GoldenEye was a Bond movie that was licensed out for a Nintendo 64 game, and the Far Cry maps discussed in the article remade the levels in that N64 game. When you want to look down on someone for being wrong, make sure you’re right about your own bullshit first.
No, it can’t, because then it would be censorship instead of moderation.
Trump had achievements and failures, like all presidents. Your, or my, political viewpoint is the only difference in how one sees each action.
Apparently you think 400,000-plus people dead is an “achievement” because he didn’t start a panic by treating COVID-19 seriously, didn’t recommend that people wear masks even after he caught COVID-19, and didn’t actually say “drink bleach to kill COVID-19”.
Compared with to more immediate issues?
That freakish heatwave in the Pacific Northwest seems pretty “immediate” to the people who’re suffering and dying as a result of the record-setting heat. But sure, keep thinking we can put off a response to that until a few decades from now.
most Republicans would call them crap fear mongering
In ten years, when the weather is even worse than it is now and conservatives are saying things like “why didn’t you tell us things would get this bad” and “why didn’t you do anything about this” to the scientists who were trying to do exactly that, I want you to remember that you’re on the side of the assholes whose fearmongering and hatred of science, expertise, and anything resembling an education beyond the sixth grade—if even that—made impossible any kind of meaningful response to global climate change.
Then again, maybe I should point to that building collapse in Florida and tell you that plenty of other buildings are going to end up like that one thanks to climate change. You’ll probably care more about the potential for catastrophic property damage than about the potential for catastrophic loss of life, you property rights–humping libertarian ghoul.
Of course it is. Property rights seem to trump every other kind of right in your eyes. Hell, two hundred years ago, you’d probably be giving lectures to plantation owners about what to do about their “property” if “it” died in the middle of a cotton field on a hot summer day.
Jesus fucking Christ, Lodos, do you really not give a fuck about whether the government can make you go to church or host racist speech aside from the property rights angle?
You still think that’s a “liberal” issue? Jesus, Lodos, do you think conservatives would want the government to make Stormfront host speech in favor of critical race theory?
The freedom to associate is like the freedom to worship: To have the freedom to do it, you must also be free from being forced to do it. That isn’t a partisan principle. Unless you believe the government should legally force queer people to attend an anti-queer Christian megachurch every Sunday, I’d think even you could find it within your long-dead libertarian heart to see people as people long enough for that principle to sink in.
The right of free speech only promises you the right to speak freely. It doesn’t guarantee you a platform, an audience, or respect for your speech. Don’t like the moderation on this site? Go start your own so you’ll be free of the tyranny of being told “we don’t do that here”.
Twitter doesn’t have to host speech expressing a hateful anti-trans ideology. You can’t explain how or why the government should have the right to make Twitter host that speech.
Someone wants to read a bunch of right-wing bullshit can read it anywhere that’ll host it. But they can’t make anyone else host it. Implying they should have that right also implies that leftist bullshit should be forced onto spaces for right-wingers, and I don’t think you have the balls to say that.
I'd rather a company be forced to host speech it doesn't like than to be able to ban it arbitrarily, particularly when it relates to politics or an issue of public concern.
I didn’t say “companies”. I said “interactive web services”. So let’s try this with a more specific example.
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel a privately owned Mastodon instance such as queer.party into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host? Please keep in mind that queer.party’s rules explicitly prohibit the posting of “[r]acism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and any other discriminatory conduct which attacks any individual or group of individuals based on what they are or what they believe in”, and that covers a shitload of legally protected speech that you apparently believe should be forced upon that service out of some twisted desire to enforce a Fairness Doctrine for bigotry.
Yes or no, Chozen: Do you believe the government should have the 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?
It needs to be exposed in the context of why it’s dangerous. Someone saying “gays are abominations” in and of itself isn’t dangerous per se, but the actions that belief can justify are often harmful to gay people. Unless you’re on the side of people who want the right to harm gay people without consequence or remorse, exposing that speech and explaining its potential for harm is a goddamn good thing to do.
They were actively calling for speakers to be deplatformed.
So what? I could call for you to be banned from Techdirt, Twitter, and that tiny forum for Mongolian basket weaving you visit at 2:47am on the third Tuesday of every month, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to listen.
I don't think anyone in the late 1700s could foresee a future where if people can't speak online (on a dwindling handful of large websites), effectively they are silenced.
You’re not being silenced; you’re being denied the use of large platforms. If you want to speak online and you can’t do it on Facebook or Twitter, there are still plenty of places to do it. That none of them give you the reach of Facebook or Twitter is irrelevant to the fact that they exist. You’re not entitled to “free reach”, you’re not entitled to make the government give it to you, and you’re not going to get any sympathy from me if the only options you think you have left all suffer from the “Worst People” Problem.
Social media services are not public fora; if you need a citation for that, look no further than a Supreme Court ruling from 2019 where Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion:
Under the Court’s cases, a private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises “powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” … It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function.
