Court Dismissed Lawsuit Brought Against Social Media Companies Alleging An Anti-Conservative Conspiracy
from the lawsuits-are-the-new-tinfoil dept
Alt-right sideshows Laura Loomer and Larry Klayman sued Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple for [checks filing] participating in a government-enabled conspiracy to deplatform Freedom Watch/Loomer in order to further a leftist agenda, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Their complaint alleged violations of the Sherman Act, DC's public accommodation law, and the First Amendment. In support of these allegations, the plaintiffs offered vague theories about "public platforms" and some misreadings of pertinent court precedent. (via Eric Goldman)
After a round of motions, the court has ruled in favor of everyone being sued. The decision [PDF] makes it clear none of the arguments made by the plaintiffs hold water, much less achieve complete coherence. The only thing the court agrees with is that Loomer and Freedom Watch have standing to bring the suit. But standing is only worth something when your arguments have merit.
While they have established standing, the Plaintiffs have failed to state viable legal claims. Consider first their Sherman Act arguments. Section 1 of the Sherman Act states that “[e]very contract, combination . . . , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the 7 several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.” 15 U.S.C. § 1. “Independent action is not prescribed” by § 1. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 760 (1984). So a valid claim must allege that the Platforms “had a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective.” Id. at 764. The Plaintiffs’ claim fails to do this.
True, the Amended Complaint repeatedly states that the Platforms have engaged in a conspiracy or illegal agreement. See, e.g., Am. Compl. 4, 5, 12, 17. But it offers only these conclusory statements to suggest the existence of such an agreement. It includes no allegations, for example, that any of the Platforms met or otherwise communicated an intent to collectively suppress conservative content.
A conspiracy requires the participation of conspirators. But some of the alleged conspirators still played ball with the plaintiffs, which undercuts the conspiracy needed to sufficiently allege antitrust violations.
The Plaintiffs also suggest that the Platforms “have engaged in ‘conscious parallelism’ and in concert mimicked each others’ refusal to deal with Freedom Watch and Ms. Loomer.” Am. Compl. 21. But Freedom Watch admits that it “has and still does pay Google and YouTube, Facebook and the other Defendants for services.” Id. at 11. This admission contradicts assertions of a coordinated “refusal to deal” with the Plaintiffs.
The complaint fares no better when dealing with the second antitrust allegation -- the supposed "monopoly" power of the [checks notes] four defendants being sued. As the court points out, the plaintiffs could have brought some data to their legal fight. Instead, they chose to bring conclusory statements and assertions about "leftist agendas."
[T]he Plaintiffs offer no market share data for any of the Platforms in either the local or worldwide markets for media and news publications. Instead, they make claims about the “social network global market,” the “social networking advertising revenue” market, the “digital ad revenues” market, and the “mobile ad market.” Am. Compl. 18. And though the Amended Complaint states that “59% of Twitter users get their news through the Twitter platform” and that “48% of all American adults [get] their news from Facebook,” it offers no support for the notion that either firm has achieved or tried to achieve monopolization of the nationwide media and news publications market.
The allegations claiming that kicking Loomer/Freedom Watch violated DC's Human Rights Act is just as ridiculous. The court points out the law refers only to physical public spaces and it's not willing to re-litigate a DC circuit opinion and/or rewrite local law on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Finally, the court addresses the most ridiculous of all the lawsuit's assertion: that moderation decisions by social media services somehow violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs cite the Packingham decision by the Supreme Court, completely misreading that decision's findings. In that case, the court said the government couldn't prevent people from accessing internet services. Loomer and Klayman pretend it actually said platforms can't ban people from accessing their platforms. The district court points out the distinction the plaintiffs are ignoring.
True, in Packingham, the Supreme Court recognized that Facebook and Twitter are among the “most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views” in society today. 137 S. Ct. at 1735. But the case involved a challenge to a state law that limited the speech rights of certain criminals on these platforms. Id. at 1738. It did not create a new cause of action against a private entity for an alleged First Amendment violation.
The second citation from the plaintiffs isn't any better, and the court again restates the obvious: moderation decisions by private companies are not actions taken by government entities, no matter how many users the platforms accommodate.
[T]he Plaintiffs here allege no nexus between the Platforms’ actions and a function traditionally reserved exclusively to the state. Nor do they contend that the Platforms were designated by the state to perform a governmental operation. Instead, the Amended Complaint focuses on the Platforms’ alleged suppression of conservative political content. It details, for instance, the seemingly disparate treatment of conservative news publishers on Facebook and of conservative commentators on Twitter. Am. Compl. 4-5. But while selective censorship of the kind alleged by the Plaintiffs may be antithetical to the American tradition of freedom of speech, it is not actionable under the First Amendment unless perpetrated by a state actor. Thus, their claim must be dismissed.
This will surely be appealed. But the outcome will be the same. Actions by private companies can't violate rights and the existence of multiple social media platforms simultaneously preemptively defeats most antitrust allegations.
Some conservatives are convinced there's a leftist agenda being played out in social media. But rather than fight it with more speech, they're trying to bring the government in to fix these perceived problems. Whatever floats your speech boat, but remember, any "fixes" you get will remain in place for years -- even if the perceived pendulum swings the other way. The rules that "level the playing field" will come back to bite these agitators in their asses if they ever manage to talk a court or a bunch of legislators into taking their bad ideas seriously.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, bias, conservative bias, first amendment, free speech, larry klayman, laura loomer, monopoly, social media
Companies: apple, facebook, google, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Another win for leftist censorship
Watch the Joe Rogan interview of the Twitter reps, and tell me the right doesn't have merit in their case that the left is out to censor. Heck, just by making fun-of (see the left's definition of micro-aggression) the right's attempt to convince the court, you are attempting to normalize the left's constant censoring and de-platforming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another win for leftist censorship
You know, if you want to make a serious argument to change peoples' minds, name calling and "listen to an interview with someone I agree with" aren't really good tactics.
You could be correct as far as anyone knows, but that paragraph of rubbish isn't going to win anyone over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
So it's either "Failed to cite reference", or "don't tell me what to watch"? Canned replies to avoid thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you cannot make your point yourself with your own words, borrowing opinions will not help you make a stronger argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Deflect deflect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay.
