This is Silly: Pelosi Says Facebook Is A 'Willing Enabler' Of Russian Election Meddling. It Is Not
from the don't-be-ridiculous dept
I know that it's fun and easy to attack Facebook these days -- and the company certainly deserves all sorts of criticism. But the criticism should be within the realm of reality. And the latest, from Nancy Pelosi, is not that. As you may have heard, there's all sorts of controversy over the past week or so concerning Facebook's decisions on how to moderate purposefully doctored videos of Pelosi, that are either edited or just slowed down to make it appear (falsely) that she is stumbling over words or slurring them. As we pointed out, there are good arguments from a variety of different perspectives on how Facebook should handle this. Currently, it is limiting the ability for the video to spread algorithmically, and when people try to share it manually, it pops up a warning about how the video has issues and you might want to think twice about sharing it.
That said, it wasn't even the video that was making the rounds on Facebook that got all the attention. Instead, Fox News ran a similar video, and that's the one that President Trump himself tweeted. And yet, oddly, everyone seems to be rushing to blame Facebook. The latest to step up to the plate is Nancy Pelosi herself, who is now saying that Facebook choosing not to pull down the video means the company is a "willing enabler" of Russian election interference:
"We have said all along, poor Facebook, they were unwittingly exploited by the Russians. I think wittingly, because right now they are putting up something that they know is false. I think it's wrong," she said. "I can take it. ... But [Facebook is] lying to the public."
She added: "I think they have proven — by not taking down something they know is false — that they were willing enablers of the Russian interference in our election."
This is such nonsense on so many levels. Of course, this is the same Nancy Pelosi who recently attacked Section 230 of the CDA and misrepresented what it does, so perhaps she can team up with all the Republicans in Congress making similar attacks on CDA 230 and kill the internet.
It is totally reasonable to say that Facebook was incompetent in dealing with Russian interference on its platform (it appears it was). It's totally reasonable to argue that Facebook drastically underestimated the ability of such interference, and neglected to be concerned about it for way too long. However, the company has made a lot of changes in the last couple years, and you're simply not paying attention if you don't think the company now cares quite a bit about the issue. But it's still going to face the same problem we've been discussing for years: content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, and some people are always going to disagree with certain decisions.
I completely understand the views of many that Facebook should have pulled down this video. But it is not an easy question and it is not one where the decision not to pull the video means that the company is "willingly enabling" propaganda (Russian or otherwise). As we pointed out just recently about this, how do you write rules that would make it obvious and clear for Facebook to remove a distorted video like that, that doesn't also force it to remove satire, humor, political speech, etc. This was the point raised by the UN's expert on free expression David Kaye:
homework assignment: draft the rule that prohibits doctored pelosi video but protects satire, political speech, dissent, humor etc. not so easy is it? https://t.co/zaA7kQf83i
— David Kaye (@davidakaye) May 25, 2019
And, even more to the point, how do you write a standard for Facebook to remove "false" information, "disinformation" or even "propaganda" that doesn't also lead to the removal of religious texts and proselytizing.
For those of you who think disinformation should be censored, please tell me where you stand on organized religion because if any disinformation has demonstrably harmed millions, it's that.
— jillian (@jilliancyork) May 27, 2019
Point is: this is not easy. And many of these cases involve careful judgment calls where there is a tremendous gray area, rather than "black" and "white" decisions. It's one thing to say that you disagree with Facebook's decision, and argue for why you would have come down differently. There are ways to do that that would be compelling, certainly. But that's not what Pelosi is doing,. Instead, she's smearing all of Facebook in claiming that because it came down differently on this particular issue, that it means they're in bed with Russian election meddling. That's Louis Gohmert-level crazy.
Meanwhile, it really is amazing that nearly everyone is so focused on Facebook over this video when it was the Fox News version that the President retweeted. Yesterday, we highlighted how an opinion piece in the NY Times by Kara Swisher claimed that no network would air such a thing... ignoring that Fox News did exactly that. At least now, there's another opinion piece in the NY Times by Farhad Manjoo pointing out how weird it is that everyone's focused on Facebook instead of Fox:
In going after Facebook, many observers forgot about Rupert Murdoch’s empire, whose Fox Business spinoff aired a similarly misleading Pelosi hit job on “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” This was upside down. While newfangled digital manipulations should raise some concern, they are still emerging, long-range threats, and social networks are at least experimenting with ways to mitigate their negative impact on society. But we don’t have much hope nor many good ideas for limiting the lies of old-media outlets like Fox News, which still commands the complete and slavish attention of tens of millions of Americans every night, polluting the public square with big and small lies that often ricochet across every platform, from cable to YouTube to Facebook to Google, drowning us all in a never-ending flood of fakery.
