Josh Hawley Is A Lying Demagogue Who Has Built A Fake Fantasy World About 'Evil Big Tech'
from the get-over-it-dude dept
What's up Senator Hawley? What's bugging you today? Yesterday, Hawley went to the floor of the Senate to try to sneakily move forward one of his many, many bills to destroy the internet and take away Section 230. He tried to sneak it through without letting folks who he knew would oppose it know, in the hopes that they might not show up to stop him. In fact, he did it at a time when the key person blocking his bill -- Senator Ron Wyden, who authored Section 230 and knows that Hawley is lying about it -- was in an important committee meeting.
What happened then is what you can see in this video below, in which Wyden raced over and had to give unprepared remarks to explain to Hawley that he's a lying idiot.
Almost everything that Hawley says here is a lie or is garbage. It starts out with him gravely staring at the camera, saying that we're approaching an important election, and then it goes into this nonsense:
But there are a group of people who seem intent on influencing the people's choice on manipulating it, on shaping it, according to their own preferences.
Yes. The Russians seem intent on that. As does your political party, including the President and the Attorney General, who have repeatedly made moves to try to invalidate the ability of the public to vote. Is that who you're talking about?
And I'm not talking about China, or Russia, or Iran.
Oh. But they are actually trying to influence the vote. The intelligence community has reports on it -- though they've stopped briefing the President because it makes him sad.
I'm talking about a group of corporations, the most powerful corporations in the history of this nation, the most powerful corporations in the history of the world.
News Corp?
I'm talking about big tech. We know who they are. They run the giant digital platforms, the places where Americans communicate and share their opinions.
Wait, the websites that allow the public to criticize you and your lies? You can't possibly mean them.
But those platforms are more than that. They're more than places to talk or buy things, Facebook and Google, Twitter and Instagram and YouTube. These are the platforms that control more and more of our daily lives.
Dude. Come on. They don't control our lives.
And yes, I said, control.
You must think the public is a bunch of weak-minded fools. No one in Silicon Valley "controls" anyone.
These platforms control our social communication, the way that we talk to each other, when and how, where and on what terms. They control what news we read, or even what news we see.
This is literally not true. There are tons of different ways to get news, and the companies you named can't stop any of them. Nor do they.
They control more and more journalism in America, right down to what's in news articles and how the headlines are written. They control how elected officials communicate with their constituents when they can run advertisements what their messages can say and can't.
They don't control journalism. They don't control how headlines are written. They don't control how elected officials communicate. You can do all of that without them. And yes, many websites do use their platforms to spread their news, but not all of us do. And, sure, they may limit some advertisements. If they're bullshit lies, or inciting violence, but that's kind of their right as private companies. Which you should know... Because you were the lawyer for Hobby Lobby in bringing their case to the Supreme Court on the very principle that private companies get to decide how to run their own businesses with regards to certain 1st Amendment rights. Or do you not remember that?
Of course, if you're a mendacious demagogue and your only goal is to rile up your constituents with a bogus culture war to make sure you're in the headlines, then I guess maybe this nonsense makes sense.
And they want to control us.
No. They don't. Dude, rather than creating this fake bogeyman, maybe go out to Silicon Valley once and talk to the engineers who hold the internet together with bubblegum and duct tape. They're not competent enough to control anyone. This isn't science fiction. There is no mind control. They're just trying to build useful internet platforms, and you and your friends decided to use those platforms to go fascist. And some of them said "I don't want a part of that." Which, again, is their right.
The big tech platforms relentlessly spy on their customers, you and me. They track us around the web. They monitor our every move online, and even when we're offline. They track our location. And whether we're in a car or riding a bike around the street, they track the websites that we visit. And when they track the things that we buy, they track the videos that we watch, they track what our children are doing, they track everything all with the purpose of getting enough information on each one of us to influence us to shape our preferences, and opinions and viewpoints.
First of all, you can turn off most of that. It's not that hard. If there weren't this pandemic going on, I'd stop by your office and show you how. At the very least, it's not that hard to, like, install Privacy Badger. It's nice. It'll help you.
Also, they're not tracking you to "shape our preferences and opinions and viewpoints." That's what advertisers want to do. And Fox News. You don't seem mad at them.
This is enormous power--unheard of power. And the big tech platforms are intent on using it. They are intent on using it in this election.
This is just silly. If you actually spoke to the people at these companies, they want nothing less than to have nothing to do with this election. Why do you think many of them are saying "no political advertising at all"? Why do you think so many of them are trying to bend over backwards to stay out of anything that even looks remotely like influencing an election. You're literally making this up because you have nothing real to run on and you can only succeed by creating a fake enemy to rail against. You are a little man with no plan and no principles. So you make up enemies and try to turn your constituents against them, because you think that your constituents are rubes who you can lie to and they'll believe you.
Let's just cut to the chase. The big tech platforms are owned and operated by woke capitalists.
Um. What? "Woke capitalists"? I thought Republicans were complaining that the "woke" people were socialists? Now they're capitalists? Can you guys keep your ridiculous conspiracy theories straight?
