They’re often raised to never criticize certain authority figures. They then internalize that criticism aimed at them is wrong. People not used to hearing criticism will do anything to silence it.
Verification is fine. It’s the limits on what can be used to verify ID that concerns people—as was the case with provisions in that smacked down North Carolina voter ID law, which were found to have targeted Black people with “near-surgical precision”. That’s the whole point of the GOP’s post-2020 voting restrictions laws: to stop people who aren’t known for voting Republican from voting. The GOP doesn’t want free and fair elections; they want elections they can win, no matter how many people have to be disenfranchised and how many elections have to be tainted by their bullshit in the process.
The amount of that punishment will not be enough to deter him from his bullshit. The next court to sanction him—and there will be another one, of that I have no doubt—needs to tack on an extra zero to the end of whatever amount they deem “sufficient”. Only after the courts start hitting him in the wallet hard enough to make his clients stop paying for his incompetence will he ever even think about changing his ways.
If it walks, talks, and votes for the GOP like one… 👀
I voted for someone who would yadda yadda yadda
Were the GOP able to translate their platform into law, said platform would deny people like you equal access to your civil rights. Hell, if the GOP listened to the religious extremists trying to institute Christian sharia in the United States—or took them 100% seriously, anyway—people like you would probably be in jail (or in the ground) for even existing.
When you voted for Old 45, you voted for the GOP. You voted for their anti-queer bigotry, their unwillingness to forcefully denounce and take action against white supremacy, their apathy towards the climate change crisis, their hatred of the poor as “lazy” and “weak-willed”, and their hatred of anything that even remotely calls into question the greatness of the shining city on a hill that is the United States (including the teaching of accurate history that doesn’t whitewash the white supremacy away). Even if you say you voted for him for other reasons, you have to own your vote for the entire GOP platform, which it crafted specifically for Trump. (If you don’t believe me: The GOP literally reused its 2016 platform word-for-word in 2020.)
Your vote was a vote for bigotry, for the bootlicking of the rich, for the suffering and despair of millions. More than 400,000 people paid the ultimate cost for Donald Trump and his lackeys in the GOP to “own the libs”. I hope all of those bodies were worth your support for that misogynistic, narcissitic, sociopathic elderly game show host feeding his ego while trying to play at being president as if it were an acting gig instead of a public service. Because in voting for him after the four years in which he shat upon every norm of the office, every ally of the country, and damn near everything good and decent about America (like peaceful protests), you supported everything he ever did in office—the bad with whatever minimal good he managed to accomplish.
I don’t have to worry about my conscience in that regard. I voted for the Democrats. For all their cowardice and incompetence, at least they’re not actively trying to kill me as part of an effort to “own the right-wing nutjobs”.
DRM (initialism for “Digital Rights Management”) — noun — closed-source black box code that acts as the digital equivalent of an ankle bracelet tracking device for paying customers but does nothing to prevent copyright infringement carried out by non-paying customers; colloquially known as “Digital Restrictions Management”; a stupid fucking idea
Show me where I said you did. I don’t like people shoving words down my throat that didn’t first come from it; I try my damnedest to avoid doing the same, save for obvious hyperbole.
Wow, you quote a Republican?
I quote a saying that is a marker of true patriotism: the idea that you can love a country but also think it has problems that need fixing. The United States is not a perfect country; hell, it might not even be a “great” one. But it is my country—right or wrong—and I’d rather its wrongs be set right than ignored or whitewashed. That’s why I’m willing to accept the fact that the majority of the Founding Fathers enslaved Black people—and one of said Founding Fathers repeatedly raped one of those enslaved Black people starting when she was 14 and forced her to bear his children.
Now compare that to the nationalists of the Republican party, who keep trying to ban any discussion of race in schools under the guise of banning “critical race theory” and (in my lifetime) have always shit on people who protest the problems with America. They’re not patriots; they’re fascists-in-waiting. They don’t want to fix America—they want to strip-mine its resources (including its “human resources”) and sell everything to the highest bidder, then sail away on yachts and hole up in super-secure mega-mansions to ride out the consequences of their decisions.
My country is wrong more often than it is right. But I love my country enough to say that. Show me a current officeholding Republican who is willing to say the same.
When conservative assholes complain about a “media bubble”, it’s often a read-between-the-lines way of saying “the media doesn’t let me say mean things about [marginalized group] any more” or somesuch. Like, those assholes think “the gay issue” should still be an “issue” that’s up for “debate”, but they can’t say that out loud, so they use “mEdIa BuBbLe” and “i’M jUsT aSkInG qUeStIoNs” and other such horseshit to disguise their prejudice.
