The thing is that that has nothing to do with the CDA. What you have a problem with is the promise of free speech and them not fulfilling that promise (in your view at least). That’s an issue involving contract and deceptive-advertising laws vs the 1st Amendment. Even excluding CDA §230, judges have explicitly ruled that there’s no cause of action there as a matter of law.
Watching the video I see the man reaching his hand towards the officer, looks like near his belt.
Anyone reaching into the personal space of another, especially near the other person[‘]s weapons[,] should expect to be swiftly distanced.
Do you have any justification for continuing to hold the man down like that for minutes after he had no pulse?
Also, putting someone in a knee chokehold is the opposite of swiftly distancing them.
Put yourself in that situation[:] you are carrying weapons, [and] an unknown person who is angry at you is reaching towards them. What would you do?
If I was in that situation, I would back off, push them away, grab the gun myself, or grab the offending hand. I would not put them in a knee chokehold. I certainly wouldn’t—and I can’t emphasize this enough—continue to hold him there after I can no longer find a pulse! Seriously, what good would that do? And does reaching for someone’s weapon deserve death?
Usual suspects like TechDirt are pulling out all the stops to make the American public believe that Antifa doesn't exist. It's all a myth, there is no such organization. You're deluded if you think there is.
I don’t know of anyone saying that Antifa doesn’t exist at all. It’s true that there is no leadership or singular organization for the Antifa movement, but the movement does exist, and some small organizations may fall within it.
Meanwhile, in downtown Seattle, Antifa has taken over capital hill, including city [h]all and the 6th precinct police division, Antifa-branded Twitter accounts are sending out messages asking for food and "more armed activists."
[citation needed] Also, even if true, that doesn’t prove that a single organization for Antifa exists. At most, that just proves the movement exists and some people in it may be dangerous.
You’re the only one gaslighting here, not TechDirt.
We began by emphasizing that Sherrill’s claim “[wa]s not premised upon the assertion that the White House must open its doors to the press, conduct press conferences, or operate press facilities.” Id. at 129. But given that “the White House has voluntarily decided to establish press facilities for correspondents who need to report therefrom” and given that “[t]hese press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists,” we held that “the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment . . . requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.”
I believe that those weren’t exactly unintended consequences. Indeed, the whole point was that different sites can enforce different rules as they see fit without fear of liability for doing so, especially liability for the speech that they didn’t create themselves or for removing what they consider objectionable speech.
IOW, your problem isn’t with unintended consequences but the law working as intended and expected or with things that either have nothing to do with §230 or don’t actually happen. That you don’t personally like those consequences (or believe without nonanecdotal evidence that they occur) doesn’t make them unintended consequences. Basically, what you see as a problem we don’t see as one.
I propose Geigner's Effect. I heard somewhere that if you write for this site long enough you get an effect named after you.
The most recent example of, ahem, Geigner's Effect (actually first proposed on this site by Mike Masnick, but he already has an Effect)
I’m sorry, but what’s the Masnick Effect? Or are you talking about the Streisand Effect? If so, then it shouldn’t be Geigner’s Effect but something more like the Yahoo Effect or something.
For the record, I 100% agree. I do find it unfortunate that “not all cops” is being used to defend the system, as opposed to individuals or to argue against all individuals being painted the same, but I totally understand why that is.
I condemn the riots as actions, not necessarily the people doing them. I blame the bad cops, bad chiefs, bad unions, and the interlopers who provoke riots for the situation.
Also, you have to remember that quite often when these things devolve into rioting, it's because of things that happen on the ground, not something they set out to do. Outside agitators, or a badly managed police response, seem to be a common theme in things that turn that way.
Oh, absolutely! No arguments here!
Yes, but the question is - where is the line.
The line is that, at some point, there’s clearly a systemic issue, as it is here. I still don’t judge all cops the same way, but I do judge many of the departments, the current state of the law, hesitant prosecutors, and bias from many jurors and some judges, as well as the bad actors themselves.
I don’t believe the members of any group should all be painted with the same brush, period.
I’m not saying that many cops aren’t bad cops or that the far too many not-so-bad cops’ failing to do anything about the bad ones is excusable (at least not per se). I’m not saying either way about how many cops fall into each category (I don’t have any statistics to say anything on that). However, I know that there are at least some cops who fall into neither category and are genuinely good cops. Maybe they’re the exception and not the rule, but that doesn’t mean they don’t matter or don’t exist.
As for caution, I am fairly cautious when talking to anyone I don’t know in-person or on the phone, especially when they have a gun, and honestly, when it comes to dealing with authority, as long as there’s a non-zero chance of it coming back to bite me, I’ll keep silent as any lawyer would advise. I will still obey any lawful order, of course.