They're leftists. They're liberals. They're not conservatives. They're no friend to conservatives.
Both Facebook and Google have policy shops with well known Republican officials in senior positions. Come on. Multiple reports have shown that Facebook favors right wing nonsense, and bends over backwards not to pull it down, even when it's utter bullshit.
They fervently oppose the election of Donald Trump and other conservatives in 2016. They fervently oppose it this year.
Well, first, Donald Trump is a moron who is incompetent. Anyone can see that. But, there is no evidence that any internet company is doing jack shit to stop him. Again, Facebook has bent over backwards to help him and his campaign out. Twitter remains his primary tool of communication. If Silicon Valley companies did 1/10 of the shit you accuse them of, that would be a huge deal. But they're not. You're just lying.
And now they're trying to use their power to shape the outcome of an election.
No. They're literally not doing this. And employees at Facebook are quitting because they're letting the President spew hatred and lies and incite violence on the platform.
For months, the tech platforms have been engaging in escalating acts of censorship, political censorship, aimed at conservatives.
We've gone over this a million times. There remains no evidence at all that they're targeting conservatives. They are targeting insane, outlandish lies, hate speech, efforts to incite violence, and such. If your party is doing more of that, well, perhaps that's on you.
They've censored the President of the United States.
No, they haven't. Twitter fact checked him. You know, adding more speech. Didn't you used to be one of those "the answer to bad speech is more speech" kind of Republicans?
They have banned pro life groups from their sites.
No they haven't. I just searched and there are literally dozens of pro-life Facebook groups with thousands of members. You're just making shit up that's easy to fact check.
They have tried to silence independent conservative journalists like the Federalist. Now this censorship is never against liberals, notice. Now Joe Biden isn't censored. Pro choice groups aren't discriminated against. Liberal new sites, they don't get threatened and bullied and shut out. Now big tech targets conservatives for censorship for a simple reason. They don't like conservatives, they don't agree with conservatives. They don't want to see conservatives get elected.
Why do you chuckleheads always go back to that bogus Federalist story. We faced the same thing (and currently have no ads on our site). Did we lose our ads because of anti-tech news bias? Slate -- which is generally considered left-leaning -- also faced the same demonetization threats. In that link, it's noted that Buzzfeed also got the same notices that we got, Slate got and that The Federalist got.
But notice that only the Federalist is crying victim. Only you are claiming that it was because of anti-conservative bias -- rather than the reality. The same reason that The Federalist, Techdirt, Slate, and Buzzfeed all got these notices: some of our content tripped a wacky AdSense algorithm. It's got nothing to do with bias, and you know it. You know it because I sent that information to you. Once again, it happened because these companies and their algorithms aren't the all-controlling puppetmasters you claim. They barely work most of the time. And they spew out all sorts of false claims. But it's only you and your whiny friends who take it so personally.
And then you go to the floor of the Senate and you lie about it. Because you think the public are idiots.
And here's the thing. If they are allowed to use their power in this way, if they are permitted to leverage their control over news and information and data to silence the voices of conservatives, then we will be turning control of our government over to them will be concerning control of our elections over to them, control of the nation to them. And let's just be clear, no corporation should run America. No set of corporate overlords should substitute their judgment. For the judgment of we the people no woke capitalist should be able to shape the outcome of an election by silencing speech. And that's why we have to act and act today.
Boy are you going to be upset when you learn about Fox News.
There is a simple, straightforward solution to the censorship power of these digital platforms. Let those who have been censored claim their rights, let them sue. Let them go to court. Let them challenge the decision to the tech platforms and have their day before the bar of the law. Now right now federal law prohibits this. It prevents Americans from challenging the tech platforms and their censorship. It prevents Americans from challenging just about anything that the tech companies do. That should change.
You're a constitutional lawyer. How do you not know the difference between Section 230 of the Communications Act and the 1st Amendment. Because it's the 1st Amendment that lets internet companies decide what content is published on their websites and what is not. What would "their day before the bar of the law" even look like? All that would happen is judges would laugh every one of the sad sacks you've convinced to go to court, telling them they have no right to force anyone to host their speech. And just like your client, Hobby Lobby, was free to screw over its employees thanks to your diligent lawyering, leading plenty of people to take their business elsewhere, if people don't like how the big internet companies moderate, they too can go elsewhere. Aren't you on Parler yet, Josh?
And that is why today, Mr. President, I urge this body to adopt my legislation, which I proudly have introduced along with Senator Rubio and Senator Cotton, Senator Braun, and Senator Leffler to give every American who is unfairly censored the right to have his or her day in court, the right to stand and be heard the right to fairness and due process of law. This is a stand we must take in defense of free speech, in defense of our elections. But more importantly, above all, in defense of our democracy, and the rule of we the people.
Again, the 1st Amendment says you're a lying fool, Josh. You're not defending free speech or elections. You're making a mockery of them.
