The GOP might be the most insecure party I’ve ever seen in a political system.
To wit: the California recall election. The GOP knows they wouldn’t stand a chance in a normal election, so they’re using the recall election as a backdoor power grab.
That’s not Section 230, though. Show us where Section 230 makes that publisher vs. platform distinction. (Hint: You can’t, because it doesn’t.)
it's clear that she got censored for her past comments, particularly those on other platforms, which were anti government and against Joe Biden
What evidence do you have that supports this assertion? For that matter, why aren’t you quoting the exact text of the post that got her post/account suspended from Instagram in the first place?
Four years ago, gold star families who denounced the sitting president were hailed as heroes.
That’s because they were railing against a thin-skinned small-handed authoritarian who thought of dead/captured soldiers as “suckers”. Conservatives who have railed against Joe Biden for the Afghanistan withdrawl are only doing so because a Democrat is in charge; when Trump proposed a similar withdrawl of forces from Afghanistan (a proposal that Biden ultimately honored!), Republicans either stayed silent or supported him.
Biden is a middling pissant centrist, don’t get me wrong. He won’t go down as even a good president when his term shakes out; he was voted in largely to stop the bleeding caused by Old 45. But let’s not act like Trump had any better plans for getting us out of Afghanistan without all the Taliban fallout. He didn’t even have a fucking replacement plan for Obamacare ready despite repeatedly saying he did; in no way did he have an actual plan for a clean military withdrawl from a decades-long war. And if Biden had passed this on to another president, regardless of party, I doubt they would’ve had any better plans.
The withdrawl was a shitshow, sure. But getting the U.S. out of Afghanistan was never going to be a clean affair. And instead of bitching about how Biden bungled the whole thing, ask yourself why we even needed to spend two decades in Afghanistan—beyond enriching the military industrial complex, anyway.
robbery is illegal; whether you use a weapon to commit the act is irrelevant
less a “product misuse” and more a bureaucratic mistake
that’s not a “product misuse”, that’s just a law being broken—and Fair Use is still a thing despite all your wishing and begging and praying to your god
not really a product misuse
holy shit are you referring to people as “products”, what the fuck is wrong with you
not a product misuse, just a crime
not a product misuse, just a crime
not a product misuse, just a crime
not a product misuse, just a crime
this is the one instance in which yes, you’ve hit upon an actual product misuse—but even then, you’re still screwed, because guns are made for the purpose of hurting/killing other living beings and murder isn’t illegal if it’s done in defense of self or others
Motherfucker, do you really think I’m paid to waste my time like this? You must be out of your goddamn mind.
if Widget Globo Inc. owns ever widget factory, and every widget store in the world, and a single person is making widgets in their garage and selling them in Toledo Ohio then Widget Globo Inc. is not a monopoly.
Nope. Not even remotely my logic.
See, here’s the thing you’re not getting: Twitter and Facebook are competing against each other as much as they’re competing with every other social interaction network—LinkedIn, MySpace, the Fediverse, Discord, and dozens of others. To turn either Twitter or Facebook (or any other social media service) into a monopoly, you would have to define “social media” in such narrow terms that the phrase could only ever apply to one service.
But in your example, Widget Globo absolutely is a monopoly despite the existence of the single person making widgets in their garage. That’s because Widget Globo can effectively muscle that person out of business with the smallest amount of economic pressure.
What you’re doing is conflating a genuine monopoly of a single company in a single industry with a faux monopoly of multiple companies (again, mono implies one) in a broad field of communications services that no one company truly dominates on its own. Your logic, and thus your argument, is flawed bullshit.
Please try to present an argument that makes sense in reality next time. Mocking you for your ignorance and SovCit tendencies is getting boring.
You’ll have to forgive Chozen; he’s one of those “sovereign citizen” (SovCit) assholes, which means he thinks driving and travelling are two different things and gold fringe on a flag means maritime law applies to non-maritime settings.
Something does not have to be a utility to be treated as a common carrier.
And as soon as you can present a rationale for Facebook being a common carrier that can’t be circumvented by a statement such as “Facebook could shut down tomorrow and the government wouldn’t be able to do shit about it”, you let me know, mm’kay? Until then, go pound sand with the rest of your shithead SovCit pals.
that’s different from tossing a person who states “vaccinations have harmful side effects and aren’t as reliable as we were told” and saying you broke the rules
How is it different from me kicking someone out of my home for saying something I don’t like? Because that’s what moderation bans are: the owners of private property kicking out someone who said/did something on said property that the owners didn’t like.
as it stands now it’s too easy for people to abuse moderation
Adding the legal system to the mix might introduce some friction in that regard, but it would also open up whole new avenues for abuse that could ultimately affect all social media services.
There’s nuance in moderation. And the larger companies ignore it completely. All too quickly we embrace key word computer removals.
Yeah, yeah, content moderation doesn’t scale. Tell me something new.
Your case is a fine point. You should not have punished.
No, I absolutely should’ve been (and was!). I blatantly broke the rules. Context shouldn’t always be a “get out of Twitter jail free” card.
too often deletions happen that make zero sense to the poster. With not understanding of why they get tossed for a repeat violation.