Considering how you’ve said you’d be fine with hosting bigoted speech and how you voted for Donald “let’s kick trans people out of the military” Trump? I hope you can understand how I got the same impression from you.
My problem is that the current large media companies have gone out of their way to create a thought bubble.
I’m sorry that the bigotry you want to host isn’t acceptable on those services, but that’s something you’re going to have to deal with on your own time, son.
I’d find it interesting if such people who claim to be American patriots would do anything to dishonour our flag.
I’d find it disconcerting if people who claim to be American patriots wouldn’t dishonor a symbol of the country they claim to love as an act of criticism of the actions done in the name of that country and its people. I’d find it discomforting if people who wrap themselves in the flag can’t understand the idea that people who burn the flag have serious issues with the country represented by that piece of cloth. I’d find it disturbing if people who make a big fuss about showing their patriotism with flags and borderline-religious rituals like the national anthem think anyone who doesn’t do the same—or even protests those things—isn’t sufficiently patriotic enough to be a citizen.
People who criticize the country by burning flags and protesting during the anthem are absolutely patriots—hell, they’re better patriots than those who claim the title without criticizing the country. A nationalist believes their country is always right and needs no improvement; a patriot knows their country can be wrong, but can also improve itself.
“My country, right or wrong—if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right.” That’s the motto of a patriot. Learn it, then live it.
I believe in free speech. I believe everyone, no matter who they are or what speech they espouse, has a right to speak their mind. No one should generally have the right to interfere with the speech of others.
But that doesn’t mean I believe in “free reach”.
Nothing in the First Amendment or any related jurisprudence surrounding that amendment/speech in general guarantees anyone the right to use private property they don’t own as a platform. No law, statute, or “common law” court ruling gives me the right to post on Twitter—nor does it give a Twitter employee the right to post on an interactive web service I own/operate. I am not obligated to let anyone use my property as a megaphone for views I don’t agree with.
You, on the other hand, seem to believe in “free reach”—the idea that, yes, someone is entitled a spot on a privately owned service—so long as you’re the one who owns the property. But in carrying that belief to its logical conclusion, you’d be associating yourself and your property with the most vile, odious, and altogether offensive speech you can think of (and plenty that you can’t). Don’t want your service associated with Sonic the Hedgehog vore art, Twilight spanking fanfiction, pro–LGBTQ+ genocide propaganda that doesn’t actually call for violence but intimates that violence is the only “solution” to “the gay problem”, and basically anything else that repulses you, horrifies you, and otherwise makes you lose your entire faith in humanity? Too bad—under your rules and your logic and everything you’ve said on the matter to date, you’d be associated with hosting all that speech regardless of whether you’d want that association.
DeviantArt is a place to find some wonderful art. It’s filled with talented artists from around the world in multiple fields of artistic expression. But take one wrong turn and bam, you’re wandering around Mpreg Country and wondering where the brain bleach is. DeviantArt is as much associated with the best examples of third-party speech on the site as it is with the “worst”. And nothing short of a sitewide purge with rules to prevent the deleted content from being reposted will ever change that fact. So when you say your service wouldn’t suffer a similar fate, you’re not just wrong—you’re fractally wrong.
Containment doesn’t work with trolls. Trying to distance yourself from speech you openly allow—and even welcome!—on your service won’t work, either. Your service would quickly become another example of the “Worst People” Problem, only you’d seemingly have no problem with that because “eVeRyBoDy DeSeRvEs To Be HeArD”.
But you know what’d suck the most for you? In that situation, you’d also be one of the Worst People—maybe even the worst of them all.
I also believe everyone has the right to be heard!
Your belief is bullshit. Everyone has a right to speak; nobody has the right to an audience.
When they are all in a room together they can feed off each other until they give up and leave or drop dead.
Unless you send a message that trolls are more than welcome to shit up part of your service, in which case the number of trolls will quickly multiply. Given how often you’ve said you have no problem hosting everything from racial slurs to Nazi propaganda, you’d be sending that exact message. And if you think “containment” would do anything to stop them, I will again remind you that 4chan’s /pol/ board was intended to be a containment board and it failed miserably at that job. Your service wouldn’t be any different unless you were able to afford 24/7 moderators to move speech the instant it breaks out of containment—and if Facebook can’t do it, neither could you.
An asshole can associate with Twitter users—but if the asshole has been kicked off Twitter, they’ll have to find other ways to stay in touch with the Twitter users in question. Twitter is under no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to serve as a gathering spot for assholes.
Should I prepare your crow now, or do you want me to wait until after the appeals courts smack down this inane attempt at circumventing the First Amendment?