At this point, an exasperated Senator Ron Wyden pops up to object to Hawley moving forward with this nonsensical, unconstitutional bill, pointing out that Hawley did not do the usual procedure of alerting others that he was going to make a request for unanimous consent to move his bill forward, and that he picked a time (perhaps deliberately) when Wyden was testifying before the Ways and Means Committee to make this move. So, Wyden had to respond, off the cuff, without a prepared speech, to highlight that basically everything Hawley said was utter and complete nonsense. Wyden seems rightfully pissed off.
I just want to say to the Senate, in my time in this body, this is one of the most stunning abuses of power. I have seen in my time in public service. I think my colleague knows that I was setting until five minutes go in the Ways and Means Committee, where I was invited to testify about Social Security.
And I was given a message that the Senator from Missouri was going to stand up and basically try to throw in the garbage can, a bipartisan law that I and a conservative Republican, former congressman Chris Cox, well known to conservatives, wrote, because as we thought about the formulation of technology policy, our big concern was for the little guy, the person who didn't have power, the person who didn't have clout, we were picking up accounts, that if they were just trying to come out with their invention might be something they put up on a website or a blog, it could be held personally liable, personally liable for something that was posted on their site that they'd have no idea of.
So we said, we can't do that to the little guy. We can't strip them of their voice.
And by the way, my concern about the little guy that led to the passage of this law, is something is something I continue to focus on today. This law is hugely important to movements like "Me Too," and "Black Lives Matter." Because it gives Americans the opportunity to see the messages that they want to get out. We've all seen the videos, frankly, the establishment media, I don't think would have even run a lot of it, because they would be sued. So the original interest in this was making sure that the little guy had a chance to be heard. That's the interest today. That's what the Senator from Missouri wants to throw in the trash can. So that's number one.
Number two, the effect of what the Senator from Missouri wants to do. And for colleagues who've just come in, I just learned about this. Five minutes before the Senator from Missouri went on to the floor. The net effect of this is that Donald Trump can force social media and he's already working the rest to print his lies. The thing that concerned me right at the outset, was the lies about vote by mail. He wanted to force Twitter to print his lies about vote by mail. That too, is something that we sought to constrain in the bipartisan legislation.
In other words, if your complaint is about unfairly influencing elections, Josh, maybe look at your own President first.
Now, many people think it's a 26 words, that really began a policy of empowering the little guy to be heard.
He then goes on to push his own bill, the Mind Your Own Business Act, that would actually propose jail times for big company CEOs that violate certain privacy principles. He points out that if Hawley actually cared about taking on big tech, he'd sign onto that bill. But Hawley's not interested in really taking on big tech. He's trying to build up an evil bogeyman that he can scare people with. He's demagoging.
And, of course, he couldn't let Wyden just make him look like a fool, so Hawley got up to spew more lies:
I will just say, Mr. President, that my friend, the Democratic Senator describes a world that doesn't exist. He says section 230 protects the little guy. Section 230 protects the most powerful corporations in the history of the world. Google and Facebook aren't the little guy. Instagram and Twitter aren't the little guy, you know, who is left vulnerable by those mega corporations.
This is where Hawley is completely misrepresenting things again. What Section 230 does is allow these, and every other website that hosts content, to exist without fear of being bogged down by overly burdensome litigation. And it does help the little guy. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube have all enabled many, many, many "little guys" to speak their mind and get attention, and build huge followings and businesses. Including tons of conservatives. And it's enabled there to be new companies and new entrants. And individual sites. It absolutely protects the little guy.
If Hawley's unconstitutional bill became law, that would hurt the little guy. The platforms would be much less willing to host user content. It would be that much more difficult for small sites or individual websites to be put up. But Hawley needs to make an enemy and thus he has to lie and lie and lie again.
The people who don't have a voice that people who when they get deplatformed don't have an option. If you're silenced by Google, or Facebook or Twitter, what's your option? None. Nothing, you can't be heard. You can't go to court, you can't do anything.
Oh, come on. There are so many other platforms -- even those catering to fascists and Trumpists. Free market? Competition? Didn't Republicans used to support that kind of thing. You can set up your own website. You're not "silenced" by Google or Facebook or Twitter. You have other options. And it's not like those companies are quick to shut down anyone's accounts anyway. In most cases, you have to have done something really, really egregious.
I mean, I see Josh Hawley posting all sorts of bullshit on Twitter daily, and his account remains.
Every American should have the right if they're unfairly discriminated against because of their political views to at least be heard in court. Now, section 230, as it exists today, and as it's currently being applied, it protects the most powerful corporations. It protects and has protected human traffickers. It protects some of the worst abuses of free speech in our society. And that's why Mr. President, I will continue to fight to have it reformed to continue to fight to give the American people a voice.
What's with the weird aside about human traffickers? That's simply not true and again Hawley knows it. Trafficking violates federal law and nothing in Section 230 blocks the DOJ from going after federal criminal violations. On top of that, Hawley was a key supporter of FOSTA which already carved more issues related to trafficking out of Section 230 (and it's been a total disaster). And, again, it's not clear what you think anyone will get from "being heard in court" other than judges laughing at them that they think they have a god-given right to force private companies to host their racist nonsense.
