Discord Takes Over Moderation Of r/WallStreetBets Server As Facebook Shuts Down Popular Stock Trading Group
from the everything-is-content-moderation dept
Apparently every damn story has a content moderation angle these days. The still ongoing GameStonks! story keeps getting more and more fascinating in all sorts of ways. Yesterday, we noted as a side note, that Discord had shut down the r/WallStreetBets server that many of the subreddit users had used to communicate. Discord claimed -- somewhat unbelievably -- that it had done so at this very moment because of a long term "hate speech" problem on that server.
But, then, a day later, Discord said it had re-enabled the server... but that the company itself was helping to moderate the server.
Discord staff are actively working with the server’s team to help with moderation. At least one Discord staffer, who is now in the new WallStreetBets server, is also helping with infrastructure problems related to the rapid growth the community is experiencing.
“WallStreetBets members have set up a new server and we are working with them,” says a Discord spokesperson in a statement to The Verge. “We will welcome the group back so long as they improve their moderation practices and follow our Community Guidelines. We have reached out to the moderators to provide them with support and advice, like we do for many of our large communities.”
This is kind of fascinating. We've always been interested in moderation setups at places like Reddit and Discord, because they show a different overall structure than the kind of content moderation questions we're used to seeing at Facebook/Twitter/YouTube. In those latter cases, it's one company who just sets the rules. But with Reddit and Discord, while there are company-wide rules, since those services are made up of mostly individual communities, the moderation is effectively left up to those who run those communities (the mods on Reddit or the server owner/admins on Discord).
But, here, Discord is stepping in to help with the moderating. And it's interesting that the company claims that it has done this "for many of our large communities" as well. It appears to be something of a hybrid model, though that raises a bunch of other questions as well. Still, it's interesting to see how these things evolve. And, at least at a first pass, this new setup appears to be working better than the old one:
There are now fewer people screaming in calls, using racial slurs, or blasting music to the hundreds listening in. The memes are now mainly emoji and text, rather than images that often included offensive material.
Meanwhile, the Stonks! trading content moderation questions are spreading. Facebook announced that it has shut down a popular stock trading group... but for a reason you might not have expected:
Allen Tran, a 23-year-old from Chicago who created Robinhood Stock Traders, said he woke up on Wednesday to a notification that Facebook had disabled the 157,000-member group. The notification, seen by Reuters, said without detail that the group violated policies on “adult sexual exploitation.”
Wait... what? Tran notes that he cannot recall any "adult content" ever appearing in the group. It's possible that someone at Facebook clicked the wrong button or something, but it's still bizarre. And, at the very least, will contribute to the various conspiracy theories about big companies ganging up to shutdown retail investors who had suddenly found the loophole to make hedge fund folks sweat a little.
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, stonks, wallstreetbets, wsb
Companies: discord, reddit
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What's the fastest to to shut down a community?
That's easy - if you hate a community and want to see it banned/canned, simply sign up, post a bit of porno, and sit back and watch the fun. The moderation AI won't be long in doing its part to keep the place spic and span. Lather, Rinse, and Repeat, until the entire community goes away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the fastest to to shut down a community?
Yeah, no. That Discord was legitimately disgusting. Constant Nazi and homophobic memes and posts, and people got banned from the channel for calling it out. People who got banned from the WSB subreddit for being disgusting human beings made their way to the Discord chan and found a home, and the Discord mods were complicit. The timing suggest selective enforcement, absolutely, but that place was organically disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the fastest to to shut down a community?
The WSB mods had repeatedly asked Discord for help because of the number of members, and the fact that the automated moderation tools were not able to keep up with the server traffic.
To allege that the mods were complicit is categorically false. If you're going to lie, at least have the nuts to put your name behind your lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's the fastest to to shut down a community?
I'd be a lot more inclined to buy this if, and apparently I have to say this again, people hadn't been banned for calling out the hateful behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the fastest to to shut down a community?
In other words:
Some WSB folks were the kind of people whose grandfathers wouldn't look out of place at the signing of the Declaration of Independence (aka non-paper Americans).
99% of hedge fund managers share ancestry with Jeff Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, Julius Rosenberg, and ... Mike Masnick.
Using the Techdirt calculations: Robinhood = good / WallStreetBets = bad
It's quite simple to figure out whose children you're supposed to want raped and dead once you figure out the MSM (which Techdirt is part of) formula.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's the fastest to to shut down a community?
