I’m all for investigating the insurrection. I want to hold accountable any member of the government who had a hand in either encouraging, planning, or carrying out the riot. And this still feels too much like an authoritarian move to intimidate social media into “cracking down” on “dissent”.
Y’know, before 9/11, we didn’t have a Department of Homeland Security (definitely no unnerving undertones in that name!) or an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. We got along fine without them.
deplatforming is about preventing others who DO want to associate with a speaker from being able to associate
Those people can still associate with that speaker—somewhere else. For what reason should the law force a privately owned interactive web service to host legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
Censorship still interferes with the association aspect.
And if being booted from Twitter for vaccine disinformation/terrorist content/Holocaust denialism was censorship, you might have a point.
But it’s not.
So you don’t.
Also: What specific opinions are you worried about being censored from social media? Be specific.
Hey, Koby—are vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism some of those “conservative opinions” you keep saying are being censored from social media? Because actual conservatives seem to think so, given the article.
If those aren’t the “conservative opinions” you keep saying are being censored, what are those opinions? Be specific.
Republicans made sure to reject all three amendments, thereby explicitly admitting that with their bill they want to make sure that websites are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism.
These must be some of those “censored conservative opinions” that certain commenters keep yammering on about.
Only that it’s not systemic. It’s not something flowing through each and every person. Each and every law.
An institution need not be crafted or upheld by racists/with racist intent for the institution to be racist. Hell, a racist institution need not even exist any more for its effects to still be felt—redlining, for instance, helped destroy paths to generational wealth for Black people long after its abolishment. (To wit: A 2018 study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition found that 74% of communities that were redlined in the 1930s are still “low-to-moderate income” communities.)
Institutional (i.e., “systemic”) racism exists as a force outside of individual interpersonal racism. Someone can uphold institutional racism without realizing it—without being an overt racist themselves. The whole point of studying institutional racism is to root out (and ultimately nullify) policies and laws and “traditions” that prevent the progress of people of color. The walls exist even if you believe they don’t. But I’ll guess you’re too busy jerking yourself off about “not seeing color” or some shit to notice or care.
Yes.
Cool to know, CensoringLodos.
without a sandbox and without flagging…
“…I’m still moderating, but I’m also punching myself in the dick because I believe what I’m doing is censorship and censorship is evil.” — you, probably
Free speech stops at the law.
No, free speech stops at the door. When someone enters your house, they don’t have the right to say whatever the fuck they want—because you can throw them out if they say something you don’t like. That ain’t censorship, except to free speech absolutists like you.
My preference has long been hiding and sandboxes.
Yes, yes, you want to host racist speech without saying you host racist speech. We get it.
Does that mean I censor?
Under normal everyday logic? No.
Under your ridiculous “even the deletion of a single letter is censorship in any and every instance regardless of any and all circumstances” logic? Yes.
You twist my point that if a better option than deleterious [moderation] exists it should be used.
Except they’re not better options, unless you’re one of those ridiculous free speech absolutists.
You’re not legally, morally, or ethically bound to host speech that you don’t want on your service. Nobody can, will, or should be able to force you into hosting any kind of political propaganda for any movement, ideology, or group. Anyone who tells you otherwise can be told to fuck off.
But in your world, where you believe people have the absolute legal right to say what they want on any platform they want without anyone stopping them (or else it’s censorship), you honestly believe you’re obligated to host the legally protected speech of racists, misogynists, queerphobes, pedophiles, terrorists, and Limp Bizkit fans. You seriously believe not hosting it after it’s been posted is tantamount to silencing the person who posted it across all time and space. You sincerely believe that any attempt to prevent someone from speaking their mind on your privately owned property is the same thing as restraining them from speaking anywhere and everywhere else.
If this isn’t your belief system, you’ve done a shitty job of proving it. Every post where you talk about censorship says as much. Shit, several posters (including myself) have pointed out dozens of times how deletion and banning aren’t censorship and you still cling to the ridiculous “but they ARE!” counter“argument” like it’s a goddamn security blanket. You’re seemingly trying to be a contrarian for the sake of it.
