Your claim is that the system can be fair and impersonal, when the people who compose the system aren't?
Fair? No. Impersonal? Yes.
I once used an anti-queer slur on Twitter in a discussion about anti-queer attitudes. Twitter later suspended me until I deleted that tweet (which I did). I didn’t take that suspension personally because it was likely an automated action based on specific keywords (in this case, the anti-queer slur).
Moderation is often an impersonal experience — especially when it’s automated. That you take such moderation personally, or think of it as a sign of some nefarious conspiracy to silence…whoever from saying…whatever, is your problem.
No, it doesn’t. You have no right to make anyone else listen to, host, or publish your speech. If someone wants to do any of those things, they have to make that decision of their own free will — they can’t be coerced by the government into doing so.
we live in a world where companies have amassed the power to deny audiences to anyone and everyone they like
…on their property. That a smaller platform may not have a potential audience the size of Twitter or Facebook is irrelevant.
What property?
I refer to the servers on which user data is stored, including the speech they post.
They've done this already, it's no longer hypothetical.
Does “Big Tech” own every Mastodon instance, from mastodon.social to queer.party? Does “Big Tech” own Neocities, too? Does it own Gab and Parler, 4chan and 8kun, and every other website and service that could reasonably be considered some form of social interaction network?
And even if they did own all those SINs (which they don’t), so what? You’re literally not guaranteed a spot on any of them. And you can still buy/rent a server and host your own speech through your own website.
But I do see were this is going. And that’s a bad place to consider.
I doubt you’ll change your mind about referring to moderation as censorship, though. You’re so set in your belief that you’ll continue to say it despite being told how it could potentially justify some really shitty actions.
Because YouTube moderation isn’t biased against Reason. Because YouTube has a right to decide what speech will and won’t be hosted by YouTube. Because Reason can use other outlets to host the speech YouTube booted.
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.
You don’t have a right to “free reach”. Nobody does. Learn to accept that.
So why then should we prohibit government from censorship, and ignore what amounts to that from the corporate side of things?
If and when those companies do get the power to stop you from speaking your mind anywhere under threat of legal action/violence, we can start worry about their ability to censor.
Governments have the power necessary to infringe upon your First Amendment rights. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Google, and the like don’t. Get booted from Reddit and you can go to any other service you like and bitch about your allegedly unfair ban there.
Anyone can go to Blogger or Neocities or Tumblr or whatever and fire off a “hey, YouTube fucked up and here’s why” post any day of the week. What the average person doesn’t have — and isn’t entitled to — is the audience/reach that Reason does. Reforming 230 won’t give them that. Neither will “punishing” Facebook, Twitter, etc. for daring to moderate in a way where they can keep the most people possible using the service.
When I told you that your “moderation is censorship” claim could lead to real harms, this is what I meant.
In the same comment where you’re asking Republicans to reconsider going after 230, you once again refer to moderation as censorship:
Censorship is evil, but legal.
That will only make conservatives recoil. As (alleged) proponents of “small government”, they won’t want censorship to be “legal”. (Unless, of course, they’re the ones who decide what gets censored; e.g., critical race theory.) They’ll want censorship to be stopped — even if that means trampling all over property rights and the freedom of association. And they’ll use the word “censorship” in the exact same way you’ve used it to justify their position on the compelled hosting of speech. (“We‘re fighting to make sure Twitter can’t censor conservatives!” and the like come to mind.)
That is what I want you to remember when I say you’re still on the side of people wanting to repeal/“reform” 230 and you say you aren’t. Whether you like it or not, your position on moderation puts you on their side — and your newfound love for property rights can’t, won’t, and shouldn’t change that.
Then where the fuck is it? You’d think that someone with evidence that definitively proves the 2020 presidential election was somehow stolen would have presented it to the public by now. So where is the evidence she claims to have?
Now if you could stop referring to moderation as censorship, we’d be generally okay with one another (your continued support for the orange fascist I refer to as Old 45 notwithstanding).