Where can we watch this interview? What are the timestamps for the parts of the interview that you believe make the case for which you are arguing?
No, we are pointing out the lack of actual facts and data that support Laura Loomer’s lawsuit and having a laugh at the fact that she thought her hurt feelings over being booted from Twitter would be enough to get a lawsuit further than this. If a leftist/progressive/Democrat did the same thing, it’d be just as worthy of mockery because that isn’t how lawsuits work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tell the RIGHT does not have the ability to create their OWN sites...
Then I will think that are all Idiots..
For every group that POSTS an opinion on FB, others bitch and complain, so FB restricts BOTH SIDES from BOMBING the whole site with Idiotic finger pointing..
If you want to listen to 1 side or the other you need to subscribe TO that person..
Its simple. Dont create propaganda.. Stay in your little hole and SAY anything you want. But you cant Bomb the site to OTHERS that dont want to listen to the BS...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Project project
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
Citing a reference is an improvement over not citing a reference, but what exactly are you citing? You've vaguely handwaved toward a Joe Rogan video (which you haven't linked) and said that there is content somewhere in it that supports your claim. You haven't said what that content is, where it appears in the video, or how it supports your claim.
It's like Mark Twain said:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
The whole video is my reference. It's all the proof that is needed. Stop moving the goalposts for what is considered a valid reference. Here,let me google it for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
The reference for my Mark Twain quote is Huckleberry Finn.
I'm not going to tell you what the quote is. Read the book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
How do I vote this "LOL" like a dozen more times? XD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
That's not how a reference works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
Because y'know. Black holes. Just read all of Stephen Hawking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
Your argument against name calling and dogma is the basis of pretty much every organized religion.
Making mock of viewpoints, especially status quo viewpoints, is also effective - look at anyone who doesn't agree on "settled science" and how they're mocked and derided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
"The basis of pretty much every organized religion" involve interpersonal relationships, group social dynamics and supposedly shared and unifying beliefs. As such "organized religion" is very similar to most other organization. Ideals are expressed in how they are different or strive to be different from most.
Mocking is a tool. It is routinely misused. Its primary usefulness is getting the subjects of mockery to re-THINK their POV. A common misuse is to pressure dismissal of a POV without due consideration, which promotes 'us vs them' attitudes and group-think. It is critical that we are able to discern the differences and react properly. Especially in this day of mis-education and misinformation.
Anyway, these days, it's a tool that rarely works positively. We should all use it FAR less often then we currently do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
As to religions - Heretic, Infidel, etc.
To mockery - when some Jr High dropout claims I'm a "science denier" when I ask a question about their unwavering belief that climate change is entirely man-made.
Or when a 4th generation welfare moron tells me that I'm not entitled to keep what I busted my ass to earn because they "need" me to support them, and by claiming otherwise I'm a "Nazi".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
Or when someone calls you an asshole because you sound like an realasshole amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
"belief that climate change is entirely man-made."
I have not heard this claim, from where does it come?
afaik, the scientific community has claimed that human activity is responsible for a lot of it, is a major contributor, but not entirely.
It would be quite silly to make such a claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
It’s almost like he was making shit up to justify his own bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
And since it's backed by a veritable mountain of hard evidence, it hardly qualifies as a"belief," but that fact doesn't support that shitposter's delusions of persecution, so he sees no choice but to mischaracterize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another win for leftist censorship
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
Yes it is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
No it isn't!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
Yes it isn’t!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
Duck season!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
Shoot me now! Shoot me now!
(Pronoun trouble.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laura Loomer can make her own platform. She has no legal right to be on someone else’s platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another win for leftist censorship
Ignoring your baseless non-point for a moment, if all of the big, successful tech giants have a left-leaning tendency the takeaway is that right-leaning industry is less successful. Given that the conservative party is supposed to be the pro-business party this seems at odds with reality. Sooner or later you're going to have to admit that you're a dinosaur and have failed to adapt to an ever-changing world.
Back to your post: The speakers removed from those platforms were removed for hate speech, not simply because they were alt-right. There are plenty of other right-wing speakers still on those platforms espousing the same ideals but in a much more mature and measured way. There are plenty more who probably should be kicked off but have not yet, for whatever reasons.
If you can't be mature in your communications you can be sure you will be heard by fewer people. Go far enough and nobody will be willing to transmit your rants. That's all this boils down to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
"if all of the big, successful tech giants have a left-leaning tendency the takeaway is that right-leaning industry is less successful"
Really? I see it more as how gullible are the people assigning left/right to such.
Google, facebook, et al present a left of center face.
But they also bribe... er, "contribute" to pols, make money hand over fist, buy and sell personal info, etc. as much or more than any supposed "right wing" company.
Companies can't survive on left-wing principles. They can sell themselves as left-wing, "progressive", whatever, but if you open their books, you'll find they're not in line with what they're preaching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
Then you're supporting the idea that the big tech companies aren't biased against right-wing ideals and that all of this flap is a steaming pile? 'Cause if they're really right-wing companies they must share the ideals of those who have been evicted from their platforms, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
I think it's just a standard misunderstanding based on people who only consider their own bubble and not the bigger picture.
The main thing that all of these platforms have is that they are not primarily a political platform, and that they are available internationally. These two things are significant for 2 reasons. First, the fact that they're not a space specifically for political speech means they have an incentive to remove political agitators who disrupt everybody else. If your main reasons for using Facebook are to play games, contact family and keep up with local events, for example, you don't want white supremacists and animal rights activists filling up your feed.
So, they play to the non-extremists who make up the bulk of their users and advertisers. The problem here? On a global scale, the US skews centre-right, while much of the rest of the world skews centre-left. In many other countries, those who are considered right-wing locally would play as left-wing in the US. For example, anyone who talks about single payer healthcare in the US are immediately called socialists and communists, while all but the most hardcore right-wing in Europe tend to support it, or whatever similar exists there.
