The Supreme Court has ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is inherently discrimination on the basis of sex. This is because it is treating men who are attracted to men differently than women who are attracted to men (and vice versa). The attraction is the same, and what's different is the sex of the individual, and you're not allowed to discriminate on that basis. Similar reasoning for trans people. You can't treat a biological male who identifies as male differently than a biological female who identifies as male because that's discriminating on the basis of sex.
I am definitely not Professor Blake Reid. Just trust me on that one.
I never thought you might be. You seemed to think I was confusing you for Blake, and I was assuring you that I was not, never thought you might be Blake, and that I was in fact addressing my replies to the correct person. That is, it was your words I was replying to, not his.
Don't confuse my motivations with Blakes' motivations. I don't know why Blake wrote his post, or why he took the tone he did.
I don't know who Blake is. You have the same gravatar icon as the anonymous commenter I was addressing, which means (I think) the same IP address. So I assume you're the same person.
I think constitutional rights should only apply directly to US citizens acting as such.
They generally apply to anyone in the US, since most if not all constitutional rights are actually restrictions on what the government can do, and do not have exceptions for non-citizens (or people not "acting as such", whatever that means).
If all it takes is a few noun replacements to make your justification against others racist, your justification could use some reexamination.
Changing a few nouns changes the meaning of the statement. You can take any true statement, change a few nouns, and make it ridiculous (or racist). That says nothing about the original statement.
I understand all the arguments for section 230, but it's a bad law. And bad arguments against it doesn't make it a good one.
What's your proposal? Keep in mind to be relevant it has to 1) not make things worse and 2) be consistent with the First Amendment and private property law. Holding Party A liable for what Party B says sounds tricky.
OK, so what is it that makes you think section 230 is hard to find if you only know it as "section 230 of the Communications Decency Act"? And why are you so interested in making sure people know what it "really" is?
They haven’t once tried to address income inequality in a way that helps shrink the wealth gap because they don’t have any idea how to do that
They don't have any desire to do it. To the Republican leadership, wealth and income inequality are not problems to be solved, they are goals to be advanced.
Jumping to the present, we know that a large percentage of readers just won't click on the hyperlinks.
Yeah because the surrounding context is a bunch of WELL ACKSHUALLY without any indication that there is anything to see other than boring pedantry. Why would anyone click?
If you don't know the proper names of things, then good luck looking through the United States Code for “230”
It's really not as hard as you seem to think. I searched for "CDA section 230" and the very first link gave the full text of the statute.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More moderate than I was expecting.
Neither are acceptable from a democracy standpoint. As what is profitable or Politically Correct need not be truthful nor supportive of political debate and consensus. (The reason the Right to Freedom of Speech is important to democracy and should be encouraged.)
How can you be in favor of freedom of speech, but against permitting companies to decide what speech they want to host on their own platform?
With little care given to the fact that in doing so, they will have that solution used against them at the first opportunity under the same justifications.
Not so. I mean sure, there are people like you describe, but plenty more who are aware there is no guarantee that their speech will continue to be acceptable to social media giants and others. And they're OK with that, because the alternative is trampling free speech and private property rights.
Why should a web service be unwillingly forced into censorship of others when the users of the Internet refuse to use the tools available to them at no cost?
1) They're not. If someone wants to host a service and not moderate anything, they're free to do so. 2) Why should a web service be unwillingly forced into hosting speech it does not wish to host?
Why should a company shoulder the cost of implementing censorship that is inaccurate and prohibitively expensive for even themselves, when users refuse to do anything on their own? Much less help pay for it?
Because they find it's in their best interest to do so.
Why should a web service have the authority to silence it's users when said users are fully willing participants?
Because it's their private property. They have the right to do what they want with it, and to associate (and not associate) with whom they please. Why do you want to take those rights away?
Such silencing has a body of evidence that can and should be presented to a court.
There has never been such a requirement in the US. Or even a mechanism for doing it.
Any restriction on speech in a democracy should only be done after through and rigorous examination of both the evidence supporting it and the law.
And yet you propose removing the freedom of web platforms to make editorial decisions.
Why should a unwilling listener have the authority to silence a speaker and their willing listeners?
I don't even know what you're saying here. An ordinary Twitter or Facebook user, for example, has no authority to silence other users. For why Twitter and Facebook themselves have such authority, see above.
Yes, we may disagree with what you have to say, but the reason that we fight to the death to protect your ability to say it, is so that we may avoid fighting to the death to better our country.
Quite right. But the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. It doesn't guarantee an audience, and it doesn't guarantee the use of others' property to speak.
Just be clear that is what you are advocating when you say people should be required to use the restroom based on their sex at birth, and not their gender. I don't know that it's a bigoted position, but it certainly strikes me as one that at best has not been fully considered.
I'd be surprised if Parler and Gab wasn't flooded with comments about how that officer was a fifth columnist and traitor who was righteously struck down while opposing veterans and patriotic "real" police.