And here are the far right anons, springing out of the woodwork, masks off entirely and ready to defend a toxic community by being hideously toxic, vomiting garbage about real Americans and antisemitism. I did nazi that coming.
Seriously though, seek help. It's not too late to pull out of this nosedive and salvage yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’d say “you need to see a therapist”, but considering how you brought up child rape unprovoked, perhaps you need another kind of professional to knock on your door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's the fastest to to shut down a community?
I'm never quite sure if you're actually mentally ill, or you just do this stuff to make sure that nobody will take the positions you spout seriously if they read them from someone less openly crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the fastest to to shut down a community?
Neither.
It's 'cause it makes you run to your boyfriend and ask him to cuddle you while you sob "S..s..someone said something mean about bankers on the internet today! It's another shoah!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the fastest to to shut down a community?
It might take more than one person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the fastest to to shut down a community?
This is the internet. One person can be a hundred sockpuppets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As If the SEC cares: We are their Pork bellies
To paraphrase NPR last week, WSB is not doing to Wall Street anything that Wall Street has not been doing to us for a hundred years
WSB has nothing to do with Nazi or homophobe. It has to do with hanging short sellers with their own rope.
Two points: Techdirt is about not blaming the pipe. And "hedge funds" and shorting should be illegal, like buying life insurance betting on a stranger's death. God bless WSB for dismembering a few vulture "Capitalist"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As If the SEC cares: We are their Pork bellies
Hedge funds shorted 140 percent of GME and someone caught it, realizing that they'd have to buy the shares back. They communicated this to others who piled in and now GME is a wealthy company.
There's no way this can be attributed to mere internet users without platforms playing the dominant role. Also major brokers all went down yesterday, halted trading in GME and it went from 400 to 120 in like an hour so many shorts could get out terrible market manipulation. This was "financial censorship" of the retail investor and was very well-documented.
If we ignore that platforms can inflict separate harms from what their users cause, the platforms will be weaponized to inflict these harms as there will be no consequences for doing so which put a stop to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bundle of inert computer code isn’t sentient. It only functions when people tell it to function. So it can’t harm anyone if nobody tells it to function. Whatever harms are inflicted upon other people through a platform are inflicted by other people, not the code they used to do it.
The Great Recession wrecked the American economy for a decade. We’re still recovering from it to this day. Nobody who caused it ever went to jail.
If nobody faces consequences for “inflicting harm”, they’re simply following a great tradition. America loves letting assholes off the hook so long as they’re powerful/rich/White enough to warrant a meritless acquittal. I mean, look at how Republicans refuse to hold Donald Trump accountable for inciting an insurrection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The old "guns don't kill people" argument against gun control.
Platforms enable communication that is critical to harms which would not be possible without the platform.
When the harm is libel of some rando, no one cares. When the harm is billions lost by hedge funds, "sue the people, not the platform" isn't going to cut it.
Until the separate harms inflicted by platforms are addressed (such as spreading libel versus merely posting it), those harms will only exacerbate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So do protocols.
So do telephones.
So does pen and paper.
How far do you want to go down this rabbit hole, Jhon?
Forgive me if I’m less than sympathetic to the tearful whining of entitled rich assholes. I’m out of fucks to give them right now.
Yes or no: Should everyone who repeats a QAnon screed that says “Nancy Pelosi eats fetuses aborted by Kim Kardashian at 3:00 in the morning on the third Thursday of every month” be sued for defamation, regardless of where they repeat it or where the original statement is found?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Aw, Mike-er, "Steve" called me the name it usually reserves for its anonymous rants.
Phones and pen and paper don't archive and make searchable every conversation had over their wires. They don't introduce people (except for cold calling/mailing), and don't provide their own communities. False equivalence.
You think it's just "rich assholes" getting harmed so it's no problem? What's the LIMIT on short losses again? Infinity. That means the shorts (hedge funds) will have to cover "infinty" and the WSB crowd knows it. They'll go bankrupt before that happens but guess what happens next? Forced liquidation of their other stocks, like the ones you might have in your portfolio, or the stocks of companies for whom "good" people work.
You thought the subprime crisis caused the financial crisis of 2008. That was a cold, this is COVID without a vaccine. GME goes to a million, sucks all the money out of every hedge fund to pay a few redditors, and no one cares, the rich don't strike back?
Once everyone figures this out you get a run on the stock market. GME shorts are like those credit default-swaps. You sell 140 percent of a company someone else is going to buy it knowing you can't sell without buying it back and now they're gonna take the whole country down with it.
Keep up that mantra that platforms should be immune because soon those platforms are going to be run by the bankrupt.