I’m not saying that everyone does or should feel the same as me. So long as you have a reasonable basis for your opinion and it’s not dangerous, I’m okay with others’ disagreement. My point in bringing up my opinion here was to add nuance, not to persuade anyone to agree with me.
Just an FYI, I’ve heard of some people who believe that Revelations was far more metaphorical than literal. Some think that it’s not the literal destruction of the world but rather a major paradigm shift in the world. Others think it’s just saying that God will save the faithful when the world ends as predicted by many scientists rather than by direct intervention by God.
I, personally, think it was just thrown in for the same reason that Christmas is in December: many pagan religions (as well as Jews) believe the world will end eventually, so just repurpose it to fit Christianity. It’s not exactly unusual in that regard. But, regardless, it’s such a different tone from everything else in the New Testament that I don’t really place the same amount of weight on it’s predictions.
I’m sorry, but you seem to be assuming that everyone is either pro-BLM, for killing cops, and pro-rioting or none of those things. The majority of the people in the majority of the protests have been peaceful, but while I understand the rioters’ frustrations, I don’t condone their behavior. I also don’t support killing cops because of the incident, though I do understand why people may do so. I support BLM, but not every cop should be painted with the same brush.
I don’t think you understand the definitions of “peaceful protest” or “lawless rioters”. By definition, a peaceful protest can’t kill anyone. A riot that coincides with a peaceful protest is not actually part of the peaceful protest.
Most leftists (including blacks) that I know or know of aren’t so radical. Nothing about oppressing whites or paying reparations or anything like that.
That said, to the ones who were previously favored in the old regime, moving towards equality may feel like oppression. That’s not because it actually is oppression; it’s just that the disfavored will have more rights than previously but not more rights than the favored, and the favored will have some rights removed than they had before but none that the disfavored did or will have.
Let me ask you something: if any alleged bias has little-to-no effect on the results, and having bias is in no way illegal or unlawful and is actuality protected by both the CDA and the Constitution, does the existence of bias actually matter? If placing a hand on the scale is not punishable and fails to actually tip the scales in their favor, why does it matter?
There are two pieces of logic in play here:
That any alleged bias is ineffective in actually discouraging interactions with conservative content.
An alternative explanation to conservatives allegedly being censored more than liberals is that conservative content receives more interactions and so gets prioritized in moderation efforts. No bias is necessary even if conservatives are treated differently (which is still unproven). There’s a confounding factor involved here.
And the argument is not whether conservatives are moderated more on [platform/search engine] but whether there is sufficient evidence to support that conclusion along with these two things: the moderators at [platform/search engine] have an anti-conservative bias and that bias is responsible for anti-conservative-leaning results in moderation. There’re also the separate but related questions of whether the end results actually lead to conservative opinions being silenced or suppressed and whether or not this is legal, lawful, and/or protected by the Constitution. This study addresses two of these: whether evidence is sufficient to support that any imbalance in moderation decisions must be due solely (or at least primarily) to anti-conservative bias by moderators and not other factors like tone, interactions, etc. and whether conservative opinions actually end up suppressed in the larger picture.
Basically, any bias doesn’t appear to actually matter. We lack evidence to support that conservatives actually get moderated more by a stastically significant margin when all other factors (tone, interaction, speaker’s past history, number of followers, number of total posts, number of objectionable posts, how badly and obviously it goes against the T&C, etc.) are taken into account, any bias that does exist doesn’t appear to be affecting whether or not people are getting the message anyways, and it’s perfectly lawful, legal, and constitutionally protected even if all the allegations of bias are true.
I’m pretty sure that most of us, including Masnick, have issues with “genocidal race hatred” (which is redundant). None of us are “anti-white”. There’s also the issues with the tone and language used, since those often play a much larger role in what does or doesn’t get moderated than who the hatred is directed towards.
I’m also unsure what your point is, since I’m pretty sure that Masnick never mentioned Jeong’s Tweets in a supportive or uncaring manner.
On the post: Ron Wyden Explains Why President Trump (And Many Others) Are Totally Wrong About Section 230
Re: Re: Re:
The thing is that that has nothing to do with the CDA. What you have a problem with is the promise of free speech and them not fulfilling that promise (in your view at least). That’s an issue involving contract and deceptive-advertising laws vs the 1st Amendment. Even excluding CDA §230, judges have explicitly ruled that there’s no cause of action there as a matter of law.
On the post: Trump Campaign Is So Pathetic It Claims CNN Poll Is Defamatory; Demands Retraction
In addition to the zip drives, do they not know that DVDs are disks? If by “disks” they just mean CDs, then what about floppy discs and Blu-Rays?
But seriously, why include zip drives? Why not add in audio- and videocassettes, maybe even 8-tracks or tape reels, while they’re at it?