At this point, you can tell that Senator Wyden was pissed off about all these lies. He got permission to speak again, and it's worth watching the video of this part, because he starts yelling, righteously, about just how full of shit Hawley is. You can tell that Wyden is pissed off both about Hawley's lies, but also about the procedural gamesmanship of trying to move the bill forward without alerting Wyden about these plans.
Once again, the Senator from Missouri is getting it all wrong. He talked again about how this law, this bipartisan law, is basically not for the little guy, but he's taking on the big guys. Well, the reason that's factually wrong is that on this floor, a previous effort was made to deal with sex trafficking. It was called SESTA and FOSTA. And the desire was we're all against this horrible smut online, we're all against it. The desire was to block it. And as the debate went forward, I and others said you're not going to be able to block it. You're going to be able to block Backpage, like eventually happened under existing law, which I supported, not under this new thing. Well guess who supported this SESTA FOSTA deal that is pretty much like the Senator from Missouri [wants]. IT WAS FACEBOOK. Facebook supported the last effort. Last time I looked, they're a pretty big company. So the Senator from Missouri is just getting it all wrong here.
I've seen Senator Wyden speak many, many times. I've never, ever seen him this angry.
... what we've always been about is the little guy and you see it every day. With MeToo, Black Lives Matter and so many voices from the community, because of this law can be heard. Do not--not just on this because I have objected so it can't go forward--do not accept this idea that this is somehow the path to solving problems and communications because under SESTA FOSTA, which is really the kind of model the Senator from Missouri is talking about, the only thing that happened was the horrendous people involved in sex trafficking went to the dark web. And so now we have an even bigger problem.
He then goes on to repeat his procedural concerns, that if he were trying to advance a bill that he knew Hawley had objections to, he would have notified him ahead of time, not tried to sneak it through while Hawley was otherwise occupied.
So, let's just be clear on this. Josh Hawley is lying. He's lying to the American public. He's making things up because the only thing he knows how to do is to demonize. He knows how to create enemies who he can then smack down. And he's decided that "big tech" is the enemy. The only problem is that it's not actually true. So he has to lie and lie and lie again. This won't be the last time, but Josh Hawley has shown his true colors once again.
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: big tech, elections, free speech, josh hawley, lying demagogue, ron wyden, section 230
Companies: facebook, google, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hawley lying bastard, Batman!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Couldn't agree more. Mr Hawley was a leading fighter against bigtech monopoly and was a great supporter of antitrust law. But later, he diluted his opinion against bigtech and halted his crusade against tech giants. Ultimately he became a corrupt politician....!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalists
I love it when leftists toss around the word "fascists" not realizing that they are self identifying as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe under the Bizarro definition of the word...
'I know you are but what am I', truly the most persuasive of arguments, but at least it's worth a chuckle so thanks for the laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journalists
Out of curiosity, who are you referring to? Because I'm not a leftist.
And Hawley clearly has fascist tendencies. He regularly lies to the public about "big scary things" in which only he can protect them. How is that not fascist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Journalists
If you're to the left of Newt Gingrich, you're a leftist to these people now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Journalists
"Out of curiosity, who are you referring to? Because I'm not a leftist."
You see, to people dumb enough to support Trump's obvious fascist leanings while pretending they don't swing that way, anyone to the left of Mussolini is a "leftist".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Journalists
"...anyone to the left of Mussolini is a "leftist"."
Except for the ones who use Hitler or Nathan Bedford Forrest as their role model for principles of humanitarianism and economy alike, of course. Stalin, alas, gets no lover at all from americans.
Though even that is making the issue overly complex. To the people so liberally whining about "leftists" and "liberals" it's pretty obvious they have no clue as to what that actually means. Just that according to their three sages; Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity, "leftists" and "liberals" are to blame for every ill which ails them. Because evil.
It's a mass psychosis of scapegoatism and hatred. Not an issue of fiscal politics or wealth division. Hasn't been for a long time now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journalists
So when "your" president states, during a press briefing, that he will win re-election if we just get rid of the ballots, how is that not fascist? And you support him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Journalists
And his son is calling for massive suppression of democratic voters, in a typical fascist fashion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Journalists
Now now, it's not voter suppression to call for armed citizens belonging to one party to 'carefully watch the voting process', that's just making sure that the right people are out voting, and that the electoral college comes to the correct decision, which is totally different from voter suppression because look jingly keys.
I'd say they are getting increasingly desperate, but honestly fearmongering and projection are SOP for Trump's GOP these days, with the only real difference being that they are being ever so slightly more obvious as the election gets closer.