Don't believe me? Watch the markets on Monday. There's a reason they had to "censor" people from buying GME the other day. That will only delay the inevitable. Think of it as a financial Streisand Effect.
When everyone is dead broke because of some "internet users," I don't think they're going to be satisfied with "sue the posters, not the innocent platform.
Sue Gotti, not the Ravenite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not exactly sure what all that has to do with platform liability. Are you saying that if the Reddit was liable for what its users did, they would have banned /r/WallStreetBets, and thus we wouldn't be in danger of a stock market crash?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about if the statement is "Michael Masnick used his position to rape a college intern?" (Mike didn't rape one of course this is just an example).
Or "Michael Masnick is easily bought off through donations to his thinktank."
Or "Michael Masnick cheated in college and threatened to rape a woman who found out?"
Should search engines be immune from repeating THAT? What would happen if someone judgment-proof and terminally ill with a grudge decided to singlehandedly ruin Michael Masnick's reputation on the way out? Should he suffer a lifetime of a bad reputation because of that?
I'd say no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You do seem very intent on trying to do the thing you decry.
It seems you have no principles at all except being an asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m sorry you’re dying, but that’s no excuse to defame Mike Masnick, fam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"(Mike didn't rape one of course this is just an example)."
You sure about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Platforms enable communication that is critical to harms which would not be possible without the platform"
So do telephones and electricity. So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Common carrier.
The internet is not a common carrier.
Common carriers have to host speech they don't like. Internet companies do not.
internet companies can also remove defamatory content in a way that utilities and common carriers cannot and do not even if they theoretically could.
Is the internet a common carrier or not? For 230 they want it to be, but not for censorship. Even if 230 used to not be dependent on political neutrality, there's no reason the law couldn't be updated to make it so. We once had the 3/5 compromise as a way of humanizing slaves too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet access providers (a.k.a. ISPs to most people) are common carriers. Internet service providers (e.g., Google, Twitter, Soundcloud, 4chan) are not.
And 230 can’t be updated to make its protections dependent on political neutrality. The First Amendment wouldn’t allow it. Good luck getting around that wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's super easy to do
The first amendment says nothing about liability. All Congress has to do is condition the limitation on liability to include political neutrality. It will be affirmed by the scotus because it's not a restraint on speech or forcing them to publish speech. It is providing liability limitation contingent upon certain corporate behavior which the publisher can opt out of freely without fine or penalty at any time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government can’t compel private entities to host speech by third parties. If it could, it could compel you to host speech you don’t want to associate with on a platform you own and operate. You’d probably be pissed off about that. So would the people who run every platform you loathe — and every platform you love.
Any attempt to enforce “political neutrality” would also result in compelled association. As an example, consider that discussion of the physical and psychological torture of queer people known as “conversion ‘therapy’ ” could damn well be considered political. Yes or no: Should the law compel a queer-friendly Mastodon instance, under penalty of losing its 230 protections, to host speech that treats “conversion ‘therapy’ ” as a good thing so the instance can remain politically neutral?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It wouldn't be doing that if it conditions the provisions of S230 on certain voluntary behaviors. Virtually nothing falls under S230 is implied in the 1A. Congress would not be compelling speech, but rather removing optional protections from publishers who don't voluntarily engage in certain behaviors.
No matter how many of these bullshit scenarios you come up with, you won't change two simple facts:
Compelling speech is a naked act of force by the government. Limiting liability contingent upon voluntary behavior is not coercion per se.
That doesn't mean S230 should be changed, but that doesn't change the fact that your core argument is wrong here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Condition” it all you want. Any compelled speech and association will still be compelled.
Except they’re not.
Whenever I ask a question like that one, a broader question underpins it: “Should people be forced to host or associate with unpopular and offensive speech?” The use of specific examples (e.g., racial slurs, “conversion ‘therapy’ ” propaganda) is an intentionally provocative maneuver — it forces you to confront that specific example rather than a broadly worded question. Saying “unpopular speech” allows you to hedge your bets. Saying “racial slurs” leaves you no wiggle room.
Making liability protections contingent on “political neutrality” would be a naked attempt to compel association with speech. Who would refuse to host “White lives matter”, “f⸺ts are ruining this country”, or any other kind of “political” speech if the law could hold someone legally liable for third-party speech because of that refusal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So how did distributor liability "get around that wall" for two centuries?"
Is that like Trump's vapor wall?
