Ok. Is that what you consider to be the oppression of free speech?
Is that not allowable free speech according to you?

With an SSD, it's less than 30 minutes from a new machine to a SAMBA server.

1 members found this post helpful.

Arguably, it enables free speech but makes it suspectible to be buried by whoever has the most voters.
So if a company has a hired voting farm, arguably it has more free speech than a company who does not.
And it was not me who called it oppression, I just want to see the bad review and not the most funded one.

1 members found this post helpful.

I called it oppression... and I'm not even sure how it works...

But if I posted a dissenting view to a mainstream paradigm, and I did so politely, presenting facts and logic, If the mainstream paradigm could in essence hire voters to silence dissenting viewpoints, I would call that oppression.

For example, suppose there is an advertisment for Roundup's Crabgrass herbicide, and users are posting favorible reviews of how pretty it made their lawn... and then, concerned for the environment, I post a link to scientific research finding the product harmful to aquatic life in the watershed: I wouldn't want Bayer (who now owns Monsanto, who manufactures RoundUp) to be able to buy the elimination of my post.

3 members found this post helpful.

True and agreed upon, but...

Where you a shareholder of an company investing gazillions of dollars into an product world wide - would you risk your reputation to an random naysayer, if you could conveniently outvote him/her?

1 members found this post helpful.

How convenient is opression of speech in the long run?

I suggest criteria be developed for distinguising a properly argued dissenting pov, from falacious naysaying, (the kind with ad hominum attacks, ad absurdium reasonings), as well as appeal processes in case of criteria failure: thus, if I posted something like Bayer, Monsanto, and Roundup all suckle on oversized Richards, but never provide any kind of facts, then I agree stakeholders should have a method/criteria to defend themselves from these kind of ad hominum posts; but if the same method can take out valid criticisms, then the criteria need improvement.

Usually, people , prior to giving second thought, conveniently apply short term wisdom to the "poo-poo".

As sad as it is, it's true none the less.

Fair point. The question is: How do you "improve" these things?

Essentially what you're asking for are limits on free speech, though admittedly very particular ones.

1 members found this post helpful.

Well the concept that we are distilling out of this mess is algorithmic democracy, which is too new of a concept to have formal definition, and also is too broad of a topic for this thread, so I started a thread on the concept in the General forum, since that's where some of these long rolling threads really belong

Insulting and verbally abusing someone is not a crime.

1 members found this post helpful.

But it is a crime to stay in someone's house after being asked to leave.

2 members found this post helpful.

I sincerely hope that your interactions with others are based on better principles than whether or not those actions can be considered a crime in some particular legal jurisdiction.

It's very convenient if you are trying to build a global authoritarian system.

It is in many jurisdictions. In the UK, behaviour of that kind in public can be classified as "conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace". If in addition, the abuse is racial or related to someone's sexuality or to a disability, it becomes a hate crime and attracts a more severe sentence. I have no quarrel with any of this. What I do quarrel with is the new idea that having any kind of dissentient opinion on such matters, however peaceably expressed, is automatically hateful and deserves the "cancelling" of the dissident.

For example, if I say that a trans woman is not really a woman but has a perfect right to live as one and should, as a matter of simple courtesy, be addressed by her preferred name, that is not transphobic imho. But it would certainly qualify me as a transphobe on modern social media.

3 members found this post helpful.

... but not in the eyes of the law. Quote: 'Harry Miller vs Humberside Police' in 2020 in the UK - The Police investigation into 'hate crime' was ruled by the High Court as "unlawful", in a "watershed moment for liberty" case that judged the Police force's actions to be "disproportionate interference" with Miller's right to freedom of expression. An activist for the trans community, who co-founded Trans Media Watch, said the ruling would worry trans people because the court didn't really define what the threshold for acceptable speech was.