Between calling for armed citizens to 'watch the voting process'(read: intimidate the hell out of anyone not belonging to the cult), constantly claiming that there will be massive fraud(true, but not in the way it's being claimed or by the party accused of it), and asserting flat out that the only way that Trump could lose is if massive voter fraud takes place and therefore invalidates the election it's pretty clear that if Trump's cult doesn't steal the election outright and Biden wins there will be armed riots by his cult in the streets that'll make the BLM protests at their worst look downright tame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalists
Plot twist ... lefty libs wear MAGA gear whilst voting in order to avoid GOP harassment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalists
How does that help if their skin is the wrong colour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalists
At this point, the gop might want to accept anyone's vote no matter their skin. Of course, it's back to sop after the election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalists
Blazing Saddles already provided the answer to that one, simply wear the nice pointy hood of a Fine Person and claim that any exposed dark skin is due to ash from the weekly cross burning. Works like a charm so long as you can keep the hood on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalists
"Works like a charm so long as you can keep the hood on."
Now if we could only get Mel Brooks to script the rest of the farce reality has turned into...
If my history is any judge jews in pre-ww2 germany and the third reich often attempted something similar, dressing up more gentile than gentiles, putting on the brown shirt, displaying the swastika prominently...
...and then the SS pegged on to this nefarious maneuver and started investigating suspects for circumcisions.
It's a neat idea but I'm pretty sure there'll be at least one of the Very Fine People monitoring the ballot booth who damn well knows every KKK chapter member in the state is already there and might be suspicious over the extras showing up. Envision John Goodman's Big Dan Teague here, sniffing out the rascally infiltrators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalists
OMG! These armed goons at the polling places are wanna see my junk????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalists
Depends. The KKK and the good ol' southern boys will want you to take the hood off so they can ensure youse a' white. The guys waving the swastika may want to take a peek down your pants.
Stands to reason some of them may actually have seen Blazing Saddles and are wise to the nefarious means of the Bad Black Man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalists
I can't help but be reminded when a Roman soldier looked in Gregory Hines' pants in Mel Brooks' History of the World: Part I and said "Jewish, huh?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journalists
I love it when idiots toss around labels as if they mean something to people not stupid enough to play politics as a team sport.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whenever Hawley says "Conservatives," I mentally replace it with "Liars," and you know, it does not sound so alarming anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These days 'liar' is the least damning of the connotations that have become entwined with the 'conservative' label, with the others much less flattering, much to the misfortune of those that would self-identify as such based upon what it might have meant in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Until you remember that those liars are shaping society into the form that they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the facts are on your side you don't need to invent them
When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
When the law is on your side, pound on the law.
When neither the facts or law are on your side, lie like a rug and make shit up.
Like every other politician or person trying to gut 230 Hawley shows yet again that even he knows he's full of shit and his arguments are utterly without merit, because he did have valid points he wouldn't constantly and consistently lie in an attempt to convince people that he's correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish we lived in a world where facebook was as stacked with leftists as these people claim, one where it didn't have amoral libertarian robots at the very top and republican strategists lower down the ladder kneecapping any attempt by the few people with a conscience in the company to combat the lunatic antivaxxers, bigots and far right groups running rampant across the platform. We'd live in a world where Fox, Breitbart and articles from Ben Shapiro's right wing blog weren't the most shared sources of 'news' each week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I wish we lived in a world where facebook was as stacked with leftists as these people claim"
The most recent episode of the Behind The Bastards covers Facebook and highlights what the combination of apathy and unchecked right-wing propaganda has wrought. Scary stuff.
Anyone who claims that the right wing aren't allowed a platform are deluded, but at least Twitter and YouTube are doing a better job of not bowing to them in the name of revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitch is, too, from what I understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All or nothing
To the type of person who believes that they aren't just owed a privately owned soapboax but that it's their right to have one provided for them it's not much of a stretch at all to believe that everyone is required to provide a place to speak from, so if any platform tells them to leave then that's basically the same thing as having no platform to speak from at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I wish we lived in a world where facebook was as stacked with leftists as these people claim..."
Well, one of the most damning indications against most tinfoil hat conspiracies about the left-wing global illuminati and the like is that if any of that were true the world wouldn't be the extreme right-wing hellhole this century is so unashamedly displaying it as.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a moment...
Are you suggesting that the internet is used for something other that porn?
Surely you jest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a moment...
lol. what kind of porn site is techdirt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a moment...
Internet-related legal news porn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just a moment...
Well people with some really weird fetishes do crop up here fairly often (I'm reminded of a few "people" that can't get off without thinking improper things about encryption... quite the ... unusual fetish)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a moment...
Good point. Also, we do get our fair share of masochists and humiliation fetishists (like out of the blue or Baghdad Bob, for instance).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a moment...
"...we do get our fair share of masochists and humiliation fetishists (like out of the blue or Baghdad Bob, for instance)."
Oh, man, now I remember those times on torrentfreak when he used to go on and on about Punishment!" in wording which more than just suggested he was jizzing all over his keyboard while writing it.
Or that time, later on, when he went on in a feverish pitch about how all the little techdirt aspies were gonna go to jail and get screwed by Big Jim from C-block.
Yeah, some regular visitors here do display some rather squicky kink now and then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for my daily laugh.
How about that Crowdstrike testimony Adam Schiff sat on for several years that showed Crowdstrike had zero evidence of a Russian hack of the DNC Exchange server?