Asking for transparency about such situations is fine. Demanding it be a legal mandate? Not so much. Especially since, as has been pointed out, all that will do is encourage the worst kind of rules lawyering from the worst kinds of people.
There is a difference between being legal and being correct.
And when it comes to moderation, “being correct” is irrelevant to “being legal”. Even mistaken moderation is legal under Section 230.
Instead of looking at stuff like “This could be flipped around and used by an oppressive government in the future”, is it that hard to go a couple steps farther and look at it like “How do we craft laws and legal frameworks to disarm advocates of oppressive governments so that they can’t get elected again in the first place”?
See, that’s the kind of thinking I can agree with.
Freedom of speech but only for property owners is oligarchy, not democracy.
The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else.
(An FYI for the future: When you quote text, you have to put an empty line between the quoted text and your own for the Markdown formatting to work right.)
all a site has to do to toss the case is show the letter they supplied as to the cause of removal.
If you think that won’t be appealed/challenged/whatever by people with a big enough bankroll and the desire to become a martyr—all in search of a loophole that can be abused to their benefit—you’re deluding yourself.
it does create a notice of act that could be used to help guide people not looking to game the system, the majority, with how to express themselves within the rules
The rules of a given social media service are often clear enough that anyone who doesn’t know how they broke the rules has to be lying. Hell, when I got popped by Twitter for using an anti-queer slur in the context of mocking anti-queer attitudes, I absolutely understood why I got suspended despite my contextual usage of the word.
Anyone who reads the rules and doesn’t understand how to stay within them is better off posting at 4chan’s /b/.
Sometimes valuable change requires acts of law.
If such an act of law changes the landscape of the Internet in ways even you would consider unappealing—possibly even disastrous—you will have no one else to blame for your pushing for such change but yourself.
When the post is removed? It’s been censored from the location it once existed in.
No, it’s been removed. Moderation isn’t censorship because nobody is required to host someone else’s speech and nobody has a right to make others host their speech. Again: A vast difference exists between “we don’t host that here” and “you can’t say that anywhere”. Don’t bitch at me if you can’t understand that difference.
when punished for breaking a law (rule) you should be informed of what law (rule) you broke
Yes or no: If I kick someone out of my home for insulting my family, should I be forced by law to tell them why I kicked them out? Hell, should I be forced to post a list of rules for visitors to follow while they’re in my home?
I believe there is a limited right to defend one’s self, but also see an easy case for a new form of abuse.
And that’s why I don’t support adding a “let’s involve the legal system” component to content moderation: It opens up whole new avenues of abuse that can’t and won’t be as easily closed as a change to a Terms of Service document closing a loophole in those rules.
On the post: Where Texas' Social Media Law & Abortion Law Collide: Facebook Must Keep Up AND Take Down Info On Abortion
To wit: the California recall election. The GOP knows they wouldn’t stand a chance in a normal election, so they’re using the recall election as a backdoor power grab.
On the post: Where Texas' Social Media Law & Abortion Law Collide: Facebook Must Keep Up AND Take Down Info On Abortion
That’s not Section 230, though. Show us where Section 230 makes that publisher vs. platform distinction. (Hint: You can’t, because it doesn’t.)
What evidence do you have that supports this assertion? For that matter, why aren’t you quoting the exact text of the post that got her post/account suspended from Instagram in the first place?
That’s because they were railing against a thin-skinned small-handed authoritarian who thought of dead/captured soldiers as “suckers”. Conservatives who have railed against Joe Biden for the Afghanistan withdrawl are only doing so because a Democrat is in charge; when Trump proposed a similar withdrawl of forces from Afghanistan (a proposal that Biden ultimately honored!), Republicans either stayed silent or supported him.
Biden is a middling pissant centrist, don’t get me wrong. He won’t go down as even a good president when his term shakes out; he was voted in largely to stop the bleeding caused by Old 45. But let’s not act like Trump had any better plans for getting us out of Afghanistan without all the Taliban fallout. He didn’t even have a fucking replacement plan for Obamacare ready despite repeatedly saying he did; in no way did he have an actual plan for a clean military withdrawl from a decades-long war. And if Biden had passed this on to another president, regardless of party, I doubt they would’ve had any better plans.
The withdrawl was a shitshow, sure. But getting the U.S. out of Afghanistan was never going to be a clean affair. And instead of bitching about how Biden bungled the whole thing, ask yourself why we even needed to spend two decades in Afghanistan—beyond enriching the military industrial complex, anyway.
On the post: Where Texas' Social Media Law & Abortion Law Collide: Facebook Must Keep Up AND Take Down Info On Abortion
They’re not, and that’s the point.
On the post: GOP Hollowly Threatens To 'Shut Down' Telecom Companies For Cooperating With Legal January 6 Inquiries
you seem…obsessed
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Two things.