Because you insist, with the fervor of a religious zealot, that moderation is censorship. That position, as benign as you think it is, can cause harm if other people pick up on it. They can use that position to further their goals of compelling the hosting of speech and use you as an example of a (somewhat) reasonable person who agrees with them (your sudden newfound respect for property rights notwithstanding).
By likening moderation to censorship, you are actively supporting the same people who make the same argument but use that argument to justify trying to make Twitter host speech its owners don’t want to host. You are on their side, whether you like it or not, every time you repeat that phrase.
That’s why I’m still arguing with you: You refuse to see how you’re trying to help harm the Internet because you want so much for your feelings about “moderation is censorship” to be validated. I’m not here to do that, and I won’t do that, and you will never see me do that for you or anyone else.
Moderation is a platform/service owner or operator saying “we don’t do that here”. Personal discretion is an individual telling themselves “I won’t do that here”. Editorial discretion is an editor saying “we won’t print that here”, either to themselves or to a writer. Censorship is someone saying “you won’t do that anywhere” alongside threats or actions meant to suppress speech. Moderation is not censorship, even if it involves deletion/bans, no matter how much your precious fucking feelings tell you to believe otherwise.
On the post: Reason Shows How To Properly Respond To A Questionable Social Media Takedown: By Calling It Out
Yeah, and since you don’t own Facebook, you’re not entitled to use it.
On the post: Reason Shows How To Properly Respond To A Questionable Social Media Takedown: By Calling It Out
Yes, yes, you think your feelings about censorship are more important than actual facts — sing a new song already, you worn-out 1950s jukebox.
On the post: Reason Shows How To Properly Respond To A Questionable Social Media Takedown: By Calling It Out
Fair? No. Impersonal? Yes.
I once used an anti-queer slur on Twitter in a discussion about anti-queer attitudes. Twitter later suspended me until I deleted that tweet (which I did). I didn’t take that suspension personally because it was likely an automated action based on specific keywords (in this case, the anti-queer slur).
Moderation is often an impersonal experience — especially when it’s automated. That you take such moderation personally, or think of it as a sign of some nefarious conspiracy to silence…whoever from saying…whatever, is your problem.
On the post: Reason Shows How To Properly Respond To A Questionable Social Media Takedown: By Calling It Out
No, it doesn’t. You have no right to make anyone else listen to, host, or publish your speech. If someone wants to do any of those things, they have to make that decision of their own free will — they can’t be coerced by the government into doing so.
…on their property. That a smaller platform may not have a potential audience the size of Twitter or Facebook is irrelevant.
I refer to the servers on which user data is stored, including the speech they post.
Does “Big Tech” own every Mastodon instance, from mastodon.social to queer.party? Does “Big Tech” own Neocities, too? Does it own Gab and Parler, 4chan and 8kun, and every other website and service that could reasonably be considered some form of social interaction network?
And even if they did own all those SINs (which they don’t), so what? You’re literally not guaranteed a spot on any of them. And you can still buy/rent a server and host your own speech through your own website.
If my arguments are bad, yours are even worse.
On the post: Texas Consumers Lose Control Of Their Thermostats, Get Another Crash Course In Value Of Competent Regulators
Nah, just the Russian ones, chummer.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
I doubt you’ll change your mind about referring to moderation as censorship, though. You’re so set in your belief that you’ll continue to say it despite being told how it could potentially justify some really shitty actions.
On the post: Reason Shows How To Properly Respond To A Questionable Social Media Takedown: By Calling It Out
Because YouTube moderation isn’t biased against Reason. Because YouTube has a right to decide what speech will and won’t be hosted by YouTube. Because Reason can use other outlets to host the speech YouTube booted.
On the post: Fuck This Cheer In Particular Says The Supreme Court In Decision Upholding Students' Free Speech Rights
I have only two words for this ruling:
Fuck yeah.
On the post: Reason Shows How To Properly Respond To A Questionable Social Media Takedown: By Calling It Out
The person who reported you may have had a personal issue with you. The moderation system, however, did not.
On the post: Reason Shows How To Properly Respond To A Questionable Social Media Takedown: By Calling It Out
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.
You don’t have a right to “free reach”. Nobody does. Learn to accept that.