We'd just be going back to 1995, not 1776. Changing 230 so that it requires political neutrality is certainly possible. Whether or not that's ideal is the debate but we're heading in that direction.
Immunity should be given only to common carriers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Changing 230 so that it requires political neutrality is certainly possible."
No it's not.
Bear in mind that any debate centered around ethics, morals, human rights or constitutional obligations would be political.
Saying "It's wrong to murder" is political. Saying "Education is a right" is political. Hell, saying "Fresh air is nice" is political - because it ties into regulating polluting industries.
You can no more call for "political neutrality" than you can call for "correct sexuality". It's either going to be wide enough so as to incorporate everything or a narrow determination written by someone who already has a definite opinion.
And anyone who tries to pretend otherwise either didn't think this through or knows damn well they're pushing bullshit and don't care.
"Immunity should be given only to common carriers."
So free speech needs to die, is what you are saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, as some internet commenter put it, these are real people with actual yachts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As If the SEC cares: We are their Pork bellies
But as far as I can tell, all the platforms did was allow these users to communicate with each other.
In this instance, what separate harm did the platforms cause from the users?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As If the SEC cares: We are their Pork bellies
"communicate with each other" is how conspiracies happen.
RICO was written before the internet but a strict application of it (or the easier to prove "civil conspiracy") should have netted many groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: As If the SEC cares: We are their Pork bellies
It's not RICO, Dammit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: As If the SEC cares: We are their Pork bellies
RICO scared me so bad, i dropped out of the local PTA, and we were conspiring a few hours a month for free. We PAY our government agency's to conspire for or against us five days a week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Knowing the history of that sub, I'm going to assume many of the off-color image macros they used were of the semitic variety. Having been inspired from 4chan, given that Jewish jokes have been a 4chan fan favorite for a decade (especially among its Jewish posters), and given that this server is finance themed? No question.
I'm Jewish myself and I find those kinds of jokes bombastic and hilarious, but I understand these are unusual times with regards to moderation and people are not given the benefit of the doubt these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apropos of nothing, but there's someone who pops up here occasionally to complain that they're being censored on Facebook political groups, but the examples they give usually involve memes involving Hitler in some way. The idea that they could not only make political arguments in a non-meme format, but at least just not go full Hitler in their memeing when they do seems to escape them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How about being banned for saying women who claim physical abuse often provoke men into hitting them so they can be a victim, and even cover up abuse against their children by their men.
Exactly who is qualified not to abuse censorship power in this country? All the terms that get people banned are defined by liberals. That's the bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your argument is biased. Are you a liberal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, wait, wait.
You're claiming women "often" provoke men, so the women can claim to be victims... but these same women also cover up when the man beats his kids. This is supposed to be any kind of reasonable argument?
A) Claiming that women "often" try to provoke abuse to claim victimhood is just laughably stupid.
B) In both your scenarios, the man is an abusive asshole. He's beating a woman (provocation or not) and beating his kids!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Many women let their boyfriends beat their children and say nothing. That's a known fact. Why do you think we have mandatory reporters?
Divorced or single moms are 35 times more likely to have an abused child if they are with a man not its father. Is that "misogyny" or just an unpleasant truth?
The liberal definition would say yes, the conservative one not at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It sounds like you’re making up bullshit. Which is nothing new with you, Jhon. (How’s that big Kraken of a lawsuit going, BTW?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Divorced or single moms are 35 times more likely to have an abused child ... "
You seem to imply that only one of many possible scenarios could result in this condition. You have an axe to grind?
When I am not sure of a definition, I usually refer to a search engine but at other times I just wing it and make up my own definition when it fits in with my particular truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Is that "misogyny" or just an unpleasant truth?"
I won't know until you present your evidence. You have some, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you're a misogynist who is making up things without any evidence to back it. That's abundantly clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
" women who claim physical abuse often provoke men into hitting them so they can be a victim"
You mean like U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican QAnon promoter, stalking and harassing David Hogg a survivor of the massacre that killed 17 people and wounded 17 others at High School in Parkland?
You mean like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I mean like women who punch themselves in the face in order to frame a man.
BTW I wasn't trying to prove this point, only giving it as an example of perfectly legal speech that incites no one and should not be censored (even if the censorship is legal due to it being a private company).
I'm showing how the LIBERAL definition of "misogyny" is dominant since a post like this could easily be censored, thus cutting off any effective discussion of the underlying point. To those who say it's "hate speech" please make concrete definitions of what constitutes hate (and concrete definitions of any term used to make the concrete definition).