Or how about that other testimony you left wingers don't want to admit exists where John Brennan overruled any analyst who pointed out Russia favored Hillary more than Trump?
For left wingers any lie that services the left is acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks for my daily laugh.
I agree. Hawley is pretty funny.
How about that Crowdstrike testimony Adam Schiff sat on for several years that showed Crowdstrike had zero evidence of a Russian hack of the DNC Exchange server?
Oh sorry. I thought you were serious, and not a gullible fool who laps up Hawley's nonsense. Nice try at whataboutism, but what the fuck does Adam Schiff have to do with anything? We've criticized Adam Schiff plenty, but you misunderstanding what was in the Crowdstrike report and ignoring what the FBI and others found is... just weird dude.
Or how about that other testimony you left wingers don't want to admit exists where John Brennan overruled any analyst who pointed out Russia favored Hillary more than Trump?
Can you find us ever saying anything positive about John Brennan anywhere on our site?
And why is it that you guys always jump to calling us "leftists". We're not leftists. We're realists.
For left wingers any lie that services the left is acceptable.
Get over your tribalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What about the evidence you right winger's are suppressing that shows Donald Trump kills babies and old people and laughs about it?
Come on we know it's there and you just suppressed it in the impeachment, the only reason we still have Trump is that no Republican right-wingers have any morals or ethics any longer, they are totally beholden to the Cheeto in charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you explain what any of this have to do with Hawley lying worse than a used car salesman?
Or are you seriously thinking that pointing out some alleged wrongdoing by others somehow excuses Hawley's lies?
I'd expect that kind of reasoning from a 5 year old that doesn't know better yet, but from an adult? Of course, there are adults that have the reasoning skills of an 5 year old but considering you actually managed to post something coherent I doubt that's the case which can only mean you are a dishonest asshole who can't debate yourself out of a wet paper bag.
You better crawl back under that rock from which you came.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See, the thing is, they project their methods onto their "enemy", right? Then their go-to logic is, "You have to fight the enemy with their own tactics". (This was popular in bullshit military apologetics.) So they just ratchet up the projection and bullshit constantly, while employing the most obvious and egregious tactics, blame their enemy, and claim victim status somehow. And they see no logical or moral inconsistencies with this, even when the more intellectual ones basically admit this to themselves, actively architect plays using these tactics, or even say it out loud to their public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Can you explain what any of this have to do with Hawley lying worse than a used car salesman?"
Nothing. These guys are incapable of explaining or defending the actions of their own "team", and god help them if they even get into a position of actually punishing the misdeed they do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"How about"
Well, I thanks you for being honest. It's not often that an idiot announces their whataboutism right out of the gate.
What is it about a subject that leaves you so incapable of dealing with the facts that you have to deflect before even acknowledging the original article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"What is it about a subject that leaves you so incapable of dealing with the facts that you have to deflect before even acknowledging the original article."
The original article, probably?
I mean it's one from his team standing there with their hands down the cookie jar. He either screams about what little Joe did down the street loud enough to deflect attention or sits in the corner and watches while people call the liar an actual liar.
I'm just surprised what came out of his cone of shame was a "But Hillary!" rather than the customary "But Obama!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google made me write this
Google made me write this, I have no control over my own actions... ... hold on, they're telling me that I am just supposed to say that 'big tech good' and leave out that they're making me do it. Just ignore the part about me being controlled... they're telling me that I did this of my own free will and to let you all know that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google made me write this
I Love You.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One minute, Techdirt supports the concept that big tech corporations are free to demonstrate any bias they so choose on their platform by censoring those with whom they disagree. The next minute, Techdirt goes off the rails for a senator pointing out the bias. Clearly, Hawley hit it out of the park, based on the above reaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Somewhere along the line your reading comprehension failed, as what Hawley wants to prevent tech companies from deciding what they allow on their site, and take over deciding what they should carry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You sir, are making a very dishonest argument. Hawley is not pointing out the bias of a private platform, he is lying about the perceived bias of a private platform, and he's doing it to push forward a piece of legislation through FUD. He is trying to undermine a piece of legislation that holds the generator of speech accountable rather than a very large platform that has a hard enough time removing racism, hate speech, and CP. There are lots of reasons to dislike big tech companies, but trying to empty their pockets by undermining C230 is about as dishonest a method as it comes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One minute, Techdirt supports the concept that big tech corporations are free to demonstrate any bias they so choose on their platform by censoring those with whom they disagree.
Yes. They are free to do so. Except it's not censorship. It's moderation of a private space.
The next minute, Techdirt goes off the rails for a senator pointing out the bias.
No, we called out Hawley lying about a variety of things, including bogus claims of bias. If he had actual evidence of bias, we could talk about it. But he doesn't.
So he's trying to push unconstitutional legislation that would prevent bias, which is legal, and he can't actually show any real evidence of bias.
You don't see a problem with that?
Clearly, Hawley hit it out of the park, based on the above reaction.
I see that you're one of the people dumber than a rock that Hawley appeals to. JFC, educate yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apologies, Techdirt
I'm sorry, Mr Masnick.
