"...offering a massive column of text that mostly offered opinion, instead of proving that someone was "lying". That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it."
Much of the column is provable facts. This is not some weird esoteric topic that hardly anyone understands. It's been studied in great detail, and nobody with any academic credibility has provided any evidence of suppression of online right wing political speech. Just lots of Nazis, racists, misogynists' and arseholes who can't follow the rules they agreed to when signing up to a service.
"But what IS a problem is the left wing fascist solution..."
Left wing fascist? Really?! Please go read Wikipedia or something...
"Reform section 230, and obligate those who build an internet public square to provide it under common carrier laws, with equal access and rules for everyone."
So 'public square' and 'common carrier' can join 'left wing' and 'fascist' on the list of words you don't know the meaning of.
Ooh Koby, you're getting awful close to saying the quiet part our loud here. You wanna clarify exactly what you think this word means? Coz to most people on your side of the argument, it means a very specific thing...
"According to latest FBI preliminary crime stats crime rose to unprecedented levels in 2020."
"I'm going to make a bold claim in complete opposition to the author based on supposed proof that I have not provided, then get all butthurt when nobody believes me!"
"Don't you have a slightest bit of shame and journalistic integrity left?"
The post is full of links you can follow to get more info on the claims made. Your comment has... nothing.
"...ending qualified immunity could have a chilling effect on officer’s willingness to insert themselves into complex and dangerous situations to enforce the law."
Maybe you should recruit and train better cops then. As a bonus they might earn some of that respect you think they're owed.
"First there is the smearing of Parler for no reason."
Oh no, 'smearing'. Clearly articulated criticism must be just shocking for you to endure.
"It's just a place where people can speak their mind. You know? Like Americans do?"
As is Techdirt, and countless other places that are allowed to express their opinions of Parler and their users. Seems like an odd double standard you have there.
"Then there is the idea that people gathering on January 6th were doing anything illegal."
The people gathering and protesting outside the Capitol were indeed not doing anything illegal. Nobody has seriously suggested otherwise. We're curious about your opinion of those who took things a bit further though...
"And the corollary that the FBI is an honest organization. Astounding that anyone could believe that."
Nobody here has ever lauded the FBI as an honest organization. The criticism aimed at FBI over the years by Techdirt is extensive.
"The government's case is falling apart day by day on the non-insurrection that had no arms and that the cops let in without any push back whatsoever."
There is so much public video evidence of the exact opposite of what you claim it's hard to give you even a shred of credibility.
"Testimony in Congress reveal there were no arms and there was no insurrection."
Blowhard congresscritters making speeches on the floor that contradict what we all saw with our own eyes is not "testimony", it's gaslighting.
"Therefore, the FBI wanting private speech from Parler is unconstitutional. They have no right to any of that."
Parler handing over incriminating content from their privately-owned website is perfectly constitutional and legal. If you have an actual argument for why it's not, do share.
"Multiple" doesn't mean many, just a tiny, vocal minority of painfully dumb Twitterers. They shouldn't be taken seriously, certainly not in any legal sense.
"In many cases, people in stressful situations DO misremember the events, even right as they're happening."
He "misremembered" some very specific details (charged towards the patrol vehicle, approached with closed fists) that are way too far from the actual events to have even a shred of plausibility.
Even if they don't read it (which is still unconscionable), you'd think lawmakers would run this shit past actual lawyers first. Ones that actually know the law.
"Blame the Democrats for this crap in the first place for their insistence that tech companies can manage themselves."
This is almost comical ignorance of the history of the Internet and S230.
"People are starting to wake up to the fact that politicians don't have their best interests at heart and only look out for their own interests."
You can't seriously think that people are only just starting to feel that way.
"Section 230 should never have been a part of the CDA where "tech companies can do whatever they want and use Section 230 as an all encompanying shield"."
Again, this is just a complete lack of understanding of what S230 does. It protects ALL WEBSITES with user generated content, not 'tech companies'. It does not allow anybody to do whatever they want or provide an all encompassing shield, it's allows exactly what the 1st Amendment allows and does not protect against illegal acts.
Anybody spending five minutes on Wikipedia, or maybe even reading anything written about it by the bipartisan authors, would have a pretty decent understanding of S230. If fact this stuff is so simple to understand that I have given up thinking most anti-S230 people really don't understand this, and are in fact just making self-serving, bad-faith arguments.