The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. … Under the Court’s cases, those functions include, for example, running elections and operating a company town. … The Court has ruled that a variety of functions do not fall into that category, including, for example: running sports associations and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating nursing homes, providing special education, representing indigent criminal defendants, resolving private disputes, and supplying electricity.
…
When the government provides a forum for speech (known as a public forum), the government may be constrained by the First Amendment, meaning that the government ordinarily may not exclude speech or speakers from the forum on the basis of viewpoint, or sometimes even on the basis of content[.]
By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine[.]
The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it “is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment[”.]
In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.
If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” … Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as “a stagecoach, with seats for everyone.” … That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be “to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country.” … The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property.
…
A private entity … who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.
We’re not having a “knee-jerk” reaction to climate change because we’ve been responding to climate change for decades. For fuck’s sake, when do you think Captain Planet was made, 2015? Shit, there were hybrid vehicles available in the 1990s, a fact about which a recent episode of Jeopardy reminded me.
Man-made pollution is the primary driver of global climate change and has been for far longer than you and I have been alive. That you can’t accept that fact is your problem, and I’m not solving it for you. I’m over here wondering why the hell we’re not doing more about the biggest polluters in the world. We know where they live, we know where they work, and we know what they’re doing, but we’re still stuck on the idea that one person recycling a couple of plastic bottles a day will cancel out all the damage done by a single flight on a private jet owned by some workforce-exploiting billionare shithead CEO who couldn’t be fucked to fly first-class on a commercial airline like the rest of us regular jackoffs.
Until we get wider acceptance of and better efficiency from clean energy sources, yes, we need a reliable source of power as a “backup”. But acting like we’ll always need to burn coal or oil because “all clouds” or “no wind” is the clarion call of a coward who’s so afraid of progress in the energy sector that they runs to Big Oil for a hug that’ll need dishwashing liquid to clean up. Oh, and Keystone? How many actual permanent full-time jobs do you think that pipeline was going to have after it had been built? Because I can assure you that it wouldn’t have been as many as the number of temporary jobs created for the purpose of building the pipeline.
That building collapse in Florida isn’t some precursor to climate change fucking us over. Places having “once in a lifetime” storms more than once in our lifetimes is a warning sign that we’re fucked unless we act quicker than we are. And even if we do act quicker, we may be too late to prevent the worst effects of climate change.
But at least we’ll still be burning coal — a fact that I’m sure will be a great comfort to the victims of the next “once in a lifetime” storm to hit the American coastline in the next year or two~.
On the post: Ubisoft Teams Up With Mystery Rights Holder To Remove Fun Fan-Made 'GoldenEye 007' Maps From 'Far Cry'
Probably, yes. Feel free to test that assumption at your own convenience.
On the post: Ubisoft Teams Up With Mystery Rights Holder To Remove Fun Fan-Made 'GoldenEye 007' Maps From 'Far Cry'
GoldenEye was a Bond movie that was licensed out for a Nintendo 64 game, and the Far Cry maps discussed in the article remade the levels in that N64 game. When you want to look down on someone for being wrong, make sure you’re right about your own bullshit first.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
No, it can’t, because then it would be censorship instead of moderation.
Apparently you think 400,000-plus people dead is an “achievement” because he didn’t start a panic by treating COVID-19 seriously, didn’t recommend that people wear masks even after he caught COVID-19, and didn’t actually say “drink bleach to kill COVID-19”.
That freakish heatwave in the Pacific Northwest seems pretty “immediate” to the people who’re suffering and dying as a result of the record-setting heat. But sure, keep thinking we can put off a response to that until a few decades from now.
In ten years, when the weather is even worse than it is now and conservatives are saying things like “why didn’t you tell us things would get this bad” and “why didn’t you do anything about this” to the scientists who were trying to do exactly that, I want you to remember that you’re on the side of the assholes whose fearmongering and hatred of science, expertise, and anything resembling an education beyond the sixth grade—if even that—made impossible any kind of meaningful response to global climate change.
Then again, maybe I should point to that building collapse in Florida and tell you that plenty of other buildings are going to end up like that one thanks to climate change. You’ll probably care more about the potential for catastrophic property damage than about the potential for catastrophic loss of life, you property rights–humping libertarian ghoul.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Of course it is. Property rights seem to trump every other kind of right in your eyes. Hell, two hundred years ago, you’d probably be giving lectures to plantation owners about what to do about their “property” if “it” died in the middle of a cotton field on a hot summer day.
Jesus fucking Christ, Lodos, do you really not give a fuck about whether the government can make you go to church or host racist speech aside from the property rights angle?
On the post: Once Again: Content Moderation Often Mistakes Reporting On Bad Behavior With Celebrating Bad Behavior
To cover their asses in case of a lawsuit or some shit.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
You still think that’s a “liberal” issue? Jesus, Lodos, do you think conservatives would want the government to make Stormfront host speech in favor of critical race theory?