I will say that the government should open a free-speech server and maybe tie it to filing tax returns and paying taxes. It would probably catch a lot of plotters anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’ll probably regret getting an answer to this, but…what the hell is the “conservative” definition of misogyny, and how does it differ from the “liberal” definition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"what the hell is the “conservative” definition of misogyny"
The answer to your question is similar to dividing by zero, in that it is undefined.
The word misogyny is not within their lexicon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just posted that but let's use race. Say I'm against affirmative action.
To a liberal, that "proves" I'm a racist.
To a conservative that proves nothing except I am smart.
An AUP can use either definition or spin to set its policies, and that's where the bias occurs.
I've seen liberals threaten to kill people (as in "I'll be over in a few hours" type of threat) and not lose their accounts while conservatives have gotten banned for "offending women (or minorities).
Time will prove one of us right. This won't stay in the dark forever. Kind of like this site's finances and every communication it's ever had that isn't privileged which will be discoverable very soon.
Masnick's going down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Say I'm against affirmative action."
Please define what you mean by affirmative action. Is this school integration, equal pay ... what? Or maybe it is just government meddling in what you think should be. Are you bothered when others are doing better financially than you?
"To a liberal, that "proves" I'm a racist.
To a conservative that proves nothing except I am smart."
By definition it says you're a racist.
Some may believe being racist is ok, even preferred - but that does not make one smart, unless you use your own definitions for that word also.
Yeah, conservatives would never threaten to kill anyone now would they? -wow- have fun in your fascist wet dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Time will prove one of us right. This won't stay in the dark forever. Kind of like this site's finances and every communication it's ever had that isn't privileged which will be discoverable very soon."
You've kept saying that for what...nine years now? Surely at some point in this long journey you must have discovered that definitive link between Masnick, the CIA and Google you've been trumpeting for so long?
Shit, sir, or get off the pot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don’t think “liberals” are defining those terms over on Parler, and that service has banned plenty of people. Or is it not “censorship” when conservatives do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"...women who claim physical abuse often provoke men into hitting them..."
I must say you never fail to disappoint, Baghdad Bob. I'd have said the old "She was asking for it!" argument was too low even for the stormfront troll but lo and behold, you drug it out for another airing.
Here's a clue. If a woman is provocative and the man beats her, guess who is 100% to blame? The one who hits is the answer. "Being provoked" is no excuse. Ever.
And anyone insisting that it is will just have revealed themselves the sort of monster both unfit for civilized society and a living demonstration on why it is important for normal people to be allowed to bar their doors to the worst dregs humanity has to offer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Define "racism" in a concrete way that cannot be ambiguously enforced.
Now do that for everything you want to ban.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why? Having unambiguous definitions means the assholes will game the system, it's better to have a general definition so you can ban any asshole you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ambiguous definitions make it too easy to abuse censorship power.
Section 230 should be tied to common-carrier status. If you're not a common carrier, no 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good thing Twitter can’t censor people, then. Or does my not being on Twitter mean I’m censored everywhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh certainly, but a general definition isn't ambiguous per se. Just look at section 230, it's specifics are general in nature and does what it's supposed to to. If it hade been unambiguous in what can be moderated, the assholes would have been using it to their advantage. But since section 230 is written as it is, the assholes are trying to re-interpret it or apply new meaning to it.
It's kind a badge of honor to be attacked by assholes from all over the political spectrum, it tells us it's working as intended.
So any site you visit should become a common carrier? Interesting concept, seems you don't understand the law, what a common carrier is and what the 1 amendment is.
Please stop echoing shit you read on the internet without engaging the brain first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that the mouth you'll use on the NYT's FEMALE reporter who disagrees with you on 230?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/technology/change-my-google-results.html
When 230 goes all of Masnick's lawyer and tech buddies go down with it. Just think of all those people defamed who suddenly have a case.
Yeah no wonder your mouth is so infantile. It matches your brain or lack thereof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don’t know when oral sex entered into the equation with this discussion, but the gender identity of the reporter is irrelevant to the discussion of 230. (Other than to continue your ridiculous grudge against all women, apparently.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Snark is all Mike-er, "Steve" has here. Right: don't attack the female NYT reporter, just attack ME and ignore Guy Babcock or the very detailed explanation (to a much larger audience, from a legitimate newspaper) about how the search engines create a secondary, separate harm of distributor defamation.
Little whipped "Steve" has to "defend women" because he's afraid it might cost him sex if he doesn't. That means "women" includes primarily the ones he wants to fuck, but that's off topic.