What this means is that when they take an actual neutral approach, social network sites appear to be skewing "left", because the reference point used in the US is already skewed "right". This is also why most openly right-wing social networking sites are failing in the marketplace - because the people they're tending to attract are essentially the people who have been told they're not welcome anywhere else. Therefore, the majority of people who either disagree with their politics or do not want to get involved in politics at all will not follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
"Really? I see it more as how gullible are the people assigning left/right to such."
"Google, facebook, et al present a left of center face."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another win for leftist censorship
I think the reason the 'right' if you want to call it that is their greater willingness to hold extreme viewpoints that tend to dehumanize, insult or marginalize others. In most places, we call these people fanatics or crazy or racist or bigoted.
But is this censorship of 'conservatives'? No, because many, many, many reasonable intelligent conservatives share their opinions every day and have strong sway over things. It's this extreme polarization that seems unique to the United States which glorifies hate and poisonous speech that seems to raise any kind of ire.
Stephen Harper was disliked, not because he was a conservative, but because of how he clamped down on science research and made other similar bad decisions that seemed anti freedom and anti science.
Justin Trudeau is hated because he's made some terrible political and economical decisions during his time in office.
Did they also both do good things? Yes, because that's what a reasonable analysis of their time in office would result in. However we don't defend the incredibly one sided and stupid actions of some of our elected officials when they say something about how vaccines are bad or global warming isn't real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, all credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence:
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, all credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence:
There is also censorship against intelligent conservative viewpoints against which liberals have no answer, but that isn't so easy to dismiss. Either way, the internet is built so that no one can be truly censored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again, all credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence:
You do realise that you destroyed your own argument in sentence one with your argument in sentence two, don’t you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again, all credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence:
You got a citation for that assertion bro? Perhaps something a bit more substantial than “Joe Rohan gets stoned and talks out his ass?”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again, all credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence:
Why is everyone supposed to have an answer for everything? That is such a ridiculous assumption.
Are you suggesting that one is should not be allowed to comment on a topic unless they have a solution? That, again, is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again, all credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence:
“There is also censorship against intelligent conservative viewpoints against which liberals have no answer,”
L O and furthermore L
Oh wait, you’re serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again, all credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence:
Either way, the internet is built so that no one can be truly censored.
Wasn't your precious Article 13 supposed to change that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again, all credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence:
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again, all credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence:
"There is also censorship against intelligent conservative viewpoints against which liberals have no answer"
...and this is where you are supposed to present examples. Claiming it doesn't make it true, especially when the people whining loudest about "censorship" are people like Alex jones, who represents the opposite (also who, it must be noted, has his own platform that he's free to use any time without censorship. He just knows he won't get the same number of viewers if he's unable to piggyback on someone else's successful platform).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, all credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence:
You mean like the view that "transgendered" women are still men?
The view that Hillary stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders?
The view that #metoo has a double-standard for the accused, depending on party?
The view that #believeher doesn't apply to Bill Clinton's accusers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again, all credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence:
Yeah, I don't think you're making the point you think you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cuts right to the heart of the matter.
Oh I think they have a perfectly cromulant point. They are free to be as wrong as the day is long and, yet we are under no obligation to listen much less agree to their claptrap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another win for leftist censorship
I don't understand why you can't do what a gay couple needing a cake are supposed to do when the business owner stands by their personal convictions - fuck off and go somewhere else.
Are you telling me there's nowhere else simple-minded rubes can gather and fantasize about how cool things were before the damn liberal snowflakes took over?
Is there no one competent enough on the right to link together a few vacuum tubes with an abacus and create a website where you can freely express your views too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
It's called "Gab", where all the prominent racists like to hang out together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also 8chan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
"I don't understand why you can't do what a gay couple needing a cake "
I don't understand why you can not stay on topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
The cake shop is a private business, so they want the right to refuse service to gays or blacks. So it's kinda on topic, in a misleading way.
Refusing service to gays and colored folk - discriminating against a class of people.
De-platforming violent, abusive, threatening, hostile people - Taking action against individuals based on their actions.
Of course, the conservative snowflakes want the right to refuse service to blacks, but don't want anyone to de-platform then for violating the ToS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
I don't understand why you think it's irrelevant, apart from inbred simple-minded conservative fucktards not being a protected class.
Conservatives love to discriminate - they don't like it so much when their argument for businesses being free to tell people they don't agree with to fuck off being applied to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
Cake shops are now social media that censors conservative voices ... film at eleven.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
Its about the right to refuse service - something whiny bitch conservatives should be well versed in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
If they didn't want to get sue they shouldn't of engaged in doxing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another win for leftist censorship
TIL private corporations being free to discriminate against unprofitable user contributions is "leftist censorship" and not the invisible hand of the market deciding that fringe far-right conspiracy theorists are bad for business.
So much for conservatives wanting private corporations to be deregulated...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another win for leftist censorship
It's just capitalism at work.
Ass-backwards, 50's-era views aren't good for business.
And government interference in private business is very very very bad. You're just getting what you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another win for leftist censorship
That the right had to fabricate their "evidence" of twitter engineers "admitting they target conservatives" sure points to there not being any merit behind it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another win for leftist censorship
100% this
I don't get why this was flagged, oh wait, I do.
Because the idiots here think that censorship is cool so long as it's not the government doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
You're free to fuck off and go where your views are appreciated, snowflake.
I don't spend time on Gab or Breitbart whining like a little bitch about being censored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
Another idiot who dosent understand the difference between platform moderation and government censorship.
Hi Larry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another win for leftist censorship
If the right is oh-so-clever why don't they come up with there own platform and beat Twitter at their own game?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
there = their, damn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another win for leftist censorship
So you are supporting a Government takeover of a private business and forcing that private business to act in a way that you personally agree with?
Even if we grant that Twitter is acting to further the "leftist agenda", so what? As a private business doesn't Twitter have the right to control its business in any legal way it wants? If Twitter wanted to only allow far left progressive ideals, it absolutely should be allowed to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second verse, same as the first, a whole lot louder, with tears at worst!
They will play this as the Deep State conspiracy to silence them, hit up donors for more money, that they will immediately be parted from by lawyers who like money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a Derp State conspiracy that runs very very derp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These assholes do more grifting than the crew from Leverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hey now, Sofie was a great grifter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, duh....