It seems an inspector from the EPA shut down the containment field holding our collected internet trolls, and one managed to find your site.
We regret that we were unable to recapture this one before he dropped a post on your website. Happily, he has since been contained by volunteers among your readers.
Again, we apologize for the inconvenience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apologies, Techdirt
Are you sure it wasn't SCP and not the EPA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apologies, Techdirt
Yeah, the SCP's are impossible or implausible.
Trolls, on the other hand, like any other common vermin, can be quite easily explained.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's almost as if nobody read those articles I wrote... 🤬
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is difficult to get a person to understand something when their feigned or real ignorance of it is all that keeps their argument/position afloat.
If it's 'censorship' then they get to blame the platform, framing it as a technological giant throwing their weight around and persecuting for absolutely no reason the poor put-upon people using the platform, violating their (non-existent) rights merely because the platform can.
If it's moderation on the other hand then it's much clearer that it's a platform choosing who they will and will not allow on their property, and moreover the question is raised as to what exactly got a particular person/account moderated, an answer which tends not to work out very well for the person crying 'persecution!' as they are forced to defend the words and/or actions of the 'persecuted'(assuming they don't quickly change the subject or pull a 'Look, a distraction!').
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mr. Stone I regret to inform you that your articles failed because they required thinking on the part of some readers (they were a success in that some people read & thought about them... but not everyone in question).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One minute, Techdirt supports the concept that big tech corporations are free to demonstrate any bias they so choose on their platform by censoring those with whom they disagree. The next minute, Techdirt goes off the rails for a senator pointing out the bias.
Not censorship. Perfectly allowed and encouraged moderation on their own property.
Off the rails. Lol get real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, you didn't understand the article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "You must think the public is a bunch of weak-minded fools."
Every propagandist says that in their own defense. Yes the guy is an idiot. Yes he is a lying bastard by attributing those problems to C230. But he is not 100% wrong.
51% of the largest economies in the world are private corporations. If you don't think that is a threat to civil rights, then you are just as wrong as he is.
C230 needs to stay. But better would be develop a scalable protocol stack that takes civil rights questions out of the hands of bureaucrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "You must think the public is a bunch of weak-minded foo
No, he's not 100% wrong.
But where he is right, he is still wrong: Nothing in his bill would affect those things he is right on.
In the championships, I am still betting against Senator Hawley in favor of the blind squirrel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "You must think the public is a bunch of weak-minded foo
51% of the largest economies in the world are private corporations.
This did not change with the internet, lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess who is up for reelection, I hope the Missouri voters plan on firing this guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hawley was elected two years ago. US Senators have six-year terms. He's not up for election until 2024.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
damn - will have to look again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
points he said.
Hawley:
he seems more at aiming at ISP's, being able to monitor your data.
Seems to be aiming at Major news agencies that the INTERNET points to. Giving everyone access to NEWS of the world.
Would it be interesting to request he supply Facts, and paper work on How and where he got this info/stats.
Has anyone asked this group of people to SHOW FACTS? Or is this the Old Money vs New money, battle of the ages?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am one of the "little people" who are protected by Section 230. I don't even have my own website, but Section 230 lets other people, some of them pretty small fry also, welcome me into their site.
I've posted here several hundred times--with occasional entries in the "insightful" or "funny" weekly counts. And I've been a regular poster on several other sites for focused topics--including posts promoted to new-thread level in sites archived at the Library of Congress.
I've helped other small entities moderate their own forums, because I could do so without fear of being sued, thus enabling on-topic, informational discussions on potentially-rancorous subjects.
I've made a few dozen contributions to Wikipedia, made tens of thousand of editorial decisions at the (formerly) Open Directory, and helped add several hundred thousand book-pages to online libraries. This has been a hobby and a public service of mine for almost 20 years.
In all this, I have been frankly discriminating in the topics I chose to contribute to, and the perspectives I contributed to those topics. And in all this, I was able to collaborate with thousands of other little people--people who, as it happened, brought their own frank discriminations, many of then different from mine and some frankly conflicting with mine.
Also, I've been enabled to find an enormous amount of information on all sorts of subjects using Google, Wikipedia, Gutenberg, CCEL, and other large sites--I've been amused, informed, entertained. (I admit, only with extreme effort and difficulty could I possibly care less about Facebook, Twitter, or Tiktok. I know they exist. I can't imagine how they could matter.)
NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT SECTION 230.
Obviously, on most political matters, I couldn't possibly agree with both Rep. Cox and Sen. Wyden. I suspect I'd generally agree far more often with Cox. There is, so far as I can see, nothing but evil in Steven Stone's ideologically-Marxist justification for race war under the guise of class war. In the end, it's indistinguishable from all the Nazi justifications for class war under the guise of race war. People being people, there's always someone re-inventing old justifications for their own vicious inclinations. And laws, old or new, have never been able to stop that.
But I really like the freedom to assemble, think, and speak. For people who are inclined to do something good, these are very useful--almost indispensable.
