Hypothesis (Hypothes.is)  is active  and awesome. They are involved in the Web Annotation standardization efforts.
It's focused on several related specs, like making timestamped copies of pages (like archive.org), selecting ranges in pages, making selections that are resilient to page changes, and maybe more I'm not aware of.
They have a GitHub repo that has some other work as well: https://github.com/apache/incubator-annotator/
They recently created their own browser (a fork of Brave with all of the BAT sh*tcoin stuff removed) when Google and Firefox both censored their extension and it seems like it's lighter and faster than Chrome, at least in my testing.
Thanks, I'll consider it a certification. From the grand wizard of Gab Tech himself. /s
There's plenty of other insanely toxic content on Gab. But if you're signed up to it and don't see the issue... there's really no point discussing that with you.
Two apps have voluntarily decided that's the right thing to do. Lots of others have not.
Gab deciding to advertise as "we have apps they are [generic mastodon app]" is an existential threat. Because appstores don't care about details like that.
But yeah, he just seems... remarkably (although not shockingly, I suppose) unprofessional in how he communicates (there's zero reason to even bring up politics in a request for source code of an AGPL project), which isn't a good look for someone acting as a CTO.
(hn mods, if this is too political, it's okay to delete)
1 - Their chosen political party is not pushing far left/right enough
2 - The opposing party is obviously criminally bent on destroying the country.
Actually maybe three problems; the third being that "centrists" (anyone who isn't radicalized one way or the other) haven't come out against the party that's obviously criminally bent on destroying the country.
I guess that might bleed into real-world politics, but it's unfortunate. I think I remember when it was more "their political ideas are stupid and don't work" and less "they're 100% acting in bad faith and literally trying to destroy the nation".
All I can say is prepare for some hard times, followed by the US not having the geopolitical 1st place. Maybe it's too stark a warning but unless we start to see each other as something other than demons hell-bent on destroying all good in the world, I don't see how anything productive is going to happen.
A note of hope though - the AOC/Cruz collaboration sounds nice.
> All I can say is prepare for some hard times, followed by the US not having the geopolitical 1st place. Maybe it's too stark a warning but unless we start to see each other as something other than demons hell-bent on destroying all good in the world, I don't see how anything productive is going to happen.
This discourse has certainly bled into the real-world politics, especially in Congress. Throw in the Internet's lawless landscape, a reckless leader, extremism and nationalism, and you have a powder keg ready to explode.
During the Democratic debate last night, many candidates said climate change, China, Russia and even Trump were the greatest geopolitical threat to the United States. What none of them said was the continuing divide between the right and left in this country, which, within at least another two or three decades, could escalate to a full-blown conflict.
Many people scoff at the idea of another civil war: "Not possible" or "Not in this era." I'm worried we're sowing the seeds for a future conflict, and other countries, like China and Russia, eagerly await for the shining beacon of hope, which the United States boasts to be, will tear itself apart from within.
I don't understand how this isn't the most concerning thing to everyone rational more than tribalist right now. And if I wanted to tear the US apart, this is exactly how I would do it. Slowly and over time. Especially if I was Russia. :P
I'm German and the only party really seriously pushing for improvement of my identity rights is also neoliberal.
So I'm just out of options as a trans socialist. Of course I'll call the greens out on flying the LGBT flag while not pushing for TSG reform (the law that allows you to change your name for ~5000 EUR, two unqualified "expert opinions" and a civil court case).
And because that sounds like an insanely farfetched story... here's the certificate with the person's name he assumed I was on it.
From what I've seen, Dissenter is just a way for people who "believe in free speech" to use the N words in comments without repercussions.
Ah, the good old days where neo-nazis weren't everywhere online...
It might be called Sidewiki actually...
The description calling content moderation "orwellian" is also concerning. I think at this point we've all seen how twisted unmoderated comments get. If the platform is built on this premise then I can only guess how toxic such a community will become.
And if malicious comments are a problem on the platform, then that's a failure of the design of the platform rather than the idea of it. The nature of commenting as it exists now dishes out proportional exposure to those who are the loudest and most persistent, or can otherwise game the system. We've tried to solve that with human moderators (sometimes as bad as the trolls themselves), and simple voting algorithms (lowbrow meme humor gets voted to the top).
