I think you’re missing the point. Facebook is free to remove or leave up whatever 3rd-party content it wants (outside of the DMCA, FOSTA, and federal criminal laws). That means I support Facebook’s right to remove content it finds objectionable whether I like it or not along with its right to not remove content it doesn’t mind as much regardless of whether I like it or not. Left, right, or neither, it doesn’t matter.
Now, that’s not to say that I don’t have my own opinions on individual cases of Facebook moderation decisions, but I support their legal right to do so regardless and recognize that them making a lot of mistakes is inevitable when operating on such a scale and dealing with highly subjective decisions that need to be made.
No, I mean that no health experts have any honest disagreements about it that are being censored. Also, that study doesn’t say what you claim it does. That was the problem.
I don’t think there’s any serious debate on COVID-19 beyond when, where, and how to reopen. Any “divergent views” outside of that are almost certainly wild conspiracy theories, made out of ignorance, quack science, or wishful thinking.
I also don’t think Facebook “blocks” users; it bans them.
As for “free speech”, there’s a difference between supporting FA free speech and free speech on privately-owned public platforms. It’s also not censoring to kick you off my lawn when you’re saying something I don’t like.
Except Cognizant doesn’t handle content moderation for Techdirt, or at least you have provided no verifiable evidence that it does. Last I checked, Techdirt’s moderation is left almost 100% to users, not anyone employed by Techdirt.
I’d just like to point out that Marxism in itself has absolutely nothing to do with defamation or free speech. It also has nothing to do with this discussion at all.
Do you really think calling Ship Yard beer Shit Yard Beer is not defamatory?
Yes, I—and I’d bet most legal scholars and every justice in the Supreme Court—really think calling Shipyard Beer “Shit Yard Beer” is not defamatory. It’s not claiming any facts, implicitly or explicitly, which means it can’t be defamatory by definition.
They wrote me me long ago, I've just been biding my time, accumulating evidence, analyzing the dates, times and speech patterns of various individuals, watching your bank accounts, tracking your movements, listening to your phone calls, reading your Emails, seeing what you buy, where your wife shops, where you surf, everything.
Yeah, see, most would call that “stalking”, which is generally frowned upon and possibly unlawful. It also won’t turn a clearly non-defamatory phrase based on pure opinion into defamation. No amount of evidence can change that.
Seriously, stop drinking coffee. It’s clearly bad for you.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently you lack self-awareness.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, you can still see the comment. You just have to click to see it.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are you smoking?
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not that it’s relevant, but out of curiosity, what specifically about a Russian conspiracy did Rachel Maddow supposedly lie about?
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re:
I think you’re missing the point. Facebook is free to remove or leave up whatever 3rd-party content it wants (outside of the DMCA, FOSTA, and federal criminal laws). That means I support Facebook’s right to remove content it finds objectionable whether I like it or not along with its right to not remove content it doesn’t mind as much regardless of whether I like it or not. Left, right, or neither, it doesn’t matter.
Now, that’s not to say that I don’t have my own opinions on individual cases of Facebook moderation decisions, but I support their legal right to do so regardless and recognize that them making a lot of mistakes is inevitable when operating on such a scale and dealing with highly subjective decisions that need to be made.
So tell me, how is that being “fragile”?
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re:
[citation needed], and how would that change anything?
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I sense great projection in this one…
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently, you can’t be bothered to read the comment you’re responding to, which links to the update.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
No, I mean that no health experts have any honest disagreements about it that are being censored. Also, that study doesn’t say what you claim it does. That was the problem.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re:
Pot, meet kettle.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You named one without being very specific. That’s not 5. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
I don’t think there’s any serious debate on COVID-19 beyond when, where, and how to reopen. Any “divergent views” outside of that are almost certainly wild conspiracy theories, made out of ignorance, quack science, or wishful thinking.
I also don’t think Facebook “blocks” users; it bans them.
As for “free speech”, there’s a difference between supporting FA free speech and free speech on privately-owned public platforms. It’s also not censoring to kick you off my lawn when you’re saying something I don’t like.
On the post: North Carolina Cops Fired After Their In-Car Camera Catches Them Talking About Wiping Black People 'Off The (Expletive) Map'
Now for the union to try to f*ck things up.
On the post: Judge Sides With Twitter Over Devin Nunes In Case Over Satirical Internet Cow: Section 230 Removes Twitter From Frivolous Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If the guilty cow is not identified
No one wants to hear what you do with your wife.
On the post: Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President
Re: Defamation vs. NDA
Or, in the alternative, nothing new has happened with Shiva that falls within the stuff covered on Techdirt.
On the post: Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President
Re: Re:
Except Cognizant doesn’t handle content moderation for Techdirt, or at least you have provided no verifiable evidence that it does. Last I checked, Techdirt’s moderation is left almost 100% to users, not anyone employed by Techdirt.
On the post: Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President
Re: Re:
I’d just like to point out that Marxism in itself has absolutely nothing to do with defamation or free speech. It also has nothing to do with this discussion at all.
On the post: Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President
Re: Re: Re:
Absence of evidence does mean you don’t have a successful case. If you have no evidence, you lose on summary judgement.
On the post: Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the record, I have no memory of that happening, but I’m also confident that nothing you might find would be defamatory or otherwise unlawful.
On the post: Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I—and I’d bet most legal scholars and every justice in the Supreme Court—really think calling Shipyard Beer “Shit Yard Beer” is not defamatory. It’s not claiming any facts, implicitly or explicitly, which means it can’t be defamatory by definition.
Yeah, see, most would call that “stalking”, which is generally frowned upon and possibly unlawful. It also won’t turn a clearly non-defamatory phrase based on pure opinion into defamation. No amount of evidence can change that.
Seriously, stop drinking coffee. It’s clearly bad for you.
Next >>