Your logic would dictate that any kind of moderation is censorship and you yourself would be a censor—the kind of role you don’t like seeing others take but seem almost giddy to take up yourself. It’s obvious you can live with that cognitive dissonance. The real question is how long you can live with it until it destroys you.
I’m not going around looking for things that offend me, or others.
Neither do most people, but hate tends to find them instead. Or do you think racists are all waiting for orders from their leaders to start saying racial slurs? On social media, they’re sure as shit not doing that—and you can ask anyone who’s had to put up with racists in their mentions about that. Or you can keep your head in the sand and keep thinking that racism doesn’t exist if you can’t see/hear it directly.
sites I mod are generally not likely to get political in the first place
Irrelevant; hatred of all kinds doesn’t necessarily require political speech. Neither does spam, porn, and all other manner of bullshit speech.
Bad actors usually leave on their own quite quickly.
Uh-huh~. Sure they do~.
Deletion is. I consider this word art.
It isn’t. It’s deletion. You’re (partially) deleting third-party speech. Under your logic, you’re a censor—a thing you profess to hate, to despise, to want to fight with all the will you can muster.
How does it feel to be something you hate, Lostcause? How does it feel to be a fucking censor?
It shouldn’t feel good—if you were a censor, at any rate. But what you’re doing is moderation. So are people who boot bad-faith users from a platform or delete hateful speech or do anything else that prevents certain users/kinds of speech from being on that platform. It isn’t censorship, and you should fucking get that by now.
But hey, keep saying “deletion is censorship” if you want. I’ll see how long you like being called a censor because you delete third-party speech. You fine with that, you censor?
I doubt hate speech is anywhere near the level you (as a group) say it is.
You either can’t or don’t want to see it, then. You can find plenty of racism, misogyny, queerphobia, anti-Semitism, and all other kinds of “hate speech” on social media—and not always from right-wing assholes.
When it comes to hatred, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere I remove all letters except vowels.
Weren’t you the one who said “deletion is censorship”? Because I wonder how you square that logic with deleting parts of speech instead of the speech in full. Wouldn’t partial deletion be censorship—the kind of censorship you decry, you claim to hate, you say you’re opposed to seeing happen anywhere on the Internet?
Deleting trolls only makes them try harder.
That’s why services have this lovely little option called “banning assholes”. You should look into it some time. You’re not legally forced to host the speech of assholes, so I don’t know why you’d ever put up with them—well, besides your holding a flawed belief in free speech absolutism that you’ve already compromised with partial deletion (“censorship”) of speech, anyway.
Let’s say you could get social media relegated to “common carrier” status. I have a few questions for you about that:
How would you define “social media” for the purposes of this change?
How many social media sites/services would be affected by this change?
If you have plans for limiting common carrier status to “large services”, how would you define the size of services to which such status would apply?
How would you make sure this change doesn’t allow trolls/spammers/other kinds of online ne’er-do-wells who would flood those services with bullshit to…well, flood those services with bullshit?
How would you reconcile the compelled-by-law hosting of all legally protected third-party content on privately owned sites/services with the right of association, for both persons and corporations, that is protected by law under the First Amendment?
Finally, and most importantly: Do you truly believe the government should have the absolute 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—even (and especially) if you’re the owner/operator of such a service?
I hear that Harvard recently picked a new chief chaplain, who happens to be an atheist
What’s wrong with a Humanist being the chief chaplain at Harvard? Are you trying to imply that atheists of any kind don’t deserve a seat at the table of religion—or that the non-religious students at Harvard who are exploring their spirituality and religious beliefs don’t deserve an alternative to clergy from theistic religions?
So long as this team of experts doesn’t include anyone who seriously believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen, I’m not seeing any huge issues with the idea.
On the post: House Committee Investigating January 6th Capitol Invasion Goes On Social Media Fishing Expedition; Companies Should Resist
Hey, Koby: What “conservative opinions” do you believe are being censored by social media companies? Be specific.
On the post: House Committee Investigating January 6th Capitol Invasion Goes On Social Media Fishing Expedition; Companies Should Resist
I’m all for investigating the insurrection. I want to hold accountable any member of the government who had a hand in either encouraging, planning, or carrying out the riot. And this still feels too much like an authoritarian move to intimidate social media into “cracking down” on “dissent”.