"government-enabled conspiracy to deplatform Freedom Watch/Loomer in order to further a leftist agenda"
Courts are run by the government, right? Obviously they're in on the conspiracy...
/s for the humor impaired...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, duh....
Sadly, I can see some loon believe this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, duh....
*loons
My editing skills aren't the best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, duh....
Pretty sure there’s one in the comments section here that would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, duh....
Why stop at disability slurs? Why not go the whole nine yards and use the N-word, the C-word, etc.?
People who call others loons or other similar names should look in the mirror, as they are the ones whose behavior more closely fits the term. It's like if someone goes around randomly punching people to prove they are weak. Those who are punched either have to punch back, take it, or rely on law enforcement, which targets of internet slurs don't have.
Of course, no one is going to provoke a GENUINE "loon" so most of these claims are self-refuting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, duh....
How does punching Nazi's prove you are weak? Someone calling for the slaughter of the weak deserves to have the tables turned on them.
Someone shouting snowflake deserves to have some insults tossed back at them so they can prove they stand by their words.
You are a nameless coward, so you can't back up your words at all. Are you the AC that gets all upset when I question his medication levels?
Personally, I refuse to insult actual loons - they are majestic birds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, duh....goose meet gander
Wow. Straight to the veiled threats of violence. Why stop there why not threaten to stomp on his dick...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, duh....
Are you conflating calling an AC unhinged with actual violence? So... would you de-platform "veiled threats" or real threats?
And do you think that actual Nazi's shouldn't be punched? Just saying. Calling for genocide is crossing the line and a punchable offense in my book. Sorry if that is offensive to the Alt-Right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, duh....
So actual muslims that preach "death to jews" should be punched?
Yeah, the Nazi's were horrible people. But not the ONLY organization of horrible people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, duh....
A core tenant of Nazi'ism is "death to the xxx."
While I would not be opposed to punching a specific muslim that called for "Death of the Jews" I would not extend that to all muslims. One extremist voice doesn't speak for all. Same goes for American religious right chanting about gays, muslims, etc. I'm not going to hate on an entire group for the sins of a few vocal assholes.
Nazi's, on the other hand, have signed up for the whole package. They are supporting genocide. You can't support the Nazi cause and say "But I'd never hurt someone so it's ok."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump is the best revenge against liberal snobs.
It's funny watching them so TRIGGERED over two years after they lost. They're probably going to lose again in 2020 unless Bernie (the guy Hillary stole the nomination from in 2016) gets elected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Reposted from another forum
" By Moose and Squirrel
An anguished question from a Trump supporter: "Why do liberals think Trump supporters are stupid?”
Short answer:
Because if you're NOT stupid, we must turn to other explanations, and most of them are less flattering."
The serious answer: Here’s what we really think about Trump supporters - the rich, the poor, the malignant and the innocently well-meaning, the ones who think and the ones who don't...
That when you saw a man who had owned a fraudulent University, intent on scamming poor people, you thought "Fine."
That when you saw a man who had made it his business practice to stiff his creditors, you said, "Okay."
That when you heard him proudly brag about his own history of sexual abuse, you said, "No problem."
That when he made up stories about seeing muslim-Americans in the thousands cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center, you said, "Not an issue."
That when you saw him brag that he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and you wouldn't care, you chirped, "He sure knows me."
That when you heard him illustrate his own character by telling that cute story about the elderly guest bleeding on the floor at his country club, the story about how he turned his back and how it was all an imposition on him, you said, "That's cool!"
That when you saw him mock the disabled, you thought it was the funniest thing you ever saw.
That when you heard him brag that he doesn't read books, you said, "Well, who has time?"
That when the Central Park Five were compensated as innocent men convicted of a crime they didn't commit, and he angrily said that they should still be in prison, you said, "That makes sense."
That when you heard him tell his supporters to beat up protesters and that he would hire attorneys, you thought, "Yes!"
That when you heard him tell one rally to confiscate a man's coat before throwing him out into the freezing cold, you said, "What a great guy!"
That you have watched the parade of neo-Nazis and white supremacists with whom he curries favor, while refusing to condemn outright Nazis, and you have said, "Thumbs up!"
That you hear him unable to talk to foreign dignitaries without insulting their countries and demanding that they praise his electoral win, you said, "That's the way I want my President to be."
That you have watched him remove expertise from all layers of government in favor of people who make money off of eliminating protections in the industries they're supposed to be regulating and you have said, "What a genius!"
That you have heard him continue to profit from his businesses, in part by leveraging his position as President, to the point of overcharging the Secret Service for space in the properties he owns, and you have said, "That's smart!"
That you have heard him say that it was difficult to help Puerto Rico because it was the middle of water and you have said, "That makes sense."
That you have seen him start fights with every country from Canada to New Zealand while praising Russia and quote, "falling in love" with the dictator of North Korea, and you have said, "That's statesmanship!"
That Trump separated children from their families and put them in cages, managed to lose track of 1500 kids. has opened a tent city incarceration camp in the desert in Texas - he explains that they’re just “animals” - and you say, “well, ok then.”
That you have witnessed all the thousand and one other manifestations of corruption and low moral character and outright animalistic rudeness and contempt for you, the working American voter, and you still show up grinning and wearing your MAGA hats and threatening to beat up anybody who says otherwise.
What you don't get, Trump supporters in 2019, is that succumbing to frustration and thinking of you as stupid may be wrong and unhelpful, but it's also...hear me...charitable.
Because if you're NOT stupid, we must turn to other explanations, and most of them are less flattering."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For a good number of the non-stupid ones, it's because, while not denying any of the above or how bad it is, we looked at the alternative and saw that it was even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
ERROR: MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You want to maybe try a second draft there.