Indeed, what was remarkable about Fox’s Pelosi video was its very ordinariness. Instead of slowing down Pelosi’s speech, Fox Business misleadingly spliced together lots of small sections of a recent news conference to make it look as if Pelosi stammered worse than Porky Pig.
As Manjoo notes, it actually appears that Facebook's response to the Pelosi video was perfectly reasonable:
But what the company did do — label the clip as misinformation and limit its virality so that very few people got to see it — struck me as a reasonable effort to quash the lie, especially since I worry about Facebook’s overreach. Demanding that Facebook remove posts that cross some hard-to-define line may end up dragooning lots of legitimate political speech into its memory hole. Such a policy would also enrich Mark Zuckerberg with the last thing we should want him to have: more power over what we read, watch, listen to and think about.
Fox News, on the other hand, wasn't just a platform where any nut job troll could post a video. It's a huge media outlet, watched by millions of devoted fans who take everything on it as gospel. And its employees were literally the ones who decided to post this video.
As we noted earlier this year, a recent book from Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts, shows (with lots and lots and lots of data to back it up) that the real "propaganda" effect during and after the 2016 election was heavily driven by Fox News, and not by Facebook. For all the fretting about Facebook, it seems that those concerns are totally mistargeted.
And yet, of course, no one (least of all Pelosi) seems willing to attack Fox News, or to call it a "willing enabler" of Russian election interference. Indeed, doing so would lead to widespread attacks, and even (somewhat questionable) claims of 1st Amendment concerns of a politician meddling with the press. Yet few seem to blink an eye when she mistargets Facebook with the same criticism.
I'll repeat it again: it is perfectly reasonable to dislike Facebook. To dislike it's practices. To dislike it's decision on the Pelosi video. But to conclude that this makes it a "willing enabler" of Russian election interference is disconnected from reality.
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: content moderation, election meddling, nancy pelosi, russian interference
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: No Mr. Zuckerburg
And yet Fox Business started this whole mess. You giving them a free pass too?
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Maybe the country she is referring to is not one she can publicly state without being really really considered to be way way over the hill that separates the back side of beyond from reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Mr. Zuckerburg
I expect you to loose your company. It isn't a good idea to piss off the Speaker of the House of Representatives. If the Democrats gain the Senate your company will be so hooped.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Please ask Rep. Pelosi to draft the rule that prohibits the doctored video of her but protects satire, political speech, dissent, humor, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't worry! Our leader has a solution to the Russian meddling problem!
"Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable
Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative
things, will be guarded.."
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2017
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Mr. Zuckerburg
And yet Fox Business started this whole mess. You giving them a free pass too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Facebook is bad. We must saddle upon our rainbow dragons and slay the mighty beast with our Guitar Swords and reveal that Zuckerberg is actually Magneto in disguise. He must be stopped because...well no reason. People like to complain.
I'm sure that when Facebook was created it was intended to be a platform that spreads false information and harm to the world. There's sarcasm somewhere in here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Did you see how bad that went with the EU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Mr. Zuckerburg
I think framing the backlash against Facebook as partisan is a mistake. I think there's a growing backlash against both Facebook and Twitter, both among Democrats angry about things like Cambridge Analytica and Republicans angry about things like banning Alex Jones.
I think there's a good chance we'll see legislation targeting the big social networking sites regardless of who controls Congress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Therein lies the problem: How will they target only “big” social networking sites?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Mr. Zuckerburg
I am going to guess you are trying to slyly quote a Bond film while 'scoring points' on Zuckerburg to virtue signal while ignoring all content in this article. I can't say I can connect your comments to the content except in loose fashion. You certainly aren't engaging the article or follow on commentary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Was that video any worse that the claims politicians on one side make against the politicians on the other side?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: No Mr. Zuckerburg
I was arguing at the time it was announced that the anger about moderation is exactly why social media regulation was part of warren's platform - it's 'The Wall' but bipartisan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You don't need to draft a rule. Facebook should make the decision to pull it because they proclaim to support honesty and transparency.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If we had to take down anything that was false, our TV channels would be filled with nothing but infomercials ("this knife cuts!"), documentaries ("penguins are an animal!"), weather ("the temperature of the air surrounding our thermometer is exactly..."), and news ("A thing happened today...").