On the post: Man Who Was Ejected From The United States After Appearing In A Film Critical Of ICE Asks Court To Roll Back Removal
I fail to see how that one event, horrific and destructive and society-altering as it was, justifies the continued existence of DHS and ICE.
On the post: Man Who Was Ejected From The United States After Appearing In A Film Critical Of ICE Asks Court To Roll Back Removal
Y’know, before 9/11, we didn’t have a Department of Homeland Security (definitely no unnerving undertones in that name!) or an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. We got along fine without them.
So why the flying rat fuck do we need them now?
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
They tested their assumptions at their own convenience…and failed.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Those people can still associate with that speaker—somewhere else. For what reason should the law force a privately owned interactive web service to host legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
And if being booted from Twitter for vaccine disinformation/terrorist content/Holocaust denialism was censorship, you might have a point.
But it’s not.
So you don’t.
Also: What specific opinions are you worried about being censored from social media? Be specific.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
🎵 Oh, sweet schadenfreude of life, how I enjoy thee… 🎵
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Hey, Koby—are vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism some of those “conservative opinions” you keep saying are being censored from social media? Because actual conservatives seem to think so, given the article.
If those aren’t the “conservative opinions” you keep saying are being censored, what are those opinions? Be specific.
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
shut up, Meg
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
These must be some of those “censored conservative opinions” that certain commenters keep yammering on about.
On the post: Most Information About Disinformation Is Misinformation
Which “competing opinions” are being stamped out, Koby? Be specific.
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
Play bad lawyering games, win bad lawyering prizes.
Seriously, this is the lawyering equivalent of “fuck around and find out”.
On the post: Trumpist Gettr Social Network Continues To Speed Run Content Moderation Learning Curve: Bans, Then Unbans, Roger Stone
An institution need not be crafted or upheld by racists/with racist intent for the institution to be racist. Hell, a racist institution need not even exist any more for its effects to still be felt—redlining, for instance, helped destroy paths to generational wealth for Black people long after its abolishment. (To wit: A 2018 study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition found that 74% of communities that were redlined in the 1930s are still “low-to-moderate income” communities.)
Institutional (i.e., “systemic”) racism exists as a force outside of individual interpersonal racism. Someone can uphold institutional racism without realizing it—without being an overt racist themselves. The whole point of studying institutional racism is to root out (and ultimately nullify) policies and laws and “traditions” that prevent the progress of people of color. The walls exist even if you believe they don’t. But I’ll guess you’re too busy jerking yourself off about “not seeing color” or some shit to notice or care.
Cool to know, CensoringLodos.
“…I’m still moderating, but I’m also punching myself in the dick because I believe what I’m doing is censorship and censorship is evil.” — you, probably
No, free speech stops at the door. When someone enters your house, they don’t have the right to say whatever the fuck they want—because you can throw them out if they say something you don’t like. That ain’t censorship, except to free speech absolutists like you.
Yes, yes, you want to host racist speech without saying you host racist speech. We get it.
Under normal everyday logic? No.
Under your ridiculous “even the deletion of a single letter is censorship in any and every instance regardless of any and all circumstances” logic? Yes.
Except they’re not better options, unless you’re one of those ridiculous free speech absolutists.
You’re not legally, morally, or ethically bound to host speech that you don’t want on your service. Nobody can, will, or should be able to force you into hosting any kind of political propaganda for any movement, ideology, or group. Anyone who tells you otherwise can be told to fuck off.
But in your world, where you believe people have the absolute legal right to say what they want on any platform they want without anyone stopping them (or else it’s censorship), you honestly believe you’re obligated to host the legally protected speech of racists, misogynists, queerphobes, pedophiles, terrorists, and Limp Bizkit fans. You seriously believe not hosting it after it’s been posted is tantamount to silencing the person who posted it across all time and space. You sincerely believe that any attempt to prevent someone from speaking their mind on your privately owned property is the same thing as restraining them from speaking anywhere and everywhere else.