Even worse being that she’s a women named Clinton. Oh the horror of having an experienced politician who isn’t also an racist rapist in charge of the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which is why you just couldn't be bothere to list ANY of Hillary's/Bernie's missteps? Convincing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm convinced by your list...hey wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: speaking of snowflakes. Emphasis on the flake
She lost, get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: speaking of snowflakes. Emphasis on the flake
Tired of winning yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: speaking of snowflakes. Emphasis on the flake
I am tired of He-Shall-Overcomb's whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a huge leftist bias on some major social-media platforms. The worst is on Twitter, with Facebook a close second. YouTube is much more balanced, and there are plenty of places for conservatives to get their views out. Internet sites can also be advertised in traditional media, which is starving for revenue and not as expensive as online advertising in many cases. One can also pass out fliers on a busy intersection if they really feel the need.
Those who want to get the word out, will.
On the other hand, private companies can be state actors, and I believe the largest internet platforms should be treated as such. Otherwise, what is the justification for disallowing politicians to block voters from participating on their pages?
Internet censorship has always been a self-correcting problem. Censorship almost always backfires anyway, e.g., with the Streisand Effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what reason do you think Twitter should be deemed part of the United States federal government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A state actor is not part of the government, but performs a function that impacts constitutional rights (like speech and freedom of association) as if it were the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The question still stands: For what reason do you think Twitter should be deemed a state actor for the United States federal government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Twitter isn't the entire internet and you yourself said "the internet is built so that no one can be truly censored," so which is it?
You don't understand freedom of speech and association. If you get kicked out of a private bar on open mic night, you're not having your freedom of speech infringed just because no one can hear you outside the bar. You are not guaranteed a platform or an audience because that would infringe on the rights of others who would be obligated to provide you with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So they hurt your feel feels.
Gotcha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nazi Germany: fascism is corporations doing as gov't wishes.
Evidently you've heard the word "fascism" but don't know what it means in practice.
For instance, ALL that the Nazis did was perfectly LEGAL if go solely by what laws the gov't passed. Not lawful, but legal. There's huge difference. "Law" and public's notion of it is first and primary weapon of The Rich.
You can, are, and will be oppressed by corporations which are connected to "gov't". That's the system going into place. It's dangerous precisely because effective.
But why should I bother when you clowns will disregard actual dangers -- and censor this warning as though I'm the enemy? Phooey on you all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nazi Germany: fascism is corporations doing as gov't wis
"Law" and public's notion of it is first and primary weapon of The Rich.
And yet here we are...with about a third of this country supporting someone who brags about being (wait for it....) rich.
Conservatives whining about the rich while supporting their dim-witted shit-for-brains president just doesn't make sense. And it's another reason why I generally look down on them as mildly retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nazi Germany: fascism is corporations doing as gov't
Hey. Leave people with learning disabilities out of this. They don't deserve to be painted with the same brush as self-interested, willfully ignorant, bigoted fake Christians (or "assholes" for short).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liars gonna lie
Why you still here bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the other hand, private companies can be state actors, and I believe the largest internet platforms should be treated as such.
What's stopping conservatives from creating their own platforms? They created Fox News. Did that use all of their collective brain cells and there's none left, or are they just lazy and want the government to take care of it for them?
Because letting the government do it for you sounds an awful lot like socialism...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: State Actors
So Twitter is actually an arm of the government, and it is impossible for Gab to compete against Twitter, so Twitter should be forced by law to host threats?
Makes sense to me, or it would if I wore a tinfoil hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: State Actors
"So Twitter is actually an arm of the government,"
Why not privatize twitter? /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First, Laura Loomer ain't no conservative. "Jewish" ACTIVIST.
You'll just have to trust me that round these parts, she's regarded as flaming commie-lib, only vaguely helping our cause, possibly harming.
Like Pam Geller and Tommy Robinson in UK, purposes are never clear -- except to stir up hate on Muslims, which has been overtly done since 9/11 and many favor, but isn't an actual conservative goal, either. Though IS another goal of Them, stems from the false-flag and takes advantage of jingoism.
So her purpose with this suit, like other stunts of late, may have been either publicity to promote the notion that she's conservative, and possibly to set bad precedent that this kind of suit isn't soundly based.
Again, purpose of CDA Section 230 was to enable The Public to get views out easily, NOT to make corporations de facto gatekeepers on our speech. -- And again, to degree latter is the RESULT, then all that lawyer talk is irrelevant. The bluff here is that the corporatist view is the only one possible. But We The People can simply have our representatives change wording of the law to make our purposes clear. As already in the works, though by unreliable politicians...
True conservatives have to battle not only organized activists, but the "Republicans In Name Only", besides the natural tendency of gov't and The Rich to take over all. It's not so much fun as you guys think. You make it difficult to conserve your liberty, besides that we wonder why bother when you abuse it and throw it away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First, Laura Loomer ain't no conservative. "Jewish"
It is really impressive how you manage to cram so many lies into such little content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First, Laura Loomer ain't no conservative. "Jewish&
Are their any actual conservatives left? Anyone left speaking for the capitalism, deregulation, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility? honesty? plain old liberty and the simple freedom not to be forced into service you don't agree with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First, Laura Loomer ain't no conservative. "Jew
Sure there are. They're bunking with the cryptographers who believe you can give law enforcement a "golden key" to encrypted messages without introducing a "back door," the climate scientists who think that CO2 acts to cool the atmosphere, and the epidemiologists who are anti-vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First, Laura Loomer ain't no conservative. "
My fav is the "personal responsibility" ... I laugh at the hypocrites when they do their finger waggin'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First, Troll
We get it, you hate the Jews and love Hitler. Your problems are a conspiracy of jews out to get your.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First, Laura Loomer ain't no conservative. "Jewish" ACTIVIST
What’s all this we shit. You don’t have any friends much less allies. Unless you count Jhon boy, Hamilton and Prenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First, Laura Loomer ain't no conservative. "Jewish" ACTIVIST
It'll be funny to see it finally dawn on you asshats how much the shitstain of Trump has damaged the Republican brand. Whenever you'll make a moral argument someone's gonna dismiss it with "the pussy grabber party says what?".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowflakes
Gotta love it when Alt-Right snowflakes demand government to step in and promote their speech over private channels.
Breitbart and Gab have their own terms of service, violate them and get the boot. Should Breitbard be forced, by the United States Federal Government, to allow all posters no matter how they behave?
