You will stick up for isis beheading videos. I'll stick up for american journalist undercover videos. I think that says everything about our differences.
True, Gettr says they are not going to interfere with political opinion. And death threats are not a political opinion.
Worse, you haven't actually shown that anything is from a foreigner or a violent threat as established by 1A precident.
I have my suspicions. But ultimately I think there should be recourse. If someone wants to appear in an American courthouse and file a lawsuit, I think they should be able to do so. Of course, I'm confident that in this case, the filer would be the one getting arrested and sent off to jail for being a member of ISIS. And so they wouldn't even attempt it. But social media companies should be forced through legislation to provide a reason for removing content, and American citizens ought to be able to challenge it in court.
And although I wouldn't reccomend it, just try editing a video of Obama getting beheaded and watch how fast you get a tap on the shoulder from the secret service. I think we know that you would rightfully be spending a few nights in jail.
If they criticized someone, I'm okay with it. If they issued a death threat, then it's no longer speech covered by the first amendment, and I'm not okay with it. It's pretty simple.
Politico wrote that GETTR has become filled with “graphic videos of beheadings, viral memes that promote violence against the West, and even memes of a militant executing Trump in an orange jumpsuit similar to those used in Guantanamo Bay.”
If folks would like to espouse political beliefs, I don't have a problem with that. However, the first amendment doesn't protect death threats or foreigners. While Gettr can articulate rules that were violated that led to post removal, other American social media corporations cannot, which is why they need section 230 to remain immune from lawsuits.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
You wish, what being moderated actually means is that people think you're an asshole and are showing you the door.
You have just perfectly described censorship based upon political disagreement. Make no mistake, it is not "moderation". It is fear that someone will see it and become convinced.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest
Most of the serious proposals for 230 reform is to force more deletion of content.
Klubochar is no reformer; she is a censor. Whether you take her proposals seriously or not is up to you.
What political speech has been removed Koby?
This week's political censorship highlight is Twitter banning the Audit War Room. Primarily aimed at the Arizona ballot audit, their other accounts for disseminating news for other states were banned as well. There's usually a high profile case of political censorship every week from a major social media corporation. Perhaps it could make for an interesting series.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
The goal of Brandy Melville is the removal of content. Any trace if content not removed is considered by them to be a problem, even if accidental. The goal of section 230 reformers is the INCLUSION of content. The removal of political speech is typically not an automated decision, and so is often a deliberate decision.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
I took an online course a few months back. It was open book, open notes, but it was a timed test. Our class instructor said upfront at the beginning of the course that there was certainly a lot of knowledge on the subject, and it would be difficult to memorize everything. Far better than temporarily memorizing a ton of facts and then forgetting them within 6 months, is HOW to look up stuff and then apply it to a complex question to arrive at an answer within a reasonable amount of time.
Of course, I guess it would have been possible for me to just hire a ringer to sit-in for me. There's probably never going to be a way to eliminate all cheating. But it still seems like a better alternative installing malware on your device in order to sit for an exam.
None of this is to say that Facebook should just throw up its hands and do nothing.
The folks that use code words for their speech on the big platforms now consider themselves to be edgy and rebellious. The fact that they use lingo and euphemisms in their speech, and the idea that they could get demonetized or taken down at any moment seem to be giving them credibility. The channel numbers are growing.
Klobuchar doesn't want to file lawsuits against a bunch of ordinary folks; and in fact the government could already attempt to do that if they so desired. Rather, she just wants the speech suppressed.
So say this passes. She does realize that the moment that the GOP gains enough ground they'll start to...
No. Just as the judicial filibuster got nuked a few years ago, no. The assumption is that there's nothing to worry about, because they can't possibly lose an election. She doesn't.
What a bunch of garbage. Facebook knows that this bill is a mess of nonsense, and that the 1st Amendment would stop it from having any impact.
Your argument is premised a lot on the hope that no judge would separate the speech in question from the harm it caused. Meanwhile, look at shady stock market salesman, or tobacco advertisements, and tell me how much the first amendment protected them. Trust me, it's all part of the plan. We've heard it right here in these comments when other folks say "speech should have consequences".
If enough lobbyists can be appointed to useless ambassador positions and sent overseas, there will not be any remaining over here, and then a non-lobbyist can be nominated for the FCC. I hear lobbyists can't resist a junket. It is perhaps an excellent strategy to bait the industry insiders into eliminating themselves from contention.