I'd say it's more likely they'll claim the person(s) who killed him were Antifa and/or BLM. That's what they're saying about everyone else who stormed the capitol.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re:
The Supreme Court has ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is inherently discrimination on the basis of sex. This is because it is treating men who are attracted to men differently than women who are attracted to men (and vice versa). The attraction is the same, and what's different is the sex of the individual, and you're not allowed to discriminate on that basis. Similar reasoning for trans people. You can't treat a biological male who identifies as male differently than a biological female who identifies as male because that's discriminating on the basis of sex.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/863498848/supreme-court-delivers-major-victory-to-lgbtq-employee s
On the post: Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never thought you might be. You seemed to think I was confusing you for Blake, and I was assuring you that I was not, never thought you might be Blake, and that I was in fact addressing my replies to the correct person. That is, it was your words I was replying to, not his.
On the post: More Bad Ideas: Congressional Rep Suggests Participants In The Attack On The Capitol Building Be Added To The No-Fly List
Re: Re: Re:
What I'm saying is as long as it's in its current form there is no justified use of it.
On the post: Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know who Blake is. You have the same gravatar icon as the anonymous commenter I was addressing, which means (I think) the same IP address. So I assume you're the same person.
On the post: More Bad Ideas: Congressional Rep Suggests Participants In The Attack On The Capitol Building Be Added To The No-Fly List
Re:
As presently constituted, nobody should. It should be discontinued and replaced with something that doesn't have its many serious flaws.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re:
They generally apply to anyone in the US, since most if not all constitutional rights are actually restrictions on what the government can do, and do not have exceptions for non-citizens (or people not "acting as such", whatever that means).
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re:
Changing a few nouns changes the meaning of the statement. You can take any true statement, change a few nouns, and make it ridiculous (or racist). That says nothing about the original statement.
On the post: Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act
Re:
What's your proposal? Keep in mind to be relevant it has to 1) not make things worse and 2) be consistent with the First Amendment and private property law. Holding Party A liable for what Party B says sounds tricky.
On the post: Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, so what is it that makes you think section 230 is hard to find if you only know it as "section 230 of the Communications Decency Act"? And why are you so interested in making sure people know what it "really" is?
On the post: Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: He knows
Agreed, but I have learned not to expect much in the way of answers from Koby.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re:
They don't have any desire to do it. To the Republican leadership, wealth and income inequality are not problems to be solved, they are goals to be advanced.
On the post: Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah because the surrounding context is a bunch of WELL ACKSHUALLY without any indication that there is anything to see other than boring pedantry. Why would anyone click?
It's really not as hard as you seem to think. I searched for "CDA section 230" and the very first link gave the full text of the statute.
On the post: Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation
Re: He knows
Where do you get the idea that being political precludes good faith?
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More moderate than I was expecting.
How can you be in favor of freedom of speech, but against permitting companies to decide what speech they want to host on their own platform?
Not so. I mean sure, there are people like you describe, but plenty more who are aware there is no guarantee that their speech will continue to be acceptable to social media giants and others. And they're OK with that, because the alternative is trampling free speech and private property rights.
1) They're not. If someone wants to host a service and not moderate anything, they're free to do so. 2) Why should a web service be unwillingly forced into hosting speech it does not wish to host?
Because they find it's in their best interest to do so.
Because it's their private property. They have the right to do what they want with it, and to associate (and not associate) with whom they please. Why do you want to take those rights away?
There has never been such a requirement in the US. Or even a mechanism for doing it.
And yet you propose removing the freedom of web platforms to make editorial decisions.
I don't even know what you're saying here. An ordinary Twitter or Facebook user, for example, has no authority to silence other users. For why Twitter and Facebook themselves have such authority, see above.
Quite right. But the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. It doesn't guarantee an audience, and it doesn't guarantee the use of others' property to speak.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re: Depends on how you're defining 'conservative'
So you want this person restricted to using the women's restroom?
https://www.upworthy.com/heres-what-itll-look-like-if-trans-people-arent-allowed-to-use-th e-right-bathroom
And this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Angel#/media/File:Buck_Angel_Headshot.jpg
Just be clear that is what you are advocating when you say people should be required to use the restroom based on their sex at birth, and not their gender. I don't know that it's a bigoted position, but it certainly strikes me as one that at best has not been fully considered.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Let go of my Knee, Jerk
If it makes you feel better, I thought it was obvious.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: First Principles ?
Then by all means, explain it. Or provide link(s).
On the post: Bad Idea: President-Elect Biden Wants To Turn 1/6 Into The New 9/11
Re: Regime Changes
Who said it's ok to do regime changes elsewhere?
On the post: Parler's CEO Promises That When It Comes Back... It'll Moderate Content... With An Algorithm
Re: Algorithms are designed and written by PEOPLE!
If marketing and accounting are allowed direct write access to your algorithms, you're doing it wrong.
On the post: Everything Pundits Are Getting Wrong About This Current Moment In Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: The subdued police presence
I'd say it's more likely they'll claim the person(s) who killed him were Antifa and/or BLM. That's what they're saying about everyone else who stormed the capitol.
Next >>