That is what you are asking - for Twitter to drop it's terms of service, and allow threats, doxing, sexting, encouraging violence. And a private company has no reason to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Snowflakes
How did business get away with the
No shirt, no shoes, no service
obvious discrimination against those who walk around naked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh
These comments suck.
Klayman is an idiot, and will likely not get any further with this.
But there is something disturbing seeing the TechDirt crowd get all rah-rah cheers about all these Silicon Valley billionaires and their offshore tax havens deciding what kind of narrative the vast majority of people on the Internet get to consume.
Somehow when unaccountable corporations do it, it's okay, okay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you had the power to do so, what would you make them do to avoid “deciding what king of narrative the vast majority of people on the Internet get to consume”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about, follow the US jurisprudence for free speech. That's what Jack Dorsey claims he wants Twitter to be, a place where everyone has a platform.
Threats of violence, doxing, other unprotected speech can be banned, just like it is everywhere else.
But people should be allowed to post "Learn to Code" memes without running afoul of Twitter's "Trust and Safety" department because they want to have safe space for so-called journalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How is doxing not First Amendment protected speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When it’s harrassment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it can be harassment, especially if there's an exhortation to action.
But when, say, a news agency is able to trace a Twitter account making racist comments back to a public figure and point out the links between the two, what exactly about that story is unprotected?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Twitter refused to host legally protected speech that violates its TOS, and did so on the grounds that it has First Amendment rights, how would you enforce your decision?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
EASY! Every other publisher that controls its content is subject to liability for what it publishes. Twitter gets protection from that via section 230 of the CDA.
Remove that, and then they have a right to first amendment protection. Are they a platform for user content, or are they a publisher?
I would argue if they are promoting specific ideologies, they are not a platform, they are a publisher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You would first have to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Twitter is knowingly and explicitly promoting a specific ideology. Good luck with that.
Also: No platform or publisher, no matter how big or how powerful, should ever be forced to host any kind of speech that its owners/operators do not want to host. If you believe otherwise, I would love to see you justify that belief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A platform doesn't have to become a publisher to gain 1st Amendment rights. They already have those thanks to the Constitution and the Amendments.
Though they don't do this ,they are free to delete any content they don't like, for any reason or no reason at all. Even if they come right out and say "We stand for everything alt-left" and delete anything that disagrees with their ideology they can remain a platform and still have 1st Amendment rights.
Just as you are on your blog nobody reads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So easy, all you have to do is completely remove a law that much of the internet in the United States is predicated in continuing on existing into the foreseeable future.
So once you get the Supreme Court to repeal that. Then all you have to do is as Mr. Stone said.
So easy it’s hard to see why no ones done it already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How do you reconcile this position with the Supreme Court's decision in CBS v. DNC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why should they? They aren’t the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hey I'm fine with Twitter learning to have to tolerate things they don't like right after Hobby Lobby can't object to birth control in their health plans because of its religious views.
Funny how conservatives didn't object to corporations having feelings when it came to discriminating against gay couples in search of cakes.
But now Twitter's supposed to entertain their horseshit because it makes conservatives feel discriminated against? I seem to remember seeing a picture of someone at a trump rally with a shirt that said "fuck your feelings, snowflake" - I'd just point those complaining to that shirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why do you think you won't be targeted next?
Your whataboutism isn't convincing. I'm not a conservative, I'm a liberal, one of those (apparently rare these days) that support free speech absolutism. No threats of violence, doxxing (which encourages threats of violence), no slader / libel. Otherwise, let the radical voices have their say so that people can see what bad ideas look like.
This censorship and the Kevin Bacon arguments used to justify them, does not work. Those people don't go away. They gather in dark places complaining about the "others", in echo chambers, while people that don't agree with them do the same in their echo chambers, each demonizing and dehumanizing the other.
Eventually "punch a Nazi" becomes "punch a Republican" and "punch a Marxist" becomes "punch a Democrats", and there's real violence and it doesn't end well.
As a bisexual, I've seen my share of discrimination, and it's like water off a duck's back to me. And I get it from straights AND gays who claim I'm just pretending because everybody is either straight or gay.
But you can't say "learn to code" on Twitter, and you can't say "men aren't women tho" without a ban.
And it really has nothing to do with conservative or liberal, it has to do with being corporate narrative advertiser friendly, and having section 230 government protection in order to promote that narrative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well said, and hits the point that most don't get.
Roseanne wasn't cancelled because she made racist statements. It was cancelled because those statements would cost the network MONEY if they didn't respond as they did.
Mandatory Sexual Harassment classes aren't to prevent it in the workplace. They're to prevent the company from being sued when (not if) it happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly.
Which just reinforces the conclusion that many in positions of authority have no idea .. or do not care what everyone else thinks of them.
They do not do things because it is the right thing to do ... no, they do whatever gets them the most ROI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Roseanne wasn't cancelled because she made racist statements. It was cancelled because those statements would cost the network MONEY if they didn't respond as they did.”
You do realise you second sentence directly contradicts your first one don’t you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So then this is just capitalism at work.
If that's the case, what are republicans bitching about? They like their capitalism. Certainly they wouldn't advocate for companies to lose money by hosting their dimwitted viewpoints...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Your whataboutism isn't convincing," says the guy making a slippery-slope argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thinking beyond the obvious effects of a single degree of cause-and-effect is the highest form of reasoning. It's rather telling that we're taught that doing so is fallacious and a thing to be avoided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An argument is a series of...you know what, nah, I've already quoted that line twice in this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s a swell slippery slope argument you have there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay...
I do not think that word means what you think it means...
Also, you do realize that having only the limitations that you suggest would legalize hiring a hit man (illegal under the "speech essential to criminal conduct" exception to the first amendment), child pornography (obscenity exception) and fraud? I hope those were inadvertent omissions rather than deliberate ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you think you won't be targeted next?
As opposed to already being targeted via the examples I made? That ship has sailed largely in part because of the religiously convicted republicans and their god bullshit.
All we're seeing now is the other side of that coin.
Wanna bitch about corporate beliefs fucking up your freedom? Let's start by getting rid of the shit you've already put in place. What you're trying to do is complain about the rules now that they're negatively impacting you.