On the post: Trump Campaign Is So Pathetic It Claims CNN Poll Is Defamatory; Demands Retraction
Re: Defamatory Polls
No, it isn’t. Biased or not, that doesn’t make it defamatory. After all, there isn’t anything technically false about the statement from the results.
On the post: Trump, DOJ Claim ANTIFA, Other Extremists Are Hijacking Protests. DOJ Filings Show No Link To Outside Groups.
Re: Elderly man pushed
Do you have any justification for continuing to hold the man down like that for minutes after he had no pulse?
Also, putting someone in a knee chokehold is the opposite of swiftly distancing them.
If I was in that situation, I would back off, push them away, grab the gun myself, or grab the offending hand. I would not put them in a knee chokehold. I certainly wouldn’t—and I can’t emphasize this enough—continue to hold him there after I can no longer find a pulse! Seriously, what good would that do? And does reaching for someone’s weapon deserve death?
On the post: Trump, DOJ Claim ANTIFA, Other Extremists Are Hijacking Protests. DOJ Filings Show No Link To Outside Groups.
Re: gaslighting
I don’t know of anyone saying that Antifa doesn’t exist at all. It’s true that there is no leadership or singular organization for the Antifa movement, but the movement does exist, and some small organizations may fall within it.
[citation needed] Also, even if true, that doesn’t prove that a single organization for Antifa exists. At most, that just proves the movement exists and some people in it may be dangerous.
You’re the only one gaslighting here, not TechDirt.
On the post: Appeals Court Again Says That The White House Can't Just Remove A Press Pass Because It Didn't Like A Reporter Mocking Seb Gorka
Re: Re: revoke all press passes
From the opinion:
On the post: Ron Wyden Explains Why President Trump (And Many Others) Are Totally Wrong About Section 230
Re:
I believe that those weren’t exactly unintended consequences. Indeed, the whole point was that different sites can enforce different rules as they see fit without fear of liability for doing so, especially liability for the speech that they didn’t create themselves or for removing what they consider objectionable speech.
IOW, your problem isn’t with unintended consequences but the law working as intended and expected or with things that either have nothing to do with §230 or don’t actually happen. That you don’t personally like those consequences (or believe without nonanecdotal evidence that they occur) doesn’t make them unintended consequences. Basically, what you see as a problem we don’t see as one.
On the post: Hacks Are Always Worse Than Reported: Nintendo's Breached Accounts Magically Double
Eponymous laws
I’m sorry, but what’s the Masnick Effect? Or are you talking about the Streisand Effect? If so, then it shouldn’t be Geigner’s Effect but something more like the Yahoo Effect or something.
On the post: #NoRightsMatter: US Postal Service, Law Enforcement Team Up To Seize 'Black Lives Matter' Facemasks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Game Ever More Lost
For the record, I 100% agree. I do find it unfortunate that “not all cops” is being used to defend the system, as opposed to individuals or to argue against all individuals being painted the same, but I totally understand why that is.
I condemn the riots as actions, not necessarily the people doing them. I blame the bad cops, bad chiefs, bad unions, and the interlopers who provoke riots for the situation.
On the post: #NoRightsMatter: US Postal Service, Law Enforcement Team Up To Seize 'Black Lives Matter' Facemasks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Game Ever More Lost
Oh, absolutely! No arguments here!
The line is that, at some point, there’s clearly a systemic issue, as it is here. I still don’t judge all cops the same way, but I do judge many of the departments, the current state of the law, hesitant prosecutors, and bias from many jurors and some judges, as well as the bad actors themselves.
On the post: #NoRightsMatter: US Postal Service, Law Enforcement Team Up To Seize 'Black Lives Matter' Facemasks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Game Ever More Lost
I don’t believe the members of any group should all be painted with the same brush, period.
I’m not saying that many cops aren’t bad cops or that the far too many not-so-bad cops’ failing to do anything about the bad ones is excusable (at least not per se). I’m not saying either way about how many cops fall into each category (I don’t have any statistics to say anything on that). However, I know that there are at least some cops who fall into neither category and are genuinely good cops. Maybe they’re the exception and not the rule, but that doesn’t mean they don’t matter or don’t exist.
As for caution, I am fairly cautious when talking to anyone I don’t know in-person or on the phone, especially when they have a gun, and honestly, when it comes to dealing with authority, as long as there’s a non-zero chance of it coming back to bite me, I’ll keep silent as any lawyer would advise. I will still obey any lawful order, of course.
I’m not saying that everyone does or should feel the same as me. So long as you have a reasonable basis for your opinion and it’s not dangerous, I’m okay with others’ disagreement. My point in bringing up my opinion here was to add nuance, not to persuade anyone to agree with me.