The only reason you think such scarcity exists is because you’re only looking at “Big Tech”. But plenty of smaller services exist, and plenty of people use them every day. And plenty of communication services that most people don’t think of as “social media services” also exist—Discord, Slack, Zoom, Skype, imageboards like 4chan, old school phpBB forums, and God knows how many others.
If you want to communicate with others, you can do so outside of Twitter and Facebook. That you’re obsessed with them in the way you are tells me that you’re not upset that they’re so big—you’re upset that they’re big enough that they don’t need you and whatever bullshit you’d bring to the table. But those services don’t owe you a spot. You’re not entitled to one, either.
The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else. That goes equally as much for me as it does for you. When you can learn to live with that fact, you might be worth talking to. In the meantime: You need to shut the fuck up when grown folks are talking, you sweet summer child.
A supermarket is under no obligation to host your speech in any part of the store, including windows and doors, that isn’t designated for third-party speech. You can’t go down the aisles and tape “this tastes like shit” signs to whatever food you hate, then tell the supermarket that it must keep those signs up “or else”. They will metaphorically throw you out for doing that—and if you resist with violence, it’s likely that you’ll be literally thrown out by either the cops or some customers who don’t give a fuck about whether they hurt you (or your feelings).
A cable company is under no legal obligation to carry your speech if you send them a video manifesto of why Twilight is a better love story than Titanic. (Spoilers: Deadpool is a better love story than both of them combined.)
A telecom is under no obligation to host your speech under any circumstances. While it may offer you space on the Internet as part of your service package, it has every right to revoke that privilege if you abuse it.
Show me the directly on-point law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that spells out, in detailed and unambiguous terms, what third-party speech the government can compel any corporation, public accomodating business, or interactive web service to host.
On the post: Sixth Circuit Says School Board Can't Boot People From Meetings Just Because It Doesn't Like What They're Saying
They’re often raised to never criticize certain authority figures. They then internalize that criticism aimed at them is wrong. People not used to hearing criticism will do anything to silence it.
On the post: Ohio Legislators Pass Bill That Would Make It Easier For Cops To Make Bullshit Arrests Of Bystanders
Verification is fine. It’s the limits on what can be used to verify ID that concerns people—as was the case with provisions in that smacked down North Carolina voter ID law, which were found to have targeted Black people with “near-surgical precision”. That’s the whole point of the GOP’s post-2020 voting restrictions laws: to stop people who aren’t known for voting Republican from voting. The GOP doesn’t want free and fair elections; they want elections they can win, no matter how many people have to be disenfranchised and how many elections have to be tainted by their bullshit in the process.
On the post: 'Resident Evil 8: Village' Broken Due To DRM, Cracked Version Fixes It
Honestly, Umbrella Corporation being behind DRM would be…fitting.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Lawyer, Steven Biss, Finally Gets Sanctioned In Wacky Defamation Case
The amount of that punishment will not be enough to deter him from his bullshit. The next court to sanction him—and there will be another one, of that I have no doubt—needs to tack on an extra zero to the end of whatever amount they deem “sufficient”. Only after the courts start hitting him in the wallet hard enough to make his clients stop paying for his incompetence will he ever even think about changing his ways.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
If it walks, talks, and votes for the GOP like one… 👀
Were the GOP able to translate their platform into law, said platform would deny people like you equal access to your civil rights. Hell, if the GOP listened to the religious extremists trying to institute Christian sharia in the United States—or took them 100% seriously, anyway—people like you would probably be in jail (or in the ground) for even existing.
When you voted for Old 45, you voted for the GOP. You voted for their anti-queer bigotry, their unwillingness to forcefully denounce and take action against white supremacy, their apathy towards the climate change crisis, their hatred of the poor as “lazy” and “weak-willed”, and their hatred of anything that even remotely calls into question the greatness of the shining city on a hill that is the United States (including the teaching of accurate history that doesn’t whitewash the white supremacy away). Even if you say you voted for him for other reasons, you have to own your vote for the entire GOP platform, which it crafted specifically for Trump. (If you don’t believe me: The GOP literally reused its 2016 platform word-for-word in 2020.)
Your vote was a vote for bigotry, for the bootlicking of the rich, for the suffering and despair of millions. More than 400,000 people paid the ultimate cost for Donald Trump and his lackeys in the GOP to “own the libs”. I hope all of those bodies were worth your support for that misogynistic, narcissitic, sociopathic elderly game show host feeding his ego while trying to play at being president as if it were an acting gig instead of a public service. Because in voting for him after the four years in which he shat upon every norm of the office, every ally of the country, and damn near everything good and decent about America (like peaceful protests), you supported everything he ever did in office—the bad with whatever minimal good he managed to accomplish.