People who are rich and/or famous--the Fondas and Turners and Huffingtons and Murdochs of this world--can buy their own assemblies, publish their own thoughts, speak on their own websites. The rest of us depend on big-and-little corporate organizations, for-or-notfor-profit, to assemble, think, and speak online.
SECTION 230 IS OUR FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE, THINK, AND SPEAK ONLINE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fantasy
You think that it is a "fake fantasy" that there is rampant censorship by big tech? Are you serious, right now? What have you been smoking?
This stance is refuted all day and all night for the past several years. There now thousands of examples. This stance is utterly delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fantasy
"You think that it is a "fake fantasy" that there is rampant censorship by big tech?"
Where was this claim made? Yours is the only comment to include rampant censorship.
When has there been no censorship by business interests? Why should business cater to your wishes? Is small government supposed to provide you with a no censoring space?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fantasy
"This stance is refuted all day and all night for the past several years"
Yet, strangely, never backed by any actual evidence. You whine constantly about such things, but there's never any real evidence.
"There now thousands of examples."
Provide one. Difficulty: it must be someone actually censored for their political views, and not for bigotry, personal abuse, fraud or any of the things that are usually found to be the real issue when one of you people bother to provide a concrete example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next, speaking loudly doesn't mean being right either?
Yet, strangely, never backed by any actual evidence. You whine constantly about such things, but there's never any real evidence.
Wait wait wait, do you mean to tell me that repeating the same claim over and over and over again isn't the same thing as providing evidence to back that claim up? That repetition isn't the same thing as validity? You're blowing my mind here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fantasy
I think the implied claim is (and probably always has been) that bigotry and personal abuse are their political views, and that people reacting negatively to that is unacceptable. Of course I've not heard of said group with the balls to come out and admit that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're going to be an asshole at least be an honest one
Honestly at this point they might as well just come out and own it, as while there might be objections to admitting it outright by people without the guts to defend their position/arguments I don't imagine there would be too many people surprised to learn that the 'conservative content' in 'social media is constantly taking down conservative content!' is shorthand for 'rampant bigotry and/or other assholish behavior'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fantasy
Apart from moderation not being censorship, and the evidence showing a lot is removing bigotry of one form or another, where in the constitution does it say that a company cannot show a political bias?
Why do people like you keep on demanding the right to force their views onto everybody else, whether they want to listen or not? Can you not attract people to places where you can speak as you wish?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fantasy
They basically want a fairness doctrine for the whole internet. (Well, they claim to -- really they want their dumb beliefs to be the only ones expressed.) Of course, they rightly decried the fairness doctrine, darling of liberals, when it was far less invasive and applied only to broadcast media. (Although, they only did that so they could get their dumb beliefs out on the air as much as possible and build a monopoly.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fantasy
Right-Wingers: We love Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby!
Also Right-Wingers: Corporations can't have political biases! They must remain neutral!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fantasy
"Money Talks
Because our system is so unfair and inaccurate with more than two candidates, voters learn the hard way that it's only safe to vote for the two front-runners. And who are the front-runners most of the time? Candidates with name recognition, press coverage and most of all big money backing. The system is set up and designed to give big money big influence. No wonder corruption runs rampant. Candidates are often held hostage by their donors and fundraising becomes a big part of the job. More importantly, the voters are held hostage by that big money too. Nobody wants to throw their vote away on spoiler candidate and risk splitting the vote. "
But how in hell does a person get enough money to compete? $400,000,000 is a huge number and they have surpased it Just to run for election.For a job that wont pay them back for it, UNLESS they are supposed to, in 1 way or another.And if you do something for them, there is a great chance they will spend that money Again to keep you in office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fantasy
You would think,
Someone was afraid of what we would discuss.
What we would be told in secret?
That we Really dont know what is going on?
But leaving it open and public makes it easier to watch, see, control, and FIND who is causing the problems.
Or is it the Secret groups, would like everyone to be secret, so as to Cover up what they are doing, with Our own secret chats, Buried in tons of locations and sites doing the same as they.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three things.
Moderation isn’t censorship — it’s someone telling you “we don’t do that here” and showing you the door if you disagree.
The First Amendment protects a private entity's right to show bias for or against, say, political ideologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fantasy
"You think that it is a "fake fantasy" that there is rampant censorship by big tech? "
Not just false but self-evidently so. "Big Tech" can't tell you not to state your message - and every comment you make on sites like these is just more proof of that.
But why am I not surprised that you Stormfront guys keep wanting to conflate "censorship" with "the discretion of the home owner"?
Sad to break what shouldn't have been news by now, but if the owner of private property sees fit to show you the door because you won't shut up about what the Bad Black People are doing - then that's not censorship at all.
It's just you getting your ass thrown of private premises for being a racist fuckwit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, at least the senator was right about one thing. There is no way he would be in office otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
full court?
An ironic statement, since TechDirt is “the press” and it is doing the exact opposite of what it predicts “the press” will do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hawley is an idiot
Josh Hawley is an idiot! How do morons like this get elected to office? No wonder our congress is incapable of accomplishing anything. Fools like this need to be replaced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]