I don’t see how that would be the outcome if proper notification is given.
You said it yourself: “contract law”—the key word there being “law”. Yeah, most trolls probably wouldn’t go through with any actual legal threats, but dipshits like Marjorie Three-Names and Devin “I Hate Cows” Nunes absolutely would. So would someone who could find a lawyer/legal outfit willing to help the aggrieved play martyr for a sociopolitical cause. To say such things wouldn’t—or couldn’t!—happen under the system you believe should be in play is, at best, underestimating the power of grievance politics.
Hiding isn’t removal moving isn’t removal. Deletion is removal.
You’re on the side of adding a legal component to content moderation; what form the moderation takes is ultimately irrelevant to that fact.
Considering I made clear I have no problem decimating a post by removing letters, or converting them to another form
Tell me you’re a censor without telling me you’re a censor. (Under your “any and all deletion is censorship” logic, anyway.)
What service was she banned from? What was the exact wording of the post that got her banned? We need to know details if you expect us to care about this.
The "right" of tech oligarchs to censor must be infringed to protect the rights of everyone else to speak.
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
If “yes”: Would that also include a service you own and operate?
Your feelings are valid. I’m not here to say otherwise. That said: I don’t have any better answer for you than “I am uncomfortable with how what you’re saying comes off as one step away from proposing actual physical violence against government representatives as a solution to political issues”. I’m sorry.
Why should a small cell provider have to jump through more regulatory hoops than Facebook?
Because cell phone service is a utility and Facebook isn’t. How are you so bad at this.
Also wow, way to dodge all those questions I asked. Even Lostcause isn’t that much of a coward. They’re a dumbass, to be sure—but they’re not a coward.
if the state want’s to add a specific requirement for exercising contract law… I don’t see that as a problem.
Doing so would turn every moderation decision—hiding content behind a warning of some sort, deletion of content that violates the ToS, even suspensions and bans—into a situation where courts could (and probably would) be brought into play by those whose speech is moderated. How often do you think Twitter moderators would do their jobs if the higher-ups at Twitter knew every such act could land the company in a courtroom? How often do you think bad faith actors would abuse and eploit such a system for their own benefit?
Requiring moderation decisions to have a legal component baked into them would grind moderation on social interaction networks to a halt. I know you’d love that, considering how you think deleting even a single letter from a single post is the kind of unconscionable and horrific censorship that should be stopped by any and all means necessary, collateral damage be damned. For everyone else, watching assholes flood a service with spam and porn and racism and queerphobia because said service would prefer not to deal with the courts every time it moderates would be…less than pleasant.
How would using the law to compel the hosting of all legally protected speech, especially in cases where someone doesn’t want to host a given kind of speech, solve whatever problem you think that would solve?
How would you feel if you were forced by law to host speech you didn’t want to host—e.g., pro-Klan propaganda—on a service you own and operate?
By definition, no monopoly can exist if more than one social media company enjoys a large market share. Mono implies one, and if we have more than one large social media company competing with each other…well, even you can’t square that circle.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Or you could read the books written by the people who developed the theory. I mean, why wouldn’t you go right to the source.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
You said it yourself: “contract law”—the key word there being “law”. Yeah, most trolls probably wouldn’t go through with any actual legal threats, but dipshits like Marjorie Three-Names and Devin “I Hate Cows” Nunes absolutely would. So would someone who could find a lawyer/legal outfit willing to help the aggrieved play martyr for a sociopolitical cause. To say such things wouldn’t—or couldn’t!—happen under the system you believe should be in play is, at best, underestimating the power of grievance politics.
You’re on the side of adding a legal component to content moderation; what form the moderation takes is ultimately irrelevant to that fact.
Tell me you’re a censor without telling me you’re a censor. (Under your “any and all deletion is censorship” logic, anyway.)
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
You can’t teach about racism without teaching who perpetrated the racism. That could be seen as “racial scapegoating” under the Texas law, though.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
What service was she banned from? What was the exact wording of the post that got her banned? We need to know details if you expect us to care about this.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
If “yes”: Would that also include a service you own and operate?
On the post: House Committee Investigating January 6th Capitol Invasion Goes On Social Media Fishing Expedition; Companies Should Resist
Your feelings are valid. I’m not here to say otherwise. That said: I don’t have any better answer for you than “I am uncomfortable with how what you’re saying comes off as one step away from proposing actual physical violence against government representatives as a solution to political issues”. I’m sorry.
On the post: eBay's FOSTA-Inspired Ban On 'Adult Content' Is Erasing LGBTQ History
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Bans on porn/“adult content” always affect queer content the first—and the worst.
On the post: House Committee Investigating January 6th Capitol Invasion Goes On Social Media Fishing Expedition; Companies Should Resist
How do you propose we take those miles back without resorting to counter-fascism?
On the post: Make It A Trend: More Modders Get Hired By Developers, This Time CD Projekt Red
Capitalism.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
To steal a bit from early Family Guy:
Mavs suck, Astros suck, Cowboys suck.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Because cell phone service is a utility and Facebook isn’t. How are you so bad at this.
Also wow, way to dodge all those questions I asked. Even Lostcause isn’t that much of a coward. They’re a dumbass, to be sure—but they’re not a coward.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Doing so would turn every moderation decision—hiding content behind a warning of some sort, deletion of content that violates the ToS, even suspensions and bans—into a situation where courts could (and probably would) be brought into play by those whose speech is moderated. How often do you think Twitter moderators would do their jobs if the higher-ups at Twitter knew every such act could land the company in a courtroom? How often do you think bad faith actors would abuse and eploit such a system for their own benefit?
Requiring moderation decisions to have a legal component baked into them would grind moderation on social interaction networks to a halt. I know you’d love that, considering how you think deleting even a single letter from a single post is the kind of unconscionable and horrific censorship that should be stopped by any and all means necessary, collateral damage be damned. For everyone else, watching assholes flood a service with spam and porn and racism and queerphobia because said service would prefer not to deal with the courts every time it moderates would be…less than pleasant.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Ergo, it dictates how websites can and can’t moderate. Man, you’re bad at this.
Whose speech do you believe Facebook and Twitter should be forced by law to host—antivaxxers, terrorists, and/or Holocaust deniers?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Look out, guys, we got a badass over here.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Hey now, that’s not fair!
We don’t know for sure whether Lindell’s drug of choice is crack.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
That’s cute, that you think DeSantis can learn things.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Two questions.
How would using the law to compel the hosting of all legally protected speech, especially in cases where someone doesn’t want to host a given kind of speech, solve whatever problem you think that would solve?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
By definition, no monopoly can exist if more than one social media company enjoys a large market share. Mono implies one, and if we have more than one large social media company competing with each other…well, even you can’t square that circle.
On the post: House Committee Investigating January 6th Capitol Invasion Goes On Social Media Fishing Expedition; Companies Should Resist
Hey, Brainy: What “conservative opinions” do you believe are being censored by social media companies? Be specific.
On the post: Make It A Trend: More Modders Get Hired By Developers, This Time CD Projekt Red
Awww, is Brainy Smurf mad that someone could prove him wrong about copyright? 🤔
Next >>