CathedralBorrow

That makes sense if the original statement was that capitalism is the only thing that can ever incentivize abuse.

If you assume that abuse can be caused or influenced by more than one thing -- which I believe makes sense but you might disagree -- then it doesn't matter what communism was doing if we're talking about capitalism.

How can you argue against the statement "capitalism incentivizes abuse" by talking about communism?

Note that I don't disagree with your notion that abuse is abundant in all human societies.

> It is literally impossible to view everything you say through all possible interpretations. There is no way that any single person can know every possible interpretation of what they say.

100% agreed. Don't see how it relates to what I wrote however.

Funny; since you are right now bringing up this group of people to express indignation towards their behavior.

It's easy to offend without intending to, so I don't get how your intentions are relevant. Yes it can be annoying and difficult to consider the impact of your words and how they might be perceived by other, different, people. It would be simpler if you didn't have to think about that at all. But is that really the argument? It's a big hassle and you'd rather not have to do it?

How do you make someone shut up in a social network?

I'm a roguelike enthusiast who's attempted to play HyperRogue many times but always get stuck on not understanding the geometry at all. Any tips from those who have?

Again, if you wanted to convey a specific meaning of consequences you probably should have just said that. There's a lot of consequences you're protected from, and even more that you're not protected from.

> Surely you don't think you should be able to doxx or punch someone in the face that has extremist views?

How could you possibly believe this in good faith? Consequences can also be, for example, people expressing their distaste in your speech and choosing to boycott your products if you're a business.

You said protection from consequences, not protection from criminal violence and harassment. If you meant protection from criminal violence and harassment, you should have said protection from criminal violence and harassment.

> Freedom to do a thing implies protection from consequence, or you're not free.

This is a wild take on freedom. Do you seriously believe that free speech means that you should be able to say anything and be protected from any and all consequences?

Legal free speech does not mean that a private company is obligated to host it.

Doing shady things? Is this a rephrasing of the "nothing to hide" argument?

Have you ever had a meeting where sensitive information was shared?

Zoom meetings are like those, but with the sharing of sensitive information transmitted over the Internet. Someone could easily record their screen and audio and capture said sensitive information for subsequent sharing -- or "leaking"-- with someone else.

They definitely exist, and can be installed to home screens.

It is however a huge hurdle to user acquisition, which is the angle I was referring to. The obscurity of Gab kind of supports that point. All kinds of products and services can exist, but if you get booted of all the main channels you are doomed to be an obscure niche at best.

Regardless of hosting, Parler seems to be dead in the water given how much of the Internet is accessed via mobile devices, and Parler being banned from all (both) major app stores.