On the post: Cops -- Newly Wary Of Looking Like Authoritarian Assholes -- Open Fire On, Arrest Journalists
Re: The window of opportunity...
You forgot those who got kicked out of the force for trying to do something about the bad cops.
On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.
Re: Re:
Just an FYI, I’ve heard of some people who believe that Revelations was far more metaphorical than literal. Some think that it’s not the literal destruction of the world but rather a major paradigm shift in the world. Others think it’s just saying that God will save the faithful when the world ends as predicted by many scientists rather than by direct intervention by God.
I, personally, think it was just thrown in for the same reason that Christmas is in December: many pagan religions (as well as Jews) believe the world will end eventually, so just repurpose it to fit Christianity. It’s not exactly unusual in that regard. But, regardless, it’s such a different tone from everything else in the New Testament that I don’t really place the same amount of weight on it’s predictions.
On the post: #NoRightsMatter: US Postal Service, Law Enforcement Team Up To Seize 'Black Lives Matter' Facemasks
Re:
Wait… wasn’t he on the ground? Wouldn’t that be an opposing object on the front?
On the post: #NoRightsMatter: US Postal Service, Law Enforcement Team Up To Seize 'Black Lives Matter' Facemasks
Re: Re: Game Ever More Lost
I’m sorry, but you seem to be assuming that everyone is either pro-BLM, for killing cops, and pro-rioting or none of those things. The majority of the people in the majority of the protests have been peaceful, but while I understand the rioters’ frustrations, I don’t condone their behavior. I also don’t support killing cops because of the incident, though I do understand why people may do so. I support BLM, but not every cop should be painted with the same brush.
On the post: #NoRightsMatter: US Postal Service, Law Enforcement Team Up To Seize 'Black Lives Matter' Facemasks
Re:
I don’t think you understand the definitions of “peaceful protest” or “lawless rioters”. By definition, a peaceful protest can’t kill anyone. A riot that coincides with a peaceful protest is not actually part of the peaceful protest.
Also, if you were killed, how are you typing?
On the post: #NoRightsMatter: US Postal Service, Law Enforcement Team Up To Seize 'Black Lives Matter' Facemasks
Re: Re: Militant Left Wingers
Most leftists (including blacks) that I know or know of aren’t so radical. Nothing about oppressing whites or paying reparations or anything like that.
That said, to the ones who were previously favored in the old regime, moving towards equality may feel like oppression. That’s not because it actually is oppression; it’s just that the disfavored will have more rights than previously but not more rights than the favored, and the favored will have some rights removed than they had before but none that the disfavored did or will have.
On the post: New Study Finds No Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias In Facebook Moderation (If Anything, It's The Opposite)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performance Measure
Let me ask you something: if any alleged bias has little-to-no effect on the results, and having bias is in no way illegal or unlawful and is actuality protected by both the CDA and the Constitution, does the existence of bias actually matter? If placing a hand on the scale is not punishable and fails to actually tip the scales in their favor, why does it matter?
There are two pieces of logic in play here:
That any alleged bias is ineffective in actually discouraging interactions with conservative content.
And the argument is not whether conservatives are moderated more on [platform/search engine] but whether there is sufficient evidence to support that conclusion along with these two things: the moderators at [platform/search engine] have an anti-conservative bias and that bias is responsible for anti-conservative-leaning results in moderation. There’re also the separate but related questions of whether the end results actually lead to conservative opinions being silenced or suppressed and whether or not this is legal, lawful, and/or protected by the Constitution. This study addresses two of these: whether evidence is sufficient to support that any imbalance in moderation decisions must be due solely (or at least primarily) to anti-conservative bias by moderators and not other factors like tone, interactions, etc. and whether conservative opinions actually end up suppressed in the larger picture.
Basically, any bias doesn’t appear to actually matter. We lack evidence to support that conservatives actually get moderated more by a stastically significant margin when all other factors (tone, interaction, speaker’s past history, number of followers, number of total posts, number of objectionable posts, how badly and obviously it goes against the T&C, etc.) are taken into account, any bias that does exist doesn’t appear to be affecting whether or not people are getting the message anyways, and it’s perfectly lawful, legal, and constitutionally protected even if all the allegations of bias are true.
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m pretty sure that most of us, including Masnick, have issues with “genocidal race hatred” (which is redundant). None of us are “anti-white”. There’s also the issues with the tone and language used, since those often play a much larger role in what does or doesn’t get moderated than who the hatred is directed towards.
I’m also unsure what your point is, since I’m pretty sure that Masnick never mentioned Jeong’s Tweets in a supportive or uncaring manner.
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m a Christian, but you have presented a terrible argument to support God’s existence.
Next >>