It's now 2019, we're long overdue for a better way of doing things. Taking two steps backwards toward a completely unmoderated soapbox is a non-starter, and the fact that we're even having this discussion on HN is evidence that far too little effort has gone into solving these problems collectively.
And I seriously wish I made this all up. This place is a violent cesspool.
within a couple of scrolls found a rant about "Corey Booker's tranny abortions", and a reference to a "lispy Mexican faggot". Most other posts are either pro-Trump memes or anti-immigration rants, and there are plenty of those on Facebook and Twitter.
I get it: the sales pitch here is that you come to Gab to hear interesting thoughts are are censored by mainstream sites. But I'm not seeing a single post that made me stop and think about anything. It's mindless, hateful garbage. Even if you disagree with that and don't think it's a "bad" community I still question what would ever make it an interesting or worthwhile community. Because I'm seeing nothing.
The Chans are a different entity, as there's no voting function to complete the attention seeker feedback loop. I'd even argue they're one of the few places on the internet that doesn't bubble much, as it's completely anonymous with little reward function. Voat on the other hand is probably the one of the foulest places on the internet when it comes to discussing disgusting and dangerous ideology.
- A post about Vimeos removal of the Google/Veritas Video
- A Post that criticized that r/the_donald removed 83000 posts in the last month (implying that relative to voat, T_D is too heavily censored)
- A Post about Eric Schmidts visit to a Hillary Clinton Rally during the last election where he wore a Staff Badge
- A Post about the recent murder of a German politician that was most likely murdered because of his anti-German remarks in the past
- An anti-jewish gif in /funny
- An informative post about a high number of NYPT suicides
- A post about Mexican Migrants
- A post about Muslims faking to be American Cops
Followed by some making fun of reddit and AOC, pointing out double standards of Israel vs US walls, cop power abuse, complaining about a low sentence for a child rapist, A post about Merkels Health status etc etc.
I think adults can stomach that, and from time to time learn something new.
Third Voice was an idea ahead of its time. Blogs ended-up being the meta-web, I suppose. They're not as satisfying to me as inline annotations.
I like the inline annotations, but likely it'll need full access to DOM.
Edit: oh wait...chrome only
Not to detract from the OP.
(Edit: It's an open standard. There are plugins for different browsers, a web interface and API)
I support you because the comment blocking hysteria these days is getting a bit too much. Let me know if you would like to see what I built on chrome.
Have a look :
The same auction is available at, eg
, and probably limitless other URLs.
How do you give website owners a way to opt out?
> Many websites don't allow user comments, or disable comments after a certain period of time. comntr bypasses these Orwellian restrictions by allowing anyone to leave a comment on any website, as well as read comments left by others. Furthermore, your comments cannot be censored by the website administrator.
I like the concept of the add-on, but calling moderation of your comment section "Orwellian" is pretty out there.
Then allow me to comment on this repo and display those comments prominently. Because if I’m not allowed to add whatever opinion I want to the readme, I am being horribly oppressed.
I'm literally just saying that some people like to be able to say what they are allowed to, that this could be a tool to do so, and that that is OK. That was a direct response to the phrase "people still think unrestricted user content could somehow be a good idea", which implies that free speech is NEVER a good idea. I disagree with that.
Perhaps you read it as “allowing unrestricted comments on a web page _or anywhere else_ is a bad idea”
But that second one has never been the case. People have alway been able to post responses on their own sites with links to the original. Many places like reddit are primarily that.
I think others maybe confusing the right to free speech with a right to vandalize.
If there's links to illegal stuff there, then something needs to be done about the actual site hosting the illegal stuff.
Not all speech is legally allowed, is this extensions going to deal with copyright violations, threats, libel, etc. Or even someone posting the name of a person arrested on a news story when the laws disallow that information being public.
Youtube now totally owns online video, there isn't any competitors that are even close. Facebook has almost half the world signed up to its platform. This isn't someone's online forum or a news site. These companies completely own their respective parts of the industry.
The major social media sites like Youtube, Twitter, Facebook are so large they are considered to be a "public private space" (I forget the exact legal term).
These platforms agree to DMCA safe harbour where they are considered to be a "platform" and not a "publisher". That means they shouldn't be censoring anyone on their political opinions and must be politically neutral (otherwise they are taking on the role of a publisher as they are acting as an editor), now IANAL but there is certainly an argument that can be made. Whether a judge would rule it so, who knows.