And you're fooling no one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"How about, follow the US jurisprudence for free speech."
... and your suggestion applies to all websites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just the ones that hurt his feelings, presumably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, coordinating intentional and repeated harassment of recently unemployed workers is definitely something that a private website's terms of service should allow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugh
Yes, it is disturbing that you're seeing that. Because you're seeing things that aren't actually there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ugh
How about Twitter banning people posting the #LearnToCode hashtag? After journalists wrote all those articles telling middle-aged coal miners and steel workers they should Learn To Code, but when Twitter users told laid-off journalists the same thing, they were banned.
Does that fit?
Yea, I'm not standing up for Laura Loomer, or Alex Jones, here.
But I don't think they're finished.
https://datasociety.net/output/alternative-influence/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ugh
Oh heavens no, they aren’t finished. There’s still money to grift from the rubes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ugh
And that is an example of, quote, "the TechDirt crowd get[ting] all rah-rah cheers about all these Silicon Valley billionaires and their offshore tax havens deciding what kind of narrative the vast majority of people on the Internet get to consume" in what way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ugh
Except that we are.
This whole article is just that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ugh
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugh
If you don't want corporations to decide what kind of narrative is pushed out to people, and (I assume) you also don't want the government to make that decision, what alternative do you offer? There's no such thing as an unbiased content-filtering or content-prioritization algorithm, and most users aren't going to want to write their own algorithms. Who, then should be writing the algorithms to decide which content belongs at the top of the page, if not the users, not the corporations, and not the government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ugh
Who said anything about prioritization algorithms? The discussion is about people being forcefully de-platformed from all the Silicon Valley platforms where 95% of the audience are.
If you don't think it's a slippery slope, I hereby refer you to ... tada! Data Society's "Alternative Information Network" report. Where they use the Kevin Bacon argument (6-degress of separation) to connection mainstream, even left-of-center broadcasters with white supremacists and neo-nazis in a campaign to get YouTube to ban them all. Yes, including Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, and Tim Pool.
https://datasociety.net/output/alternative-influence/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ugh
What you said was:
Deciding the next content you get exposed to is, by far, the biggest way that social media platforms are "deciding what kind of narrative the vast majority of people on the Internet get to consume."
Only the tiniest fraction of people get banned; I'm surprised, given your phrasing, that you're more concerned about that than about how, for instance, YouTube decides what video it's going to push to you next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
<quote>Only the tiniest fraction of people get banned; I'm surprised, given your phrasing, that you're more concerned about that than about how, for instance, YouTube decides what video it's going to push to you next.</quote>
<p>Well, I'm not, really. Face it, YouTube will decide to promote stuff that's advertiser friendly and makes them money. Full Stop. </p>
More concerning is the deplatforming.
The "tiniest fraction" is just the most unpopular voices that they know no one will defend (a.k.a Alex Jones and Laura Loomer). They are testing how many folks they can ban. Several very popular folks (Jack Posobiac comes to mind) have been banned but when the outrage was too much they were like "oh, oh, yea, that was a mistake, sorry, their back," but it won't work forever and the bans you don't hear about are the ones you'll never hear about.
Very popular publishers on both sides have been banned, like the Free Thought Project and the Anti-Media, both push out of FB and Twitter on the same day.
But, you know, keep thinking it's just Nazis. Maybe they'll never ban anyone you follow, but I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
They can ban anyone they want. Don’t like it, go buy your cake somewhere else.
Oh did you see what I did there? I accidentally got my right wing nut job talking points mixed up. How embarrassing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
And how is that not "Silicon Valley billionaires and their offshore tax havens deciding what kind of narrative the vast majority of people on the Internet get to consume?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ugh
“where 95% of the audience are.”
Sir I’m afraid we are going to need a citation for that stat that you totally didn’t just make up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ugh
The discussion is about people being forcefully de-platformed from all the Silicon Valley platforms where 95% of the audience are.
That's capitalism in action. If conservative platforms can't survive in a competitive market, that's the price they pay.
Government control would amount to socialism - can't have that now, can we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
"Government control would amount to socialism"
Perhaps a brief refresher course on political science is in order?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
You're free to take whatever course(s) you need to keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
Government control == socialism
might need some references for that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
If it is when it comes to health care, then it certainly can apply here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
I'm curious ... when you use the word socialism, are you referring to its definition of a politician system or is it a dog whistle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
How about at least no government protection, ala section 230 of the CDA?
If publishers have to be responsible for their content without protection from liability for their message, why should these platform companies be given special protection from liability for their narrative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless a platform’s employees are actively soliciting/promoting/posting/aiding in the posting of something that would revoke said platform’s 230 protections, it deserves to keep them regardless of what “narrative” you think it is “promoting”. White supremacist forums have 230 protections, after all, and I think you can easily make out the “narrative” they are promoting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
They already are responsible for their content. Section 230 allows them to not be responsible for your content posted to their platform. See the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
A publisher selects who and what to publish before they publish it, and can therefore reasonably be held liable for content they have looked at, and probably edited in detail. A platform lets anybody publish on the platform, but will remove content brought to their attention that is outside their terns of service; which will most likely be done by an algorithm. They otherwise have no idea of what is being published on the platform, and so cannot reasonably be held responsible for what users publish. They are not being special privileges, unless you consider not bing held responsible for other peoples actions to be a privilege. They are being protected from lawyers going after a party with money that can be sued on the most tenuous of grounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
Ah but that doesn’t fit his narrative that poor repressed fuckwits should have the full power and backing of the us government because their feelings got hurt. And that ignoring the possibility they got kicked off a platform because of their behaviour and violations of the websites TOS and not because of a stupid meme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugh
But there is something disturbing seeing the TechDirt crowd get all rah-rah cheers about all these Brietbart, Fox News, and Gab billionaires and their offshore tax havens deciding what kind of narrative the vast majority of simple-minded, ass-backward people on the Internet get to consume, and not applying the same standards to Google, Facebook & Twitter.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alternate Universe
We in America live in a strange alternate universe where calling out lies is tantamount to bias and having actual evidence such as video proving the falsehood is proof of a left wing conspiracy.