Say goodbye to movies, drama shows, action shows, investigator shows, and "reality" TV.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Poorly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: No Mr. Zuckerburg
Maybe. Regulating large companies in general is kind of Warren's thing, but you may be right about why she's chosen to focus on Big Tech in particular.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Or else what, you’ll call them hypocrites? You lack the power to do much else, anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
slippery slope
Most of the time, Facebook and Twitter censor and ban more readily than Youtube. The Pelosi video(s) became notable for being one of the rare exceptions, with Youtube eradicating all copies off the platform on an ongoing basis, while Facebook and Twitter opted to allow it, presumably in the name of free-speech.
This is quite a turnaround, and it's amazing that FB and Twitter's failure to censor is somehow considered more controversial than Youtube's decision to censor the kind of video it has never censored before.
This issue goes beyond the whole concept of free speech. Politicians should never be a protected class, and people should be able to publish anything about them, no matter how inaccurate or deceptive it might turn out to be. Thin-skinned politicians who can't stand being libeled, slandered, and defamed should find another line of work, instead of acting to shut down such speech.
Does it not bother old-school liberals that it's now the Republicans who have increasingly become the free-speech party, while the Democrats have increasingly become the party of censorship?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jimmy Kimmel has a segment where Donald video is slowed down to make it look as though he had been drinking.
Funny stuff, so is the Pelosi video. Both are obviously faked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is different because they know it is doctored. They know it is fake. They know the intent is to deceive people. Satire is obvious. As much as I disagree with Pelosi (fucking impeach already), she has a valid point here IMO
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Counterpoint: here is someone arguing with a poster who brags about his education at Smilin' Jim's Unaccredited Forth Grade Acamedy and then advocates eating paint chips.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Satire is obvious.
Not when it's good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There must be hundreds if not thousands of slowed-down "Drunk Trump" videos uploaded to YouTube. Here is one I found of his inauguration speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CK1uw6lfgI
But unlike the Pelosi video, which YouTube went to great lenghts to eradicate any trace of, these "Drunk Trump" videos are very easy to find on Youtube. Apparently it's perfectly OK to post tons of slowed-down/edited/doctored Trump videos on Youtube but an outright abomination to do the same thing to Nancy Pelosi even a single time -- at least in the minds of the people running YouTube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And it could be said that the best satire is that which is obvious only to a very small number of people (at least if you happen to be one of those people).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Facebook should also remove things that are demonstrably harmful. Facebook is a private company and can remove or promote anything they want to.
If you want Facebook to abide by the 1st amendment and allow all types of speech, advocate for making Facebook public. Personally, I advocate for this and would like them not to discriminate on anything, unless it is deemed to not be under the privy of the 1st amendment. I'm not sure if anything would be disallowed via this medium; it's not like yelling Fire! in a crowded theater when there is no fire
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Mr. Zuckerburg
Facebook has been around for a while. Facebook wasn’t made the day Trump became president. It has been around for a long time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Masnick, it’s hard to find good Satire when people are too retarded to get the joke. Hence why there’s a whole subreddit called r/woooosh. If I were you, I’d check it out. There are really good examples.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just more nonsense
Both parties keep on spewing nonsense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That...doesn't really have anything to do with what I said, but sure.
I am aware that the First Amendment restricts the government, not private entities. It is, however, concerning when people who are part of the government advocate for private entities to suppress legal speech, especially in the context this article mentions (Pelosi's recent misstatements about 230). I already mentioned upthread that there's been agitation by members of both major parties to attempt to control what platforms like Facebook and Twitter do and don't allow. Context matters.
And for god's sake quit using that hackneyed "fire in a crowded theater" cliche.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
...that's two posts using the word "retarded" in six minutes.
Broaden your vocabulary, dogg. I'm sure you can come up with better insults than schoolyard slurs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I'd wager that most of the "drunk trump" videos are labeled as such either in the title or description, or are shown in a known satire show (Jimmy Kimmel).
The problem with Nancy's this video was the promotion of it with no mention of it being parody or satire, and promoted by a major news station that really ought to know better.