This is worth watching:
Tim Pool in this video manages to point out quite clearly how Twitter terms of service are political and they don't even realise it.
There was a recent decision that POTUS twitter feed is a public space (https://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-twitt...) . We can easily see this extended to any US elected official.
And there is also historical context in an 1980 decision in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins where, based on Californian law, private property of the shoping mall was deemed open to political speech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...)
When its a private, non-political forum, the corps can do as they choose. But once politics and political speech move in along with public elected officials, all bets are off.
(Thanks to hn:dexen for the links. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20268802 )
> The distinction, in this case, is that's it's NOT about using an existing forum for something. Web pages do not come with comment sections by default.
But social media does. And so does a lot of websites that use either wordpress plugins, Discus, or other sites.
And nothing I cited requires a comments section to be made... But when it is, there's precedent for forcing whomever's running it to make way for political speech when politicians are stumping and talking there.
> It's like requiring a shopping mall to build a stage for people to have political speeches on. I feel few people would say free speech is infringed upon if every mall doesn't build such a stage.
The very act of having a floor in the private mall was enough. You don't need a stage. And even gathering signatures for a political reason is reason enough. Seriously, go look up the Pruneyard rule. You can try to derail it with 'whatifs', but that is precedent.
You're talking about the latter, which is a constitutional right protected by the government. What people are talking about here is the concept of unrestricted speech, which is a much broader ideal, necessary for a healthy society, and is definitely under ever-increasing pressure as the world moves towards entirely different communication mediums. When most conversation moves online, the lack of public open spaces in that digital environment is a valid cause for concern and definitely deserves discussion.
The confusion (ours, not yours specifically) might arise because some talk about free speech the principle and others talk about free speech the legal norm. (The latter is prominently codified in the US constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
It's not the same and the principle isn't exclusively about government.
Free speech is also a very old ideal and exists in places where the US constitution doesn't apply and places where human rights aren't implemented through local policies. It can be violated in places where there is no government at all.
There's this great Wikipedia article on the topic which introduces first the idea, then different implementations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Like the party that published it?
For example, HN's front page contains a set of URLs for each item. This item would be https://news.ycombinator.com/b149012c-56f4-4859-82b8-1f3f83e... for one request, and https://news.ycombinator.com/73e78d90-cc25-4091-8ffa-94783a2... for the next request. Both requests would get mapped to the same page, and serve up the same content (except with another uuid inserted into links).
Every comment would go into a unique SHA1 bucket and never seen again.
However I do worry about moderation and trolls. Allowing people to make as much noise as they can is almost as damaging to free speech as censorship. I'm not really familiar with IPFS, what does it mean that unpopular comments disappear? Is it like seeding the only torrent (comments) that you like?
The thing is, to see that noise you would first have to be on the specific link, want to see comments on it, then go out of your way to install the addon if you haven't already. This is so much better for the people running the websites as they do not have to even acknowledge the comments' existence and are not obligated to moderate anything. Anyone who wants to comment or see them should know what they are getting into. They can grow a skin or uninstall the addon.
Is there any kind of rate-limiting to stop bad actors from making a million comments per second?
About the moderation, etc, this is really opt-in so you use it by your own choice and by "going in" you pretty much have to expect that like any other place where moderation is light or non-existent you'll see stuff you dislike.
Uploading to IPFS is like creating a torrent for any file you share. Someone always needs to be seeding that file for it to remain accessible to people.
So what OP meant by unpopular comments disappear is that nobody would be seeding them.
Are the iframes opt-in per domain? If not, how do you deal with leaking internal DNS names (referers) from within companies and government organizations? I don't see a referer policy 
Does your addon respect CSP policies? I assume the browser would enforce this, if iframes are not permitted.
 - https://securityheaders.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcomntr.github.i...
The domain mentioned in the README is not up.
But regardless, it's weird that anyone would reach for SHA-1 for anything new now.
EDIT: Oh, it appears to be hashed... that's not as bad as I expected - but it's still extremely abusable. Nope... just nope - absolutely not without some sort of differential privacy or other concealment, thanks.
Someone should make something similar for HN.
Related HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16316374
* Viability/resilience of the server which keeps comments.
* Under which jurisdiction it is hosted?
* If it depends on a domain name who owns it?
* Can a commenter be traced, and by whom?
* Can anybody (including original author) edit comments?