I don’t have to worry about my conscience in that regard. I voted for the Democrats. For all their cowardice and incompetence, at least they’re not actively trying to kill me as part of an effort to “own the right-wing nutjobs”.
On the post: 'Resident Evil 8: Village' Broken Due To DRM, Cracked Version Fixes It
A relevant copypasta:
DRM (initialism for “Digital Rights Management”) — noun — closed-source black box code that acts as the digital equivalent of an ankle bracelet tracking device for paying customers but does nothing to prevent copyright infringement carried out by non-paying customers; colloquially known as “Digital Restrictions Management”; a stupid fucking idea
On the post: Utah Deputy Arrests Person For Destroying 'Back The Blue' Sign, Adds Hate Crime Enhancement For 'Smirking'
Show me where I said you did. I don’t like people shoving words down my throat that didn’t first come from it; I try my damnedest to avoid doing the same, save for obvious hyperbole.
I quote a saying that is a marker of true patriotism: the idea that you can love a country but also think it has problems that need fixing. The United States is not a perfect country; hell, it might not even be a “great” one. But it is my country—right or wrong—and I’d rather its wrongs be set right than ignored or whitewashed. That’s why I’m willing to accept the fact that the majority of the Founding Fathers enslaved Black people—and one of said Founding Fathers repeatedly raped one of those enslaved Black people starting when she was 14 and forced her to bear his children.
Now compare that to the nationalists of the Republican party, who keep trying to ban any discussion of race in schools under the guise of banning “critical race theory” and (in my lifetime) have always shit on people who protest the problems with America. They’re not patriots; they’re fascists-in-waiting. They don’t want to fix America—they want to strip-mine its resources (including its “human resources”) and sell everything to the highest bidder, then sail away on yachts and hole up in super-secure mega-mansions to ride out the consequences of their decisions.
My country is wrong more often than it is right. But I love my country enough to say that. Show me a current officeholding Republican who is willing to say the same.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
When conservative assholes complain about a “media bubble”, it’s often a read-between-the-lines way of saying “the media doesn’t let me say mean things about [marginalized group] any more” or somesuch. Like, those assholes think “the gay issue” should still be an “issue” that’s up for “debate”, but they can’t say that out loud, so they use “mEdIa BuBbLe” and “i’M jUsT aSkInG qUeStIoNs” and other such horseshit to disguise their prejudice.
Considering how you’ve said you’d be fine with hosting bigoted speech and how you voted for Donald “let’s kick trans people out of the military” Trump? I hope you can understand how I got the same impression from you.
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawYeah, SCOTUS is basically a “tiebreaker” of sorts. Not that that’s a bad thing.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
I’m sorry that the bigotry you want to host isn’t acceptable on those services, but that’s something you’re going to have to deal with on your own time, son.
On the post: Utah Deputy Arrests Person For Destroying 'Back The Blue' Sign, Adds Hate Crime Enhancement For 'Smirking'
I’d find it disconcerting if people who claim to be American patriots wouldn’t dishonor a symbol of the country they claim to love as an act of criticism of the actions done in the name of that country and its people. I’d find it discomforting if people who wrap themselves in the flag can’t understand the idea that people who burn the flag have serious issues with the country represented by that piece of cloth. I’d find it disturbing if people who make a big fuss about showing their patriotism with flags and borderline-religious rituals like the national anthem think anyone who doesn’t do the same—or even protests those things—isn’t sufficiently patriotic enough to be a citizen.
People who criticize the country by burning flags and protesting during the anthem are absolutely patriots—hell, they’re better patriots than those who claim the title without criticizing the country. A nationalist believes their country is always right and needs no improvement; a patriot knows their country can be wrong, but can also improve itself.
“My country, right or wrong—if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right.” That’s the motto of a patriot. Learn it, then live it.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
I believe in free speech. I believe everyone, no matter who they are or what speech they espouse, has a right to speak their mind. No one should generally have the right to interfere with the speech of others.
But that doesn’t mean I believe in “free reach”.
Nothing in the First Amendment or any related jurisprudence surrounding that amendment/speech in general guarantees anyone the right to use private property they don’t own as a platform. No law, statute, or “common law” court ruling gives me the right to post on Twitter—nor does it give a Twitter employee the right to post on an interactive web service I own/operate. I am not obligated to let anyone use my property as a megaphone for views I don’t agree with.