On the post: Reason Shows How To Properly Respond To A Questionable Social Media Takedown: By Calling It Out
If and when those companies do get the power to stop you from speaking your mind anywhere under threat of legal action/violence, we can start worry about their ability to censor.
Governments have the power necessary to infringe upon your First Amendment rights. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Google, and the like don’t. Get booted from Reddit and you can go to any other service you like and bitch about your allegedly unfair ban there.
On the post: Reason Shows How To Properly Respond To A Questionable Social Media Takedown: By Calling It Out
Anyone can go to Blogger or Neocities or Tumblr or whatever and fire off a “hey, YouTube fucked up and here’s why” post any day of the week. What the average person doesn’t have — and isn’t entitled to — is the audience/reach that Reason does. Reforming 230 won’t give them that. Neither will “punishing” Facebook, Twitter, etc. for daring to moderate in a way where they can keep the most people possible using the service.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
When I told you that your “moderation is censorship” claim could lead to real harms, this is what I meant.
In the same comment where you’re asking Republicans to reconsider going after 230, you once again refer to moderation as censorship:
That will only make conservatives recoil. As (alleged) proponents of “small government”, they won’t want censorship to be “legal”. (Unless, of course, they’re the ones who decide what gets censored; e.g., critical race theory.) They’ll want censorship to be stopped — even if that means trampling all over property rights and the freedom of association. And they’ll use the word “censorship” in the exact same way you’ve used it to justify their position on the compelled hosting of speech. (“We‘re fighting to make sure Twitter can’t censor conservatives!” and the like come to mind.)
That is what I want you to remember when I say you’re still on the side of people wanting to repeal/“reform” 230 and you say you aren’t. Whether you like it or not, your position on moderation puts you on their side — and your newfound love for property rights can’t, won’t, and shouldn’t change that.
On the post: Texas Consumers Lose Control Of Their Thermostats, Get Another Crash Course In Value Of Competent Regulators
You’re forgetting that once enough people have been vaccinated against COVID-19, we won’t need the cell towers for 5G. 🙃
On the post: Former Trump Lawyer Facing Sanctions In Michigan Now Saying The Things She Said Were Opinions Are Actually Facts
Then where the fuck is it? You’d think that someone with evidence that definitively proves the 2020 presidential election was somehow stolen would have presented it to the public by now. So where is the evidence she claims to have?
On the post: As Everyone Rushes To Change Section 230, New GAO Report Points Out That FOSTA Hasn't Lived Up To Any Of Its Promises
Hey, that was my line! Quit stealing my schtick, you one so-and-so… 🙃
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Eh, you’re close to the line without actually crossing it — and I speak from experience on both sides of that line.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Now if you could stop referring to moderation as censorship, we’d be generally okay with one another (your continued support for the orange fascist I refer to as Old 45 notwithstanding).
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Because you insist, with the fervor of a religious zealot, that moderation is censorship. That position, as benign as you think it is, can cause harm if other people pick up on it. They can use that position to further their goals of compelling the hosting of speech and use you as an example of a (somewhat) reasonable person who agrees with them (your sudden newfound respect for property rights notwithstanding).
By likening moderation to censorship, you are actively supporting the same people who make the same argument but use that argument to justify trying to make Twitter host speech its owners don’t want to host. You are on their side, whether you like it or not, every time you repeat that phrase.
That’s why I’m still arguing with you: You refuse to see how you’re trying to help harm the Internet because you want so much for your feelings about “moderation is censorship” to be validated. I’m not here to do that, and I won’t do that, and you will never see me do that for you or anyone else.
Moderation is a platform/service owner or operator saying “we don’t do that here”. Personal discretion is an individual telling themselves “I won’t do that here”. Editorial discretion is an editor saying “we won’t print that here”, either to themselves or to a writer. Censorship is someone saying “you won’t do that anywhere” alongside threats or actions meant to suppress speech. Moderation is not censorship, even if it involves deletion/bans, no matter how much your precious fucking feelings tell you to believe otherwise.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
What it does have is a whooooooooooooooooole bunch of other sites and services people can use. So your sidewalk analogy bullshit is irrelevant.
Next >>