Edit: Someone linked this exact thing further down https://github.com/jdormit/looped-in
And it would just have to be a single line that you can read so you can trust it. Something like:
To make it more convenient, the bookmarklet could also add the discussion to the current page via an iframe which also has no access to any outside data.
This can be done already:
Every website is one URL away. You can't rely on being relatively invisible.
"If I wrote blogs there, id like to see feedback and supportive comments" -- yes, but (a) if you write a blog, you can choose a platform that has comments and (b) eventually the Nazis or the pedophiles or the Nazi pedophiles will colonize your comments section when they discover you don't have any moderation rules. At which point, you will have three choices:
1. turn off comments
2. moderate comments
3. give up
To see those comments, I would have to willingly decide that I wanted to see them and go to download the addon.This is the same for anyone else. If there are people who do this and think they can make any kind of association or blame on me for having pedos commenting on my blog's url, well, they are wrong, since I had nothing to do with that comment section and have no control over it. What do they want me to do? It's some other guy's addon and other people talking amongst themselves a great distance away.
We took inspiration from SideWiki and Hypothes.is, and paired it with bookmarking features.
Disclaimer: This is my app/extension.
But, I guess first a number of problems should be solved w.r.t. moderation, trust, spam, ...
You're not going to be using this tool for synchronous conversations between commenters, or even conversations at all. Any information you leave in the form of a comment is going to matter to the people who visit the site after you. You're also commenting about the website's content in question, not having a soapbox discussion.
The tool doesn't need to suffer from the effects of the empty room problem known to social networking, because there is no "social" in this network.
Granted, it's going to take something a lot more clever than what's already there to deal with the separate moderation issue.
So that's why it's strange that such an extension, which I think does have a social aspect, would ignore 60% of browsers.
> The extension works in Chrome too, but it's not published to the Chrome Web Store. Why? Publishing any extension there now requires (1) a phone number, to create a gmail account and (2) a credit card, supposedly to deter spammers. However the extension can be installed manually.
couldn't they be encrypted with the url?
My motivation for using their comments add-on is mostly to avoid tracking, although it's quite annoying they rely on Cloudflare.
On a different note, the Wikipedia article on Gab/Dissenter is quite politically charged . It seems that Wikipedia editors are mostly left-leaning (after clicking through several political articles).
Is this something I should be using/supporting? I'm not an overtly political person but I just don't want to be in bad company.
I stopped reading when I got to "our race replaced by violent low-iq brown". (in case anyone wanted to dispute the existence: https://gab.com/HankRearden/posts/MHdqTE1hWDFDTTVTR3Biak1vel...)
That's enough bull for today. Fair warning to anyone else who decides to indulge curiosity.
Some people may turn to Gab with the feeling that it's the lesser of the evils, or the only place they can feel free from the vice grip of the power elite, but unfortunately that particular environment turns out to be not such a great role model. There are going to be breeding grounds for such views as long as there is an Internet, but those breeding grounds will grow in population in proportion to the additional prohibitions on speech imposed by the mainstream Internet platforms.
Also, one of the comments below:
> Hank here is the only person on the Planet that can turn
> Sarcasm into HILARITY........
I don't find it funny or condone it, but perhaps this is some sort of sarcasm. Looking at the account of "hank", they appear to right-wing and politically engaged.
However, everything I saw on the front page of that website is worse than I've heard even the most drunken, politically minded conservatives that I have met. The beliefs espoused on the front page of that site, keeping in mind this is not even "fringe" for that community, are all things that would elicit immediate removal from any other community that I am a part of; some of that is because of optics, some of it is because of the demographics (PoC, Religion).
I do not desire to engage in rhetoric with someone who photoshops a Nazi SS uniform onto their profile picture and calls for the eradication, in whole or in part, of an ethnic group (this is the definition of genocide). I am fully in agreement with the idea that, on a level playing field, even one whose beliefs are dangerous can be made to feel empathetic and see different views; however, the community of that website seems to be acting entirely in bad faith when it comes to discussion.
I do not desire to participate in a public forum full of bad actors and those debating in bad faith. This says to me that those in that forum are entrenched in their beliefs, and use it as an escape from debate; I, too, have these spaces, and this site for one is even one of those for me.
The act of engaging with people who self identify as Nazis and Race Realists is one of extreme exhaustion and endless rhetorical debate, subjective to extreme attempts of trolling and fallacious bad-faithed arguments. This is what Gab has showed itself to be for me. If you have a different experience there, feel free to point it out to me.