I'm in favor of leaving it up, but label it as it should be: perfectly legal satire for comedy purposes only. If you want to be on record as a US President that makes fun of opponents in this way (by, say, retweeting the video on your account) then by all means, do so. Just be aware that we will judge you for doing so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? So I could say: “ShitTits, CockCrocker, Brainwashed-BitchBag”
Stuff like that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You should rethink using that argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You can at least use more personally considerate language than a word that slurs intellectually disabled people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Youtube took it down, as they have every right to, meanwhile it remains up everywhere else. But you are still angry aren't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I said better insults than schoolyard slurs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"If you want Facebook to abide by the 1st amendment"
Why would anyone want this?
Are you advocating for the government takeover of a private business? What the hell are you, some kind of socialist?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If one listens, there are sometimes moments of logical arguments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is 2019. Being Considerate on the internet has been out the window for a long time. And here I thought you were fighting for Free Speech. Your comment says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You do know the story of how Facebook was started, right?
I'm having a hard time finding the sarcasm.
That said, I don't think Facebook as it is today is intrinsically bad -- it's just badly architected and run by people who put their own self interest above the privacy of the people who sign up to their service. If facebook features were all opt-in and you got to manage your entire reach in your social network, and pulling data removed it from the entire network, I'd be reasonably OK with it. Of course, it may not be able to be profitable in that form.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
A better solution would be for YouTube to add user voting for things other than the current thumbs up/down rating, such as "mislabeled title" or "deceptive" or something like that. Such a feature could have been helpful way back in the Rickrolling era. Yes, such voting systems can easily be gamed, but I'd rather have users in control instead of YouTube/FB/Twitter having the power to determine what we are allowed or not allowed to see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pot calling the kettle black, Pelosi. Try to make a law that criminalizes "lying to the public" and see how it works out of you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
like the $25 million nothing burger?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: shithole countries.. grab them in the pu
These days it seems it's the White House, not the local school yard, where kids are getting their bad language.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I had heard that was actually allowed, it is just easier to point to rather than "The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." in Brandenburg v. Ohio"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Happens all the time really
I’m terribly sorry sir. You seem to have wandered over to techdirt.com. What you want is wnd.com.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pointing out examples of hypocrisy, inconsistency, and double standards in multi-billion dollar companies does not equate to anger.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-firs t-amendment/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not a full-blown state-owns-industry kind of socialist. I just recognize that Facebook is by far the largest platform on the internet that has a abnormally large influence on the American people.
I can see various ways the Government should handle Facebook, the most obvious being to use anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws to break them up so they don't have as much influence. If there were enough competitors, people would see these fake videos and are more likely to use a different social media platform, eventually creating a circle-jerk of people spreading around the fake videos
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Welp, I was wrong.
I mean, I was wrong when I said I was sure you could come up with better insults than schoolyard slurs.
It turns out I have misjudged you, and you are in fact the kind of mouthbreathing shitgibbon who thinks it violates your free speech rights when people tell you not to be an asshole.
My apologies for mistaking you for someone who wasn't deeply, deeply stupid. It won't happen again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
More to the point (IMO), how can they target social media sites without violating the first amendment?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One rule to ring them all...
In her mind there is no difference between the video of her and satire, dissent, humor, and political speech, they are all one and the same and they all need to go...
We protect the right to say what we say, not your right to say what you say...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because that's super easy to determine automatically (Facebook doesn't have the manpower to review everything manually) and nobody will disagree on what is harmful and what is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Off the top of my head? They could weaken Section 230. (I mean, more than they already have with FOSTA.) I think that's a colossally bad idea, but it doesn't violate the First Amendment.
But I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they'll pass restrictions that do violate the First Amendment. Just because something's unconstitutional doesn't mean Congress won't pass it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That’s YOUR opinion, Bitch!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: shithole countries.. grab them in th
Again, 2019.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Happens all the time really
been here before you, bro
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, usually that makes people angry.
Are you one of those passive aggressives?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I simply do not see the problem, what exactly would the government do for you and why? Anti-trust is not applicable as there is no monopoly. First amendment is not applicable as it is a private business.
If you are looking for a site that agrees with your pov then go find it but do not expect everyone else to bend to your desires just because.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: shithole countries.. grab them i
Yup, it's 2019 and yet some politicians want to take was back to the 1930s.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I know. My conscience bothered me about this at first, too.