Destroying evidence is a crime that can be charged on top of the suspected crime itself. So even if you are completely innocent, there's a non-trivial chance you'll end up with even more legal trouble, particularly with less restrained law enforcement groups.
On the post: How Do You Debate Section 230 When One Side Constantly Lies About It?
Re: That's How
"...offering a massive column of text that mostly offered opinion, instead of proving that someone was "lying". That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it."
Much of the column is provable facts. This is not some weird esoteric topic that hardly anyone understands. It's been studied in great detail, and nobody with any academic credibility has provided any evidence of suppression of online right wing political speech. Just lots of Nazis, racists, misogynists' and arseholes who can't follow the rules they agreed to when signing up to a service.
"But what IS a problem is the left wing fascist solution..."
Left wing fascist? Really?! Please go read Wikipedia or something...
"Reform section 230, and obligate those who build an internet public square to provide it under common carrier laws, with equal access and rules for everyone."
So 'public square' and 'common carrier' can join 'left wing' and 'fascist' on the list of words you don't know the meaning of.
On the post: Florida Governor Signs Law That Punishes Protesters For Protesting, Denies Them Bail
Re: Re:
"...you don't have a right to... be a thug."
Ooh Koby, you're getting awful close to saying the quiet part our loud here. You wanna clarify exactly what you think this word means? Coz to most people on your side of the argument, it means a very specific thing...
On the post: I Guess They're Not All On The Same Side: Cops Brutalize Soldier For [Checks Notes] Leading Them To A Well-Lit Area
Re:
"Driver literally gets out of truck with a rifle..."
Commenter literally thinks the work literally is a word used to provide emphasis.
On the post: The Pillow Dude's 'Free Speech' Social Media Website Will Moderate 'Swear Words' Because Of Course It Will
Re:
"Also, using gods name in vain is condemning god or using god's name for evil purposes..."
Which god?
On the post: Crime Rates Drop After The City Of Baltimore Decides It's Not Going To Waste Resources Prosecuting Minor Offenses
Re: Literally fake news and leftist propaganda
"According to latest FBI preliminary crime stats crime rose to unprecedented levels in 2020."
"I'm going to make a bold claim in complete opposition to the author based on supposed proof that I have not provided, then get all butthurt when nobody believes me!"
"Don't you have a slightest bit of shame and journalistic integrity left?"
The post is full of links you can follow to get more info on the claims made. Your comment has... nothing.
On the post: Lawyer Whose Main Claim To Fame Is Suing A News Org To Get It Shut Down, Now Complains About 'Cancel Culture'
Re: Re: Gawker destroyed itself.
"...but you now don't dare write any more lies about Ayyadurai."
You'll note that Mike's position and writing on Ayyadurai hasn't changed one bit.
On the post: Republicans Using Incredibly Sketchy And Manipulative 'Dark Patterns' To Dupe People Into Donating Way More Than Intended
Re:
You realize this is a well known term of art, not something Mike just made up right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern
On the post: Republicans Using Incredibly Sketchy And Manipulative 'Dark Patterns' To Dupe People Into Donating Way More Than Intended
Re: Oh, dear. An Ivy League "Doctor" thinks this EVIL.
"...trying to make election fraud permanent..."
Screaming incessantly about something will not make it become true, but hopefully it'll eventually give you a stroke.
On the post: New York City Council Passes Police Reforms That Includes Ending Qualified Immunity For NYPD Officers
Just an idea
"...ending qualified immunity could have a chilling effect on officer’s willingness to insert themselves into complex and dangerous situations to enforce the law."
Maybe you should recruit and train better cops then. As a bonus they might earn some of that respect you think they're owed.
On the post: Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI
Re: Re: 'That's not what I want the law to say!'
Our well regulated militia must NOT be subject to any regulations!!!
On the post: Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI
Re: Curious
"First there is the smearing of Parler for no reason."
Oh no, 'smearing'. Clearly articulated criticism must be just shocking for you to endure.
"It's just a place where people can speak their mind. You know? Like Americans do?"
As is Techdirt, and countless other places that are allowed to express their opinions of Parler and their users. Seems like an odd double standard you have there.