If DeSantis doesn't want to look like he only respects the rights of people he agrees with, he'll need to keep cops from exercising their discretion and arresting people protesting against unequal treatment by law enforcement.
But, the larger point here is make Facebook liable for what exactly? Whether we like it or not, vaccine misinformation is still protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
The strategy of SJWs is recent years is to classify any speech that they don't agree with as inherently harmful. Now, they believe the camel has its nose in he tent thanks to the coronavirus. Anyone saying anything other than the official government bullet points that were issued this week (and subject to change next week) is guilty of some kind of medical harm in the aggregate. Some percentage of medical death or medical injury can then be assigned to a speaker, which is not protected by the first amendment.
And from there, it can be expanded to other topics. If government can identify an injury in the aggregate, then government can co-opt a tech company into shutting down disagreement. War against terrorism?
War against poverty? Whatever. The government flags it, and the corporation bans it.
My worry is that if anyone succeeds in creating a right to not be videotaped in public, then government officials and police will, of course, be the next in line to take advantage. Being able to videotape in public has its other benefits.
Indeed, in this case, it could easily be argued that the President himself spread misinformation in saying that Facebook was killing people. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, especially when it's intended to deceive.
I don't think it was misinformation. He never intended to deceive anyone, and he doesn't know what's going on around him. He'll read anything that his handlers put on the teleprompter.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
You will stick up for isis beheading videos. I'll stick up for american journalist undercover videos. I think that says everything about our differences.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
Death threats are not an opinion.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
True, Gettr says they are not going to interfere with political opinion. And death threats are not a political opinion.
I have my suspicions. But ultimately I think there should be recourse. If someone wants to appear in an American courthouse and file a lawsuit, I think they should be able to do so. Of course, I'm confident that in this case, the filer would be the one getting arrested and sent off to jail for being a member of ISIS. And so they wouldn't even attempt it. But social media companies should be forced through legislation to provide a reason for removing content, and American citizens ought to be able to challenge it in court.
And although I wouldn't reccomend it, just try editing a video of Obama getting beheaded and watch how fast you get a tap on the shoulder from the secret service. I think we know that you would rightfully be spending a few nights in jail.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
If they criticized someone, I'm okay with it. If they issued a death threat, then it's no longer speech covered by the first amendment, and I'm not okay with it. It's pretty simple.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
Let's Check The Details
From Gizmodo:
If folks would like to espouse political beliefs, I don't have a problem with that. However, the first amendment doesn't protect death threats or foreigners. While Gettr can articulate rules that were violated that led to post removal, other American social media corporations cannot, which is why they need section 230 to remain immune from lawsuits.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
On the post: Last Month In An LA Court I Witnessed The Future Of A World Without Section 230; It Was A Mess
Re:
You have just perfectly described censorship based upon political disagreement. Make no mistake, it is not "moderation". It is fear that someone will see it and become convinced.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest
On the post: Last Month In An LA Court I Witnessed The Future Of A World Without Section 230; It Was A Mess
Re: Re: Trademark Lawyers Would Hate Us
Klubochar is no reformer; she is a censor. Whether you take her proposals seriously or not is up to you.
This week's political censorship highlight is Twitter banning the Audit War Room. Primarily aimed at the Arizona ballot audit, their other accounts for disseminating news for other states were banned as well. There's usually a high profile case of political censorship every week from a major social media corporation. Perhaps it could make for an interesting series.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
On the post: Last Month In An LA Court I Witnessed The Future Of A World Without Section 230; It Was A Mess
Trademark Lawyers Would Hate Us
The goal of Brandy Melville is the removal of content. Any trace if content not removed is considered by them to be a problem, even if accidental. The goal of section 230 reformers is the INCLUSION of content. The removal of political speech is typically not an automated decision, and so is often a deliberate decision.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
On the post: It's Time We Talk About Getting Rid Of The Bar Exam. And Here's Why.
Re: bar exam test
I took an online course a few months back. It was open book, open notes, but it was a timed test. Our class instructor said upfront at the beginning of the course that there was certainly a lot of knowledge on the subject, and it would be difficult to memorize everything. Far better than temporarily memorizing a ton of facts and then forgetting them within 6 months, is HOW to look up stuff and then apply it to a complex question to arrive at an answer within a reasonable amount of time.