You’re free to say whatever you want. I’m free to critcize you for what you say. I’m also free to suggest you try usng more personally considerate language. You don’t have to heed my advice. But if you don’t at least try…well, don’t blame me when people call you an asshole. You brought that free speech upon yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Happens all the time really
Then you should really know better than to bring that pathetic pile of straw purporting to be a man to the adult table bro.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really aren’t helping your cause at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is a reasonable argument for it being a monopoly. What other sites are a real competitor? It's not like MySpace or Xanga are competition. Google+ shut down. I just looked up facebook alternatives and they listed sites I had never heard of
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Facebook should also remove things that are demonstrably harmful. Facebook is a private company and can remove or promote anything they want to.
In which case I would like to bring your attention to this particular quote/question:
For those of you who think disinformation should be censored, please tell me where you stand on organized religion because if any disinformation has demonstrably harmed millions, it's that. — jillian (@jilliancyork)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Facebook is but one type of SIN. That it does things other SINs do not, and is more widely used than other SINs, does not make it a monopoly. And if you still want to argue that it is a monopoly, ask yourself this: Can you use the Internet without Facebook? A monopoly that can be avoided altogether isn’t as powerful a monopoly as you might think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There would be almost no one allowed to run because politicians lie. Both sides of the aisle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who not try out the alternatives, or is the problem that you do not know anybody on those sites?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do not consider your argument to be reasonable. The term monopoly is misunderstood by many, perhaps a review of the Sherman Antitrust Act is in order.
"The act is not meant to punish businesses that come to dominate their market passively or on their own merit, only those that intentionally dominate the market through misconduct, which generally consists of conspiratorial conduct of the kind forbidden by Section 1 of the Sherman Act, or Section 3 of the Clayton Act. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890#Monopoly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Happens all the time really
He's your president... bro. Whether you like it or not... and all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't really find anything worse than what the cockroaches in DC have been doing for years. Cheaters, liars and thieves. The whole bunch. Trump may be a douche bag but you sound like a bitch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Happens all the time really
Trump is way worse and you know it.
I seriously doubt any of his predecessors would have considered the pardon of soldiers convicted of war crimes ... on Memorial Day no less!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Happens all the time really
Oh wait ... Nixon considered doing that didn't he.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: poor little baby’s done tuckered himself out
Not everyone lives in the US you numpty. You sound like you need a timeout and a nappy change bro.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hamilton is the poster child for passive aggressive.
It's been two whole years, Shiva Ayyadurai failed to convince a judge that he invented email, and I'm still waiting on Hamilton's list of the "thousands" of "inventors" that were irreparably harmed by the fact that Techdirt exists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stop Sign Test
Say somebody spray paints the word "GO" on the front of the stop sign at a busy intersection. A horrible accident with many fatalities results.
Do you blame the Spray painter or the stop sign?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cut her some slack
She's very old. Her and others like her will probably keep forgetting that we now know the entire Russian Conspiracy from the DNC was bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Stop Sign Test
I would blame the driver who ignored the stop sign. Stop signs have a shape that is unique among all road signs, when the paint gets covered by snow and ice and you can not read it ... it is still a stop sign.
In addition, the driver who believed the altered stop sign was actually a go sign should have their license revoked and possibly seek professional help.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cut her some slack
How is the vodka this time of year?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well if Facebook wanted to "test" Section 230, letting the Pelosi video stand is a good way to do it.
One way you could preserve the First Amendment is to make a common carrier out of any platform that is a federal contractor, and eliminate their Section 230 protection, which would mean that if a company wanted its "free speech" it would have it unless it did business with the government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Companies are free not to do business with the federal government. If they choose to be a federal contractor, they should lose the protections afforded truly private citizens, like the right to censor their platforms.
That would be a middle ground for this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not to name names, but there's a certain attorney who goes around insulting "incels," yet one look at his wife (who is now fair game for comparison due to her husband analyzing others' love lives) suggests the incels are better off.
Also it is not the incel men who go and shoot up workplaces of their ex-lovers, often killing innocents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-firs t-amendment/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cut her some slack
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
(as usual)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Or, we could instead not take actions based on word salad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No one is "entitled" to Section 230. Congress can put strings on it. I say make it so any federal contractor does not have this protection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why you still here bro
All you can do is lie like a wet rag.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Hi Jhon. You don’t get to be an incel just because you’re impotent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
People with butt-ugly, doofus wives who call others incel are intellectually impotent.