"Then there is the idea that people gathering on January 6th were doing anything illegal."
The people gathering and protesting outside the Capitol were indeed not doing anything illegal. Nobody has seriously suggested otherwise. We're curious about your opinion of those who took things a bit further though...
"And the corollary that the FBI is an honest organization. Astounding that anyone could believe that."
Nobody here has ever lauded the FBI as an honest organization. The criticism aimed at FBI over the years by Techdirt is extensive.
"The government's case is falling apart day by day on the non-insurrection that had no arms and that the cops let in without any push back whatsoever."
There is so much public video evidence of the exact opposite of what you claim it's hard to give you even a shred of credibility.
"Testimony in Congress reveal there were no arms and there was no insurrection."
Blowhard congresscritters making speeches on the floor that contradict what we all saw with our own eyes is not "testimony", it's gaslighting.
"Therefore, the FBI wanting private speech from Parler is unconstitutional. They have no right to any of that."
Parler handing over incriminating content from their privately-owned website is perfectly constitutional and legal. If you have an actual argument for why it's not, do share.
On the post: Nike Sues MSCHF Over Its High Profile Satan Shoes, Claiming Unsafe Blood May Dilute The Exalted Nike Swoosh
Re:
"Multiple" doesn't mean many, just a tiny, vocal minority of painfully dumb Twitterers. They shouldn't be taken seriously, certainly not in any legal sense.
On the post: Cop's Lies About A Traffic Stop Are Exposed By A Home Security Camera Located Across The Street
Re: Re: Re: Now, that followup...?
"In many cases, people in stressful situations DO misremember the events, even right as they're happening."
He "misremembered" some very specific details (charged towards the patrol vehicle, approached with closed fists) that are way too far from the actual events to have even a shred of plausibility.
On the post: Kentucky Senators Pass Bill That Would Make It A Crime To Say Mean Things To Cops
Re: You got one thing wrong:
Perhaps cops should be recruited and trained with a higher expectation than "rabid crocodile".
On the post: Tennessee Lawmakers' Latest Attack On Section 230 Would Basically Ban All Government Investment
Re: Whaaa???
Even if they don't read it (which is still unconscionable), you'd think lawmakers would run this shit past actual lawyers first. Ones that actually know the law.
On the post: AT&T Appears Committed To Being Comically Hypocritical On Section 230
Re:
"Blame the Democrats for this crap in the first place for their insistence that tech companies can manage themselves."
This is almost comical ignorance of the history of the Internet and S230.
"People are starting to wake up to the fact that politicians don't have their best interests at heart and only look out for their own interests."
You can't seriously think that people are only just starting to feel that way.
"Section 230 should never have been a part of the CDA where "tech companies can do whatever they want and use Section 230 as an all encompanying shield"."
Again, this is just a complete lack of understanding of what S230 does. It protects ALL WEBSITES with user generated content, not 'tech companies'. It does not allow anybody to do whatever they want or provide an all encompassing shield, it's allows exactly what the 1st Amendment allows and does not protect against illegal acts.
Anybody spending five minutes on Wikipedia, or maybe even reading anything written about it by the bipartisan authors, would have a pretty decent understanding of S230. If fact this stuff is so simple to understand that I have given up thinking most anti-S230 people really don't understand this, and are in fact just making self-serving, bad-faith arguments.
On the post: Texas Immigration Lawyer Sues DHS, CBP Over Seizure And Search Of His Work Phone
Re: Re: Re:
Destroying evidence is a crime that can be charged on top of the suspected crime itself. So even if you are completely innocent, there's a non-trivial chance you'll end up with even more legal trouble, particularly with less restrained law enforcement groups.
On the post: Texas Immigration Lawyer Sues DHS, CBP Over Seizure And Search Of His Work Phone
Re: Re: Malik should know better
That's a very different scenario.
On the post: No, Getting Rid Of Anonymity Will Not Fix Social Media; It Will Cause More Problems
Re:
"The lawyer-hacker mafia..."
Please please please entertain us us with your explanation of this amazing sounding group. I need a good laugh today.
On the post: Former US Ambassador Sues Apple Because Telegram Users Are Making Him Feel Scared [Update]
Re: Re: Re: You're just reaching here...
And the 1st Amendment.
Next >>