I watched a video press conference in the Netherlands where the Ambassador and Trump appointee Hoeskstra, himself born in the Netherlands, continually lied even when shown video proving he made statements he denied making.
The reporters would not move on until he adressed the issue.
If I didn't live in the US where this BS is the new normal I would either assume the man is delusional or just an egregiously unethical, lying sociopath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alternate Universe
"We in America live in a strange alternate universe where calling out lies is tantamount to bias and having actual evidence such as video proving the falsehood is proof of a left wing conspiracy."
Well stated. This sort of thing gnaws at the fabric of society and is not good for anyone, including its perpetrators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Alternate Universe
If you think that's new or an "American thing", you need to review history - all of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Alternate Universe
I'm not talking about history. I'm talking about reporters from developed democracies who are probably too young to have experienced Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. The United States is a democracy in name only but the reality of that isn't really felt by anyone who doesn't live here. It's a high quality forgery to be sure and will pass for anyone who observes from afar but the veneer is cracking. That doesn't mean the unrepentant lying isn't surreal and bewildering to the average person from an actual democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternate Universe
Constitutional Representative Republic with some Democratic principles. Not a Democracy, never was, was never intended to be.
Direct Democracy can't survive. If the 51% don't vote to eat the other 49%, the economy will collapse quickly. If 51% vote to tax the rich, the rich LEAVE.
Go back in history as far as it's been recorded and you'll find politicians outright lying to the faces of those holding actual proof.
Or issuing criminal charges against flocks of bats, decreeing that the tides shall not move, pick anything incredible along those lines and some ruler probably beat you to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternate Universe
"If 51% vote to tax the rich, the rich LEAVE."
Because they lack personal responsibility.
Yes, they even move their ill gotten gains when they pay no taxes.
Swiss bank accounts, off shore businesses, double irish with a dutch sandwich, panama papers ... and that is prob just the tip of the ice berg.
And they want a tax free repatriation for their off shore money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternate Universe
How do you explain California, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternate Universe
Why do I need to explain Calif? Did all the rich people leave? When did this happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternate Universe
If 51% vote to tax the rich, the rich LEAVE.
And go exactly where?
If there was somewhere else where they could be more profitable, they would've gone long ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Alternate Universe
"If you think that's new or an "American thing", you need to review history - all of it."
Where did I make that claim?
Perhaps you were looking at the quote from a prior post and that is what you were replying to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'No in fact we are NOT 'moving on', answer or we're done.'
I watched a video press conference in the Netherlands where the Ambassador and Trump appointee Hoeskstra, himself born in the Netherlands, continually lied even when shown video proving he made statements he denied making.
The reporters would not move on until he adressed the issue.
Kudos to them for refusing to let an exposed lie pass, now if only more/all other reporters would follow suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'No in fact we are NOT 'moving on', answer or we're done.'
Yes but they really don't have any skin in the game.
In the United States they must move on or we'd hear the same lie every time. When the lies come one after the other someone can fact check so the truth comes out eventually. It's unfortunate that it has come to this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'No in fact we are NOT 'moving on', answer or we're done
In the United States they must move on or we'd hear the same lie every time. When the lies come one after the other someone can fact check so the truth comes out eventually. It's unfortunate that it has come to this.
As opposed to a string of lies, none of them challenged? At that point there's no reason to have a reporter there, just have the politician release statements via a PR firm and you'd get the same result.
If politicians knew that if they lied they'd be called out on it, even on live television, and that until they addressed the lie then the conversation would be stopped such that they couldn't go further, I suspect that most of them would be a lot more careful with what they said, unless they liked making public fools of themselves. It's knowing that they won't be called out for lying that emboldens them to do it so much, because they know that the lie will be seen and believed as true by many, whereas the exposing of the lie will happen later and may be missed entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'No in fact we are NOT 'moving on', answer or we're
It's got an annoying, pointless side as well.
Politician: We'll not be discussing anything to do with the Dinsdale Brothers.
First thirty "journalists": Are you working with either of the Dinsdale brothers?
Then they get pissed off and claim that their 1st rights are somehow infringed when they're ignored or ejected from the room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?
Look. Strip away the Internet . If a far right "darling" said what they so love to say to my face in a public context, not only not only would I indulge in a little unladylike slapping, I'd do my level best to remove them from my immediate vicinity. Because its a virtual space doesn't change that case. They can't accept we think they're jackasses and don't want to hear it or engage in their brand of "discourse".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its all stupid.
I can not see what is going on, cause of all the tree's(BS)
There are lots of solutions, but they dont see it. On both sides..
Create your own site for those who wish to listen.
these corps can do the same...FB and YT, and google, can let Either side build their own section, BUT NOT BROADCAST/BOMB the whole site.
If anyone wishes to listen, they have to subscribe/friend that section... Then Both sides can be monitored.. ALL sides can be monitored..
i really get a feeling that we are dealing with Lots of 2 year olds debating the beat Lunch they ever had.. and trying to get the teacher to Agree with all of them..
If you wish to stand up and preach, then do it to those that will listen, and STAY in your corner...
If your corner gets big enough,,,,FINE..other wise let those that are MORE LOGICAL, sit and watch the battles..(discussion)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expected to see Hamilton and Jhon Smith lose their collective shit, was not disappointed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Say, did either of them ever get around to actually making a legal argument for why the case shouldn't have been tossed?
I'm just kidding; we all know the answer to that question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again, a lawsuit predicated wholly on the plaintiffs' hallucinations fails because nobody else sees any problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its an old kiddie playground trick.
You see, the GOP has an illegal battle plan its about to put into effect, to stifle and damage the opposition.
By claiming that the DEMs are doing these kinds of nasties to the GOP now, the DEM's later claim that the GOP is doing really nasty illegal things to the DEMs will look like copycatting and be dismissed by the public as such.
Yes its childish, but this is after all, the GOP we're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution is simple, remove offenders from public contracts. We have already laws on the books which prohibit awarding contracts to corporations that violate labor laws.
Cancel gov contracts of Google and see what will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...deny government contracts to companies for doing what? Getting frivolously sued?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]