On another note, a man with Masnick's money and status who had to settle for the low-value garbage he married is as pathetic as it gets.
What's her name again? Let me look it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Masnick is also being disingenuous about the "pro 230" ruling he recently cited, as the court noted the "troubling" consequences of the immunity.
Doesn't matter much anyway since Pelosi will take 230 down all by herself. Facebook must want the law gone or they never would have allowed this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I was CENSORED on this very site for a week, my posts "held for moderation."
Like many of his lawyer buddies, Masnick's skin is thinner regarding speech concerning him than speech concerning others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They don't have to remove anything. Just strip them of Section 230 immunity and let them decide what might cause liability.
They have to want 230 gone or they wouldn't have left the video up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Damn, John, you've been holding back!
At the very least it looks like you've finally reached the acceptance phase of dealing with grief from Shiva Ayyadurai asking a judge to prove he didn't invent email.
Get some new material, man. Watching you insult Masnick's offspring is hilarious after the negative first time, after that it just sounds like you've got a closet crush on the guy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yeah, about that. It turns out when you go on a mad rant and call a site owner's children poop smears, multiple times, and insinuate that their spouse is a working prostitute, your commentary might be more closely scrutinized for using - in your own terms - "fighting words".
Mind-blowing, I know.
horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
People with butt-ugly, doofus wives who call others incel are intellectually impotent.
For someone whose main thesis for repealing Section 230 is to protect women from being called hookers by anonymous commenters... you sure seem to enjoy insulting women in general. From an anonymous vantage point. Polite people would call that ironic or hypocritical. I prefer to call that "fucked in the head".
a man with Masnick's money and status
What money and status? The whole point of Techdirt was to be a bastion for pirates, wasn't it? That's why Masnick has to support Open Source initiatives that would surely fall under the might and weight of patent-holding companies such as Intellectual Ventures!
...Oh wait, Masnick's lack of wealth happens to be incidentally inconvenient to your current rant narrative. Carry on!
the low-value garbage he married is as pathetic as it gets
Personally, I don't completely disagree with criticism of "incels". I think to mock men for their inability to woo a woman for whatever reason, to no backlash, is pretty scummy. Insulting women is generally not going to get anyone to agree with you, though, especially if the criteria is due to status.
But then again, you've already mentioned on multiple occasions that you enjoy the company of multiple beautiful women, so why do you feel so angered by the fact that other men choose to settle for women you consider beneath you?
What's her name again? Let me look it up.
"OOooh, I hate Masnick! I hate that he marries under his station. I'm going to find out who his wife is and insult his daughters! ...What's that? No, I'm not obsessed with Masnick or Techdirt. Not at all!"
God, what a fucking asshole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Good thing Techdirt isn't a federal contractor then. Oops!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Twitter allows Republicans to be insulted: CONSERVATIVE BIAS, FUCK TWITTER
Facebook allows Democrats to be insulted: FUCK SECTION 230, FUCK FACEBOOK
There is nothing you can't and won't spin for your pussy-grabbing overlord, is there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
John Herrick Smith doesn't name names. News at 11.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Note the verb tense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Note the verb tense.
Facebook might not be a willing enabler at this time and they certainly have more restrictions that will help protect against such propaganda in the future.
But they were certainly willing and able to take money from just about anybody during the 2016 campaign to run their ads. And their algorithms are still vulnerable to click bait.
2020 is probably going to be OK on the Facebook front. I'm more interested in how they (and other platforms) are going to behave in the 2024 campaign when nobody is paying attention anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Masnick's money and status?
But that's not what you said the last time.
So which is it? Is Masnick's money and status great or insignificant?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Also it is not the incel men who go and shoot up workplaces of their ex-lovers, often killing innocents."
You do know that incel ideology often involves fantasies of physical and armed violence, right? Including instances of several incels acting out on those tendencies, and/or encouraging others to do the same?
Besides, if you're not an incel, given that you've claimed to have several girlfriends... doesn't that put you at a greater risk of shooting up someone's workplace?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You get the idea that John Herrick Smith doesn't seem to be very good at keeping track of his own arguments...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There is a reasonable argument for it being a monopoly"
Not if you understand words.
"they listed sites I had never heard of"
At some point in the non-so distant past, Facebook was also something you'd never heard of. That's the weakest excuse for not exercising freedom of choice I've ever heard - you have to wait until other people make another site popular before you'll try it?