Of course, I guess it would have been possible for me to just hire a ringer to sit-in for me. There's probably never going to be a way to eliminate all cheating. But it still seems like a better alternative installing malware on your device in order to sit for an exam.
On the post: Anti-Vaxxers Countermeasures Show Why It's Not So Simple To Just 'Delete' Anti-Vax Misinfo On Social Media
Counterproductive
The folks that use code words for their speech on the big platforms now consider themselves to be edgy and rebellious. The fact that they use lingo and euphemisms in their speech, and the idea that they could get demonetized or taken down at any moment seem to be giving them credibility. The channel numbers are growing.
On the post: Senators Klobuchar And Lujan Release Ridiculous, Blatantly Unconstitutional Bill To Make Facebook Liable For Health Misinformation
Re: Re: Don't Be So Certain
Klobuchar doesn't want to file lawsuits against a bunch of ordinary folks; and in fact the government could already attempt to do that if they so desired. Rather, she just wants the speech suppressed.
On the post: Senators Klobuchar And Lujan Release Ridiculous, Blatantly Unconstitutional Bill To Make Facebook Liable For Health Misinformation
Re:
No. Just as the judicial filibuster got nuked a few years ago, no. The assumption is that there's nothing to worry about, because they can't possibly lose an election. She doesn't.
On the post: Senators Klobuchar And Lujan Release Ridiculous, Blatantly Unconstitutional Bill To Make Facebook Liable For Health Misinformation
Don't Be So Certain
Your argument is premised a lot on the hope that no judge would separate the speech in question from the harm it caused. Meanwhile, look at shady stock market salesman, or tobacco advertisements, and tell me how much the first amendment protected them. Trust me, it's all part of the plan. We've heard it right here in these comments when other folks say "speech should have consequences".
On the post: Biden Still Hasn't Picked An FCC Boss, But He Just Tagged A Comcast Lobbyist As Ambassador To Canada
Out Of The Way
If enough lobbyists can be appointed to useless ambassador positions and sent overseas, there will not be any remaining over here, and then a non-lobbyist can be nominated for the FCC. I hear lobbyists can't resist a junket. It is perhaps an excellent strategy to bait the industry insiders into eliminating themselves from contention.
On the post: DOJ Makes It Official: No Gathering Of Journalists' Records During Leak Investigation
More Exemptions
I'm sure they'll release Assange any minute now.
...any minute......
On the post: Florida's New Law Against Blocking Roads During Protests Already Being Ignored By Cops Policing Protests The Governor Supports
I Appreciate The Agreement
This sounds eerily familiar!
On the post: The Government 'Fix' For The T-Mobile Merger Continues To Look Like A Convoluted Mess
Didn't Happen
It sounds like the conditions of the merger were not met. The merger ought to be annulled. Break it up.
On the post: Senator Amy Klobuchar Says She Has A Bill To Hold Facebook Responsible For Vaccine Disinfo; But What Would The Cause Of Action Be?
For Harmful Speech
The strategy of SJWs is recent years is to classify any speech that they don't agree with as inherently harmful. Now, they believe the camel has its nose in he tent thanks to the coronavirus. Anyone saying anything other than the official government bullet points that were issued this week (and subject to change next week) is guilty of some kind of medical harm in the aggregate. Some percentage of medical death or medical injury can then be assigned to a speaker, which is not protected by the first amendment.
And from there, it can be expanded to other topics. If government can identify an injury in the aggregate, then government can co-opt a tech company into shutting down disagreement. War against terrorism?
War against poverty? Whatever. The government flags it, and the corporation bans it.
On the post: Seventh Circuit Says (Reluctantly) That 18 Months Of Pole-Mounted Camera Surveillance Isn't Unconstitutional
Multipurpose
My worry is that if anyone succeeds in creating a right to not be videotaped in public, then government officials and police will, of course, be the next in line to take advantage. Being able to videotape in public has its other benefits.
On the post: As White House Says It's 'Reviewing 230', Biden Admits His Comments About Facebook Were Misinformation
Can't Blame Him
I don't think it was misinformation. He never intended to deceive anyone, and he doesn't know what's going on around him. He'll read anything that his handlers put on the teleprompter.
Next >>