Nobody is teaching CRT in anything but colleges.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
sure you did
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Don’t worry; I gave you both. 😁
On the post: Nintendo Shuts Down Another 'Smash' Tournament Due To Mod Use, With No Piracy As A Concern
And as soon as an inanimate object can objectively determine whether it’s being used as part of a crime, you let me know.
On the post: Nintendo Shuts Down Another 'Smash' Tournament Due To Mod Use, With No Piracy As A Concern
nope
robbery is illegal; whether you use a weapon to commit the act is irrelevant
less a “product misuse” and more a bureaucratic mistake
that’s not a “product misuse”, that’s just a law being broken—and Fair Use is still a thing despite all your wishing and begging and praying to your god
not really a product misuse
holy shit are you referring to people as “products”, what the fuck is wrong with you
not a product misuse, just a crime
not a product misuse, just a crime
not a product misuse, just a crime
not a product misuse, just a crime
How are you so bad at this.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
ha ha, oh wow, there’s one I honestly haven’t heard before
you get an insightful vote for that
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Motherfucker, do you really think I’m paid to waste my time like this? You must be out of your goddamn mind.
Nope. Not even remotely my logic.
See, here’s the thing you’re not getting: Twitter and Facebook are competing against each other as much as they’re competing with every other social interaction network—LinkedIn, MySpace, the Fediverse, Discord, and dozens of others. To turn either Twitter or Facebook (or any other social media service) into a monopoly, you would have to define “social media” in such narrow terms that the phrase could only ever apply to one service.
But in your example, Widget Globo absolutely is a monopoly despite the existence of the single person making widgets in their garage. That’s because Widget Globo can effectively muscle that person out of business with the smallest amount of economic pressure.
What you’re doing is conflating a genuine monopoly of a single company in a single industry with a faux monopoly of multiple companies (again, mono implies one) in a broad field of communications services that no one company truly dominates on its own. Your logic, and thus your argument, is flawed bullshit.
Please try to present an argument that makes sense in reality next time. Mocking you for your ignorance and SovCit tendencies is getting boring.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
You’ll have to forgive Chozen; he’s one of those “sovereign citizen” (SovCit) assholes, which means he thinks driving and travelling are two different things and gold fringe on a flag means maritime law applies to non-maritime settings.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
And as soon as you can present a rationale for Facebook being a common carrier that can’t be circumvented by a statement such as “Facebook could shut down tomorrow and the government wouldn’t be able to do shit about it”, you let me know, mm’kay? Until then, go pound sand with the rest of your shithead SovCit pals.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Projection, thy name is Chozen.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
How is it different from me kicking someone out of my home for saying something I don’t like? Because that’s what moderation bans are: the owners of private property kicking out someone who said/did something on said property that the owners didn’t like.
Adding the legal system to the mix might introduce some friction in that regard, but it would also open up whole new avenues for abuse that could ultimately affect all social media services.
Yeah, yeah, content moderation doesn’t scale. Tell me something new.
No, I absolutely should’ve been (and was!). I blatantly broke the rules. Context shouldn’t always be a “get out of Twitter jail free” card.
Asking for transparency about such situations is fine. Demanding it be a legal mandate? Not so much. Especially since, as has been pointed out, all that will do is encourage the worst kind of rules lawyering from the worst kinds of people.
And when it comes to moderation, “being correct” is irrelevant to “being legal”. Even mistaken moderation is legal under Section 230.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
I said “often”, not “always”.
On the post: House Committee Investigating January 6th Capitol Invasion Goes On Social Media Fishing Expedition; Companies Should Resist
See, that’s the kind of thinking I can agree with.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
I’m pretty sure the law doesn’t let you live on public land, dude.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
(An FYI for the future: When you quote text, you have to put an empty line between the quoted text and your own for the Markdown formatting to work right.)
If you think that won’t be appealed/challenged/whatever by people with a big enough bankroll and the desire to become a martyr—all in search of a loophole that can be abused to their benefit—you’re deluding yourself.
The rules of a given social media service are often clear enough that anyone who doesn’t know how they broke the rules has to be lying. Hell, when I got popped by Twitter for using an anti-queer slur in the context of mocking anti-queer attitudes, I absolutely understood why I got suspended despite my contextual usage of the word.
Anyone who reads the rules and doesn’t understand how to stay within them is better off posting at 4chan’s /b/.
If such an act of law changes the landscape of the Internet in ways even you would consider unappealing—possibly even disastrous—you will have no one else to blame for your pushing for such change but yourself.
No, it’s been removed. Moderation isn’t censorship because nobody is required to host someone else’s speech and nobody has a right to make others host their speech. Again: A vast difference exists between “we don’t host that here” and “you can’t say that anywhere”. Don’t bitch at me if you can’t understand that difference.
Yes or no: If I kick someone out of my home for insulting my family, should I be forced by law to tell them why I kicked them out? Hell, should I be forced to post a list of rules for visitors to follow while they’re in my home?
And that’s why I don’t support adding a “let’s involve the legal system” component to content moderation: It opens up whole new avenues of abuse that can’t and won’t be as easily closed as a change to a Terms of Service document closing a loophole in those rules.
Next >>