No wonder Facebook are finding it so easy to avoid competitors, if people like you refuse to use them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Just strip them of Section 230 immunity and let them decide what might cause liability."
Remove section 230 and the answer to that is EVERYTHING. There is not a single thing they can have on their site that they will not potentially be sued for, once you remove the barrier of them not being able to be sued for things they did not do.
This is why your stupid ideas are so dangerous - you just don't understand how stupid they are because you don't understand the basics of your own demands.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The revenge of the old impotent fuckwit
That one hit home there didn’t it you feckless coward.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He means he's yet again got nothing in the real world to attack, so he has to launch playground insults against the threadbare strawman he's constructed to not feel like so much of a failure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: who you gonna threaten to rape this week?
Dic you finally sober up from last weeks fit there Jhon “I’m so not impotent I’m an incel” boi?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I've had that happen to me, too. I didn't whine like a little baby or rant about a conspiracy, I merely went off and did other things until I was notified that a response to my post had been made.
What's your excuse?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Or were you the bitch the whole time?!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just one little blue pill a day
Speaking of thin skinned bro. Did you finally see a doctor about that “little” problem you have?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Stop Sign Test
Exactly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I don't completely disagree with criticism of "incels". I think to mock men for their inability to woo a woman for whatever reason, to no backlash, is pretty scummy. Insulting women is generally not going to get anyone to agree with you, though, especially if the criteria is due to status.
Woman here. Holy crap, the wrong in the post you're responding to! Incels are without partners because they have unrealistic expectations, i.e. they're horrible people who want comic-book pretty women to submit to them.
I'm a short fat brunette married to a tall blond hunk. Butt-ugly? Hubby doesn't think so. Doofus? Occasionally. Nobody marries low-value garbage and if Jhon is indeed an incel; that's why. You can't walk around describing people in those terms and expect to have a happy love life with "multiple beautiful women." Or any woman. If this one is sickened by his comments, what must the ones he fancies think of him?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Behaving obnoxiously has never won anyone's heart so I doubt the claims about "enjoying the company of multiple beautiful women."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Claimed to have several girlfriends? I suppose his buddies call him Ace and Big Man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
My posts have been held for moderation and I didn't have a cow about it. Thin skinned, much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Why should a company/corporation lose anything just for the opportunity to bid on as government contract? I can understand some restrictions on non citizen employees but what you suggest is simply not needed and would most likely result in the government not being able to procure anything via subcontract.
I see that knife you are sharpening but I think you are using the wrong tool. You will not silence your critics with removal of 230 or any other legislation as they will continue to call you out even after you put them in the FEMA death camps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Platforms as common carrier is stupid and makes no sense at all.
What is wrong with you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
This, ladies and gentlemen...
Is a fucking meltdown.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What was that you were saying on another article about not melting down over this site? Because it looks like something is digging under your skin and making a nest…
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Techdirt doesn’t owe you a platform.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Mr. Zuckerburg
It also isn't a good idea to have a country where citizens have to live in fear of pissing off government officials.
That's hardly what the Founders had in mind.
They work for us, not the other way around. As long as I'm breaking no laws, I shouldn't have to care one whit whether Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump is mad about something I said or how I run my business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That part would be easy. Just say "this law only applies to social media platforms with 1 million or more users/subscribers".
Such laws would have a huge 1st Amendment hurdle to clear here in the U.S., but targeting only the big platforms isn't that hard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I was just about to type those exact same words in response, then decided to read through the thread first. Glad I did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The members of both isles would be sharing cells with many captains of industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: One rule to ring them all...
Some day the world may look up at the moon at night trying to decipher the smoke signals coming from that lady. If she could take that company with her it would be much appreciated!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, I said better insults than schoolyard slurs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: No Mr. Zuckerburg
I have hemoroids older than facebook. None of them have been as painful as facebook has been to the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"Both sides of the aisle."
Just how big of a mouth does one have to have to call it an "aisle?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
What would you call it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Term isn't in dispute. Requesting requirements to use said term
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are no requirements to use the term and it's in quite common use to describe the division between Democrats and Republicans in US politics. I'm thinking maybe you are unaware of its origins so I will mention that it's a reference to the aisle in the middle of the US Senate chamber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisle_(political_term)
[ link to this | view in thread ]