All of this is ignoring the foundation upon which the platform was created on, which has its roots here.
I have zero interest in talking to them. I've tried. Any argument I've ever encountered has been made in bad faith.
It's not what you called "right wing bias" that I have a problem with and don't want to engage with. I thought that was quite clear in my comment.
> country with what he called "violent low-iq brown".
Again: "I don't find it funny or condone it". But, how do you know he isn't sarcastically echoing the point of view of a far-right person, or what other people believe his opinion should be? I think that given the right context (and/or delivery) this could be a joke to mock people for example.
> I have zero interest in talking to them. I've tried. Any
> argument I've ever encountered has been made in bad faith.
Whether you've given up or not, they exist and will continue to exist. They lay the bricks, they hold political positions and they teach your kids. These people exist everywhere in society and somehow we need to work together for the betterment (and survival) of humanity. Given how important us working together is, I feel obliged to understand them.
> It's not what you called "right wing bias" that I have a
> problem with and don't want to engage with. I thought that
> was quite clear in my comment.
I didn't suggest you did, I'm just saying that you are able to neutralize the perceived political/ideological bias of the platform with your own thoughts and ideas.
And no, these kinds of people don't teach my children. People who make remarks like that in an Ontario school would be in real hot water. Even if it's a "joke".
And yes, "joke" is in quotes for a reason. It's not a new phenomenon: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/23/alt-right...
It's not about politics, man. I was very clear.
In the same way you don't need to donate to charity.
> And no, these kinds of people don't teach my children.
So you think some of these 1 million or so people aren't functioning members of society? How would you ever know if they hold these views privately and express them online under an alias? These are just the people who somehow collected onto this platform, I imagine many more exist (I happen to know many who are not online - and also far-right teachers (it's possible to do a job and not express politics)).
> And yes, "joke" is in quotes for a reason. It's not a new
The "alt-right" is just a fuzzy term without any real meaning : "The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by various self-described "alt-rightists", media commentators, and academics." It's a convenient bogey-man for people to claim they know the exact cause of some poorly defined group. Helps in writing articles and publishing papers I guess.
This whole subject is quite complex and I don't know how anybody could possibly effectively police "jokes" vs jokes without implementing their own bias, especially inside jokes. "I wouldn't spend so long replying to HN comments if they all just dropped dead". Is it a death threat, sarcasm, an inside joke, me spreading my anti-HN ideology? Who knows without context.
> It's not about politics, man. I was very clear.
Wikipedia: "Fascism is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism" . Fascism is a political ideology. But it's really besides the point.
Please don’t cherry pick my remarks to make like there’s an argument to be had here.
By the way, that article is referencing a revival of a strategy employed much earlier on in the 20th century. It doesn’t hinge on “alt right” or anything else. Just bigots making an effort to normalize their bigotry.
Have a good weekend. It’s a long one here as we celebrate Canada Day.
> who want to argue in bad faith about racism and other
> nonsense as if they have any valid scientific footing.
Are you suggesting that I'm acting in bad faith, or the commenter on Gab? I all honesty I think we're misunderstanding each other, that's always been the challenge of writing.
> Please don’t cherry pick my remarks to make like there’s
> an argument to be had here.
Please quote specifically what you think I've cherry picked, I haven't done so on purpose.
> By the way, that article is referencing a revival of a
> strategy employed much earlier on in the 20th century. It
> doesn’t hinge on “alt right” or anything else. Just bigots
> making an effort to normalize their bigotry.
Normalization of speech through sarcasm? I'm British, sarcasm/"jokes" is the language most of us speak normally anyway, it's how we laugh about our shared troubles.
> Have a good weekend. It’s a long one here as we celebrate
> Canada Day.
Have a good one.
For those who want raw social media, there's Gab. Personally I want to be able to talk to people who I don't agree with and have a proper discussion. From my experience, strangers on the platform are much more willing to engage in a discussion and explain their ideas - and at least then I can begin to understand these people, even if I don't agree with them.
I would generally say that Gab is not always pleasant and by using it you accept that. Not every website/service/media needs to be made for everybody.
Without any explanation. First time I heard of Gab, and/or Dissenter. Unsigned app? No, thank you.
I have a same idea and I made it
But is is dead now