The freedom to associate is like the freedom to worship: To have the freedom to do it, you must also be free from being forced to do it. That isn’t a partisan principle. Unless you believe the government should legally force queer people to attend an anti-queer Christian megachurch every Sunday, I’d think even you could find it within your long-dead libertarian heart to see people as people long enough for that principle to sink in.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
“Moderation is censorship”, “Trump was good actually”, “climate change isn’t anything we have to worry about right now”…
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
The right of free speech only promises you the right to speak freely. It doesn’t guarantee you a platform, an audience, or respect for your speech. Don’t like the moderation on this site? Go start your own so you’ll be free of the tyranny of being told “we don’t do that here”.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Twitter doesn’t have to host speech expressing a hateful anti-trans ideology. You can’t explain how or why the government should have the right to make Twitter host that speech.
On the post: Creating State Action Via Antitrust Law And Making The People Who've Been Wrong About The Constitutionality Of Content Moderation Suddenly Right
Someone wants to read a bunch of right-wing bullshit can read it anywhere that’ll host it. But they can’t make anyone else host it. Implying they should have that right also implies that leftist bullshit should be forced onto spaces for right-wingers, and I don’t think you have the balls to say that.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
I didn’t say “companies”. I said “interactive web services”. So let’s try this with a more specific example.
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel a privately owned Mastodon instance such as queer.party into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host? Please keep in mind that queer.party’s rules explicitly prohibit the posting of “[r]acism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and any other discriminatory conduct which attacks any individual or group of individuals based on what they are or what they believe in”, and that covers a shitload of legally protected speech that you apparently believe should be forced upon that service out of some twisted desire to enforce a Fairness Doctrine for bigotry.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Yes or no, Chozen: Do you believe the government should have the 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?
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
If moderation were censorship, you might have a point. But it isn’t. So you don’t.
On the post: Creating State Action Via Antitrust Law And Making The People Who've Been Wrong About The Constitutionality Of Content Moderation Suddenly Right
[citation needed]
On the post: Once Again: Content Moderation Often Mistakes Reporting On Bad Behavior With Celebrating Bad Behavior
It needs to be exposed in the context of why it’s dangerous. Someone saying “gays are abominations” in and of itself isn’t dangerous per se, but the actions that belief can justify are often harmful to gay people. Unless you’re on the side of people who want the right to harm gay people without consequence or remorse, exposing that speech and explaining its potential for harm is a goddamn good thing to do.
On the post: Once Again: Content Moderation Often Mistakes Reporting On Bad Behavior With Celebrating Bad Behavior
So what? I could call for you to be banned from Techdirt, Twitter, and that tiny forum for Mongolian basket weaving you visit at 2:47am on the third Tuesday of every month, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to listen.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
You’re not being silenced; you’re being denied the use of large platforms. If you want to speak online and you can’t do it on Facebook or Twitter, there are still plenty of places to do it. That none of them give you the reach of Facebook or Twitter is irrelevant to the fact that they exist. You’re not entitled to “free reach”, you’re not entitled to make the government give it to you, and you’re not going to get any sympathy from me if the only options you think you have left all suffer from the “Worst People” Problem.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Social media services are not public fora; if you need a citation for that, look no further than a Supreme Court ruling from 2019 where Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion:
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
“Oh, you know the ones…”
Which specific traditions do conservatives want to preserve, again?
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Instagram Takes Down Instagram Account Of Book About Instagram (2020)
We’re not having a “knee-jerk” reaction to climate change because we’ve been responding to climate change for decades. For fuck’s sake, when do you think Captain Planet was made, 2015? Shit, there were hybrid vehicles available in the 1990s, a fact about which a recent episode of Jeopardy reminded me.
Man-made pollution is the primary driver of global climate change and has been for far longer than you and I have been alive. That you can’t accept that fact is your problem, and I’m not solving it for you. I’m over here wondering why the hell we’re not doing more about the biggest polluters in the world. We know where they live, we know where they work, and we know what they’re doing, but we’re still stuck on the idea that one person recycling a couple of plastic bottles a day will cancel out all the damage done by a single flight on a private jet owned by some workforce-exploiting billionare shithead CEO who couldn’t be fucked to fly first-class on a commercial airline like the rest of us regular jackoffs.
Until we get wider acceptance of and better efficiency from clean energy sources, yes, we need a reliable source of power as a “backup”. But acting like we’ll always need to burn coal or oil because “all clouds” or “no wind” is the clarion call of a coward who’s so afraid of progress in the energy sector that they runs to Big Oil for a hug that’ll need dishwashing liquid to clean up. Oh, and Keystone? How many actual permanent full-time jobs do you think that pipeline was going to have after it had been built? Because I can assure you that it wouldn’t have been as many as the number of temporary jobs created for the purpose of building the pipeline.
That building collapse in Florida isn’t some precursor to climate change fucking us over. Places having “once in a lifetime” storms more than once in our lifetimes is a warning sign that we’re fucked unless we act quicker than we are. And even if we do act quicker, we may be too late to prevent the worst effects of climate change.
But at least we’ll still be burning coal — a fact that I’m sure will be a great comfort to the victims of the next “once in a lifetime” storm to hit the American coastline in the next year or two~.
Next >>