You, on the other hand, seem to believe in “free reach”—the idea that, yes, someone is entitled a spot on a privately owned service—so long as you’re the one who owns the property. But in carrying that belief to its logical conclusion, you’d be associating yourself and your property with the most vile, odious, and altogether offensive speech you can think of (and plenty that you can’t). Don’t want your service associated with Sonic the Hedgehog vore art, Twilight spanking fanfiction, pro–LGBTQ+ genocide propaganda that doesn’t actually call for violence but intimates that violence is the only “solution” to “the gay problem”, and basically anything else that repulses you, horrifies you, and otherwise makes you lose your entire faith in humanity? Too bad—under your rules and your logic and everything you’ve said on the matter to date, you’d be associated with hosting all that speech regardless of whether you’d want that association.
DeviantArt is a place to find some wonderful art. It’s filled with talented artists from around the world in multiple fields of artistic expression. But take one wrong turn and bam, you’re wandering around Mpreg Country and wondering where the brain bleach is. DeviantArt is as much associated with the best examples of third-party speech on the site as it is with the “worst”. And nothing short of a sitewide purge with rules to prevent the deleted content from being reposted will ever change that fact. So when you say your service wouldn’t suffer a similar fate, you’re not just wrong—you’re fractally wrong.
Containment doesn’t work with trolls. Trying to distance yourself from speech you openly allow—and even welcome!—on your service won’t work, either. Your service would quickly become another example of the “Worst People” Problem, only you’d seemingly have no problem with that because “eVeRyBoDy DeSeRvEs To Be HeArD”.
But you know what’d suck the most for you? In that situation, you’d also be one of the Worst People—maybe even the worst of them all.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
Your belief is bullshit. Everyone has a right to speak; nobody has the right to an audience.
Unless you send a message that trolls are more than welcome to shit up part of your service, in which case the number of trolls will quickly multiply. Given how often you’ve said you have no problem hosting everything from racial slurs to Nazi propaganda, you’d be sending that exact message. And if you think “containment” would do anything to stop them, I will again remind you that 4chan’s /pol/ board was intended to be a containment board and it failed miserably at that job. Your service wouldn’t be any different unless you were able to afford 24/7 moderators to move speech the instant it breaks out of containment—and if Facebook can’t do it, neither could you.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
An asshole can associate with Twitter users—but if the asshole has been kicked off Twitter, they’ll have to find other ways to stay in touch with the Twitter users in question. Twitter is under no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to serve as a gathering spot for assholes.
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawShould I prepare your crow now, or do you want me to wait until after the appeals courts smack down this inane attempt at circumventing the First Amendment?
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
…says the guy who thinks he needs an entire police force and a year’s worth of paperwork to kick an unruly guest out of his own home. 🤔
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
The only reason you think such scarcity exists is because you’re only looking at “Big Tech”. But plenty of smaller services exist, and plenty of people use them every day. And plenty of communication services that most people don’t think of as “social media services” also exist—Discord, Slack, Zoom, Skype, imageboards like 4chan, old school phpBB forums, and God knows how many others.
If you want to communicate with others, you can do so outside of Twitter and Facebook. That you’re obsessed with them in the way you are tells me that you’re not upset that they’re so big—you’re upset that they’re big enough that they don’t need you and whatever bullshit you’d bring to the table. But those services don’t owe you a spot. You’re not entitled to one, either.
The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else. That goes equally as much for me as it does for you. When you can learn to live with that fact, you might be worth talking to. In the meantime: You need to shut the fuck up when grown folks are talking, you sweet summer child.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
A supermarket is under no obligation to host your speech in any part of the store, including windows and doors, that isn’t designated for third-party speech. You can’t go down the aisles and tape “this tastes like shit” signs to whatever food you hate, then tell the supermarket that it must keep those signs up “or else”. They will metaphorically throw you out for doing that—and if you resist with violence, it’s likely that you’ll be literally thrown out by either the cops or some customers who don’t give a fuck about whether they hurt you (or your feelings).
A cable company is under no legal obligation to carry your speech if you send them a video manifesto of why Twilight is a better love story than Titanic. (Spoilers: Deadpool is a better love story than both of them combined.)
A telecom is under no obligation to host your speech under any circumstances. While it may offer you space on the Internet as part of your service package, it has every right to revoke that privilege if you abuse it.
Show me the directly on-point law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that spells out, in detailed and unambiguous terms, what third-party speech the government can compel any corporation, public accomodating business, or interactive web service to host.
I’ll wait.
On the post: Tesla Urged Chinese Government To Censor Critics In China
Hey now, that’s not fair!
I’m pretty sure that, unlike Peter Thiel, Elon Musk is not an actual vampire.
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawIf only we had judges as good as Mentok…
Next >>