Why should Guy Babcock's reputation be destroyed by Google? Without Google, or other search engines, the defamation about him would never have an audience. Amplification of defamation is the secondary, separate harm here.
Mike-er, "Steve" would never debate this in an open forum because he'd lose. Section 230's already gone and those lawyer buddies of his who rely on it to defame adversaries (which isn't possible with ISP liability) are royally screwed and he knows it, he just can't admit it and it's eating him up inside. His insides are about to become an all-you-can-eat buffet figuratively speaking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes or no: Has this theory ever been tested in a court of law within the United States? If “yes”: Please cite any related cases and their eventual outcomes. If “no”: I see no reason to think your theories are anything but the sack of horseshit they always appear to be.
I’m damn near literally the title character from a certain Steve Carrell film. Sex is the furthest thing from my mind when I say “you’re a woman-hating dipshit” to you. And the fact that you think the only reason anyone would defend women as a group is “he wants sex” proves that point.
Google didn’t destroy Guy Babcock’s reputation. People with an axe to grind and the ability to manipulate search engines did that.
You can’t know that with the unyielding certainty of God Herself. Nobody can.
I refer you back to my question at the top of this comment.
This is an open forum. I may insult you every now and again, but I try my best to stick with facts and logic. All you have is deranged fantasies about…
suing Mike into Hell over some never-elaborated-on wrongdoing that sounds vaguely like QAnon nonsense;
doing something to Mike’s family that always sounds vaguely like what QAnon says the evil cabal of world-governing pedophile cannibal rapists do to children;
exposing Mike’s alleged sockpuppetry by implying I’m one of said puppets and expecting people to take an evidence-free claim on faith because you said it;
all women being cheating whore cunts who cheat and whore and cunt their way to success;
people being sued into Hell and jailed for decades because they may have repeated something defamatory at some point to someone else in some way; and…
Whatever debate you think you’re “winning” with posts like yours, that victory — like all your other fantasies — is all in your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"has to "defend women" because he's afraid it might cost him sex if he doesn't. "
What is this insanity you are typing?
Seek professional help, for everyone's sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We've been telling him that for years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Seek professional help, for everyone's sake."
By now I'm almost certain he believes everyone with an education is in on the vast conspiracy headed by the Satanist ring of child-traffickers allegedly headed by the Kenyan Muslim and his sidekick Hillary. Odds are slim to none he'll look at a therapist as anything but a brainwashing tool of the Lizard Lords and the NWO by this point.
I think when he started babbling about the way the CIA and Google was funding Masnick to pay astroturfers for years just to oppose him in a forum was the time I personally realized that old Baghdad Bob was a bona fide lunatic in addition to being an unpleasant fuckwit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, the dishonest asshole. The one who spews lies, racism and defames people all the time while complaining about people being defamed.
The thing about being an impotent asshole is that reality will catch up with you in time and my guess is that you won't enjoy it one bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apparently they do not need laws in order to ambiguously enforce their "rules" ... or not.
Has Donald learned his lesson this time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I doubt it, as his lawyers for the impeachment have just walked out on him, apparently because his defence is election fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
guilty and nothing will happen ... I'm hoping that NY will follow thru.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, why do the work if you don't need to? He could say that he's innocent because anything people might consider 'bad' were done by liberal illuminati leprechauns and the republicans would vote to acquit since he's got them by the balls due to having significant influence over the same voters they depend on to get reelected.
They don't dare bring the hammer down on him and both he and they know it, why throw together something new when the old will work just fine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron Schwartz
Aaron Schwartz, the co-founder of reddit and freedom of speech/information advocate was persecuted, prosecuted and suicided for standing up to the crime syndicate.
He should be here to see this. He’d have a huge smile on his face.
“I think all censorship should be deplored. My position is that bits are not a bug
That we should create communications technologies that allow people to send whatever they like to each other.
And when people put their thumbs on the scale and try to say what can and can’t be sent,
we should fight back – both politically through protest and technologically through software”
— Aaron Swartz (1986 – 2013)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt: "iT's tHeiR wEbsITe! tHey caN dO WHaT tHEy wANt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know Discord has the right to take over that server; nobody here has ever said otherwise. But I can also criticize Discord for taking over that server. So can everyone else. Someone here saying “Discord made a bad move” doesn’t mean that someone is saying “Discord doesn’t have the right to make that move”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Techdirt: "iT's tHeiR wEbsITe! tHey caN dO WHaT tHEy wANt!"
AC: Get off my lawn!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]