If this isn’t your belief system, you’ve done a shitty job of proving it. Every post where you talk about censorship says as much. Shit, several posters (including myself) have pointed out dozens of times how deletion and banning aren’t censorship and you still cling to the ridiculous “but they ARE!” counter“argument” like it’s a goddamn security blanket. You’re seemingly trying to be a contrarian for the sake of it.
Your logic would dictate that any kind of moderation is censorship and you yourself would be a censor—the kind of role you don’t like seeing others take but seem almost giddy to take up yourself. It’s obvious you can live with that cognitive dissonance. The real question is how long you can live with it until it destroys you.
Have fun with that thought tonight, censor.
On the post: Trumpist Gettr Social Network Continues To Speed Run Content Moderation Learning Curve: Bans, Then Unbans, Roger Stone
Neither do most people, but hate tends to find them instead. Or do you think racists are all waiting for orders from their leaders to start saying racial slurs? On social media, they’re sure as shit not doing that—and you can ask anyone who’s had to put up with racists in their mentions about that. Or you can keep your head in the sand and keep thinking that racism doesn’t exist if you can’t see/hear it directly.
Irrelevant; hatred of all kinds doesn’t necessarily require political speech. Neither does spam, porn, and all other manner of bullshit speech.
Uh-huh~. Sure they do~.
It isn’t. It’s deletion. You’re (partially) deleting third-party speech. Under your logic, you’re a censor—a thing you profess to hate, to despise, to want to fight with all the will you can muster.
How does it feel to be something you hate, Lostcause? How does it feel to be a fucking censor?
It shouldn’t feel good—if you were a censor, at any rate. But what you’re doing is moderation. So are people who boot bad-faith users from a platform or delete hateful speech or do anything else that prevents certain users/kinds of speech from being on that platform. It isn’t censorship, and you should fucking get that by now.
But hey, keep saying “deletion is censorship” if you want. I’ll see how long you like being called a censor because you delete third-party speech. You fine with that, you censor?
On the post: Trumpist Gettr Social Network Continues To Speed Run Content Moderation Learning Curve: Bans, Then Unbans, Roger Stone
You either can’t or don’t want to see it, then. You can find plenty of racism, misogyny, queerphobia, anti-Semitism, and all other kinds of “hate speech” on social media—and not always from right-wing assholes.
Weren’t you the one who said “deletion is censorship”? Because I wonder how you square that logic with deleting parts of speech instead of the speech in full. Wouldn’t partial deletion be censorship—the kind of censorship you decry, you claim to hate, you say you’re opposed to seeing happen anywhere on the Internet?
That’s why services have this lovely little option called “banning assholes”. You should look into it some time. You’re not legally forced to host the speech of assholes, so I don’t know why you’d ever put up with them—well, besides your holding a flawed belief in free speech absolutism that you’ve already compromised with partial deletion (“censorship”) of speech, anyway.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Let’s say you could get social media relegated to “common carrier” status. I have a few questions for you about that:
How would you define “social media” for the purposes of this change?
How many social media sites/services would be affected by this change?
If you have plans for limiting common carrier status to “large services”, how would you define the size of services to which such status would apply?
How would you make sure this change doesn’t allow trolls/spammers/other kinds of online ne’er-do-wells who would flood those services with bullshit to…well, flood those services with bullshit?
How would you reconcile the compelled-by-law hosting of all legally protected third-party content on privately owned sites/services with the right of association, for both persons and corporations, that is protected by law under the First Amendment?
On the post: The Externalization Of Content Moderation: Facebook Explores 'Election Commission'
What’s wrong with a Humanist being the chief chaplain at Harvard? Are you trying to imply that atheists of any kind don’t deserve a seat at the table of religion—or that the non-religious students at Harvard who are exploring their spirituality and religious beliefs don’t deserve an alternative to clergy from theistic religions?
On the post: The Externalization Of Content Moderation: Facebook Explores 'Election Commission'
So long as this team of experts doesn’t include anyone who seriously believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen, I’m not seeing any huge issues with the idea.
On the post: States Wouldn't Be Pushing Inconsistent Tech Laws If Congress Wasn't So Corrupt
[citation needed]
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Neither does maritime law, but that clearly hasn’t stopped you.
Next >>