I've seen her plans for Bluesky, and you're wrong. She is a cryptocurrency fan for uses where it makes sense and not for situations where it does not. The fact that she has worked on other projects does not mean she will automatically wrap them into Bluesky.
Remember when Twitter built their company on having a community out there providing third party app support and suddenly pulled the plug on that, blocking major features to try and force users to use their ad laden mess of ever changing features and unwelcome suggestions?
Yes. Yes, I do. Which is why Bluesky is being set up as an independent organization. It's being seeded by Twitter, but is designed to stand on its own.
So you are free to criticize an election if the government does it, even to the point of conspiracy theories, but if the government uses a private contractor you loose that right.
Um. No. No one said that. Nothing in this article suggests that.
Do you always make shit up when you can't push your chosen narrative? It's embarrassingly transparent.
You are always free to criticize an election. What you cannot do is, with actual malice (per NYT v. Sullivan) state deliberate false facts about someone or some company that is designed to harm their reputation. That's wholly different from "criticizing an election."
Dominion has zero right to file libel suits related to criticism of how it carried out a public function.
This is simply incorrect. You do not understand what you are talking about and your ignorance shows.
However, if we're going on about claims that a gov't official cannot sue for libel, does that mean you agree that Devin Nunes' various lawsuits are not allowed?
Twitter's SJW rulemakers and other pro-censors are constantly trying to come up with new and more detailed rules that would somehow allow them to ban the people that they don't like, while allowing those that they do, and somehow be able to remain consistent.
This is literally the opposite of what happened and what I described here. They are bending over backwards to NOT takedown grifting idiots so as to show how fair they're being. And idiots like the people you follow are exploiting that.
Twitter to just be honest and admit that they hate conservative political viewpoints,
Lol. You are not very bright.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
Koby, I'm surprised, but a little impressed, that you are now saying that Critical Race Theory is the strongest theory out there. Wasn't expecting that from you.
Of course, when the topic is something we can all agree on, such as fighting against antisemitism, the old mantra of "their platform, their rules" goes out the window.
Where did I say that? It is still their platform and their rules. I have remained entirely consistent, unlike you.
Koby, I used to think you were just a confused, ignorant dupe. But now you're actively making shit up, I can only conclude that you're a troll.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
So.. by this argument, supporters of Nazis have the strongest opinions?
In fairness, if the OP really meant words and not posts, he might actually have a point. Editing individual words out of posts in order to change the meaning of the overall post could, I think, make the editor liable for their edits.
It would. Section 230 says that you become an information content provider (an ICP) if you "in whole or in part" contributed to the development of the content. Removing words that changes the meaning would clearly qualify, meaning 230 does not protect that scenario at all.
The topic above was does the first amendment apply to "private" Social media.
And the answer is no. And your original comment didn't touch on any of that. It just spewed nonsense.
The left and various ABC government agencies tell Social media that something or someone is posting misinformation and the "private" social media company moderates the informational post or individual out of existence. (1984/Minitrue Ministry of Truth)
Which is not how any of this actually works in practice. It's made up by conspiracy theory morons. Don't follow morons, Carl.
Then according to your position; there does not exist any "public forum" Social media where the 1st amendment applies.
I have made clear in the past, that IF a gov't official orders content taken down, then that gov't official violates the 1st Amendment. I've written extensively about that. THIS is not about that. THIS is about a weird claim that social media is magically a gov't actor even for choices it makes individually.
How would you feel if some company moderated your hosting service or internet connection out of existence because you posted misinformation?
I've had stuff moderated before (this site is full of examples). If I break someone's rules, then I live with it. If the government did it to me, then it's a 1st Amendment violation and I know how to fight for my rights. But if a private company asks me to go elsewhere, then I go elsewhere.
So a site the pledges Free Speech is now filled with those who are exercising free speech?
Did you not read the article dude? The point is that GETTR pulls down those posts, and so it's claim to "support free speech" is the same as every other social media platform. It allows free speech... so long as it doesn't violate its policies.
So we are now back to an era of Free Speech again? What are you writing about? You are pro-totalitarianism?
I have always supported free speech -- unlike you who supports gov't compelled speech.
Literally nothing in this comment responds to the points raised in the article.
Maybe all the people who disagree with the current political correctness / "wokeness" need to go silent ... like before the "contract with America" and the President Trump election.
No one has said that. And that has nothing at all to do with the issues being debated here.
Go back and learn something before you shit on my site again.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No 1st Amendment Right To Censor
If you aren't even aware of the speech in question, you cannot moderate it one way or another.
A bookseller CHOOSES what books to stock, Koby. That they weren't aware that the book was deemed obscene is a different issue. The Supreme Court still found that a bookseller has the right to moderate their own property. Your claim that the 1st Amendment did not apply to moderation is blatantly, stupidly, false.
You come off as a foolish dupe, Koby.
Just like the section 230 exception, you are not acting in good faith.
Section 230 does not require good faith. And I am speaking to you in good faith. I have tried for however long you've been on the site to engage you in good faith, and you lie, dissemble, avoid, and then disappear. I'm trying to get through to you that you are an ignorant fool.
Child porn, repetition, and death threats are not opinions.
You said getting censored proves your opinion is the strongest (which you repeat incessantly. By your own ridiculous standards, your statement is not opinion, since you keep repeating it.
I also see you've now given me permission to delete your repetition (not that I needed it, but thanks anyway).
In the meantime, since you are finally responding to my questions: why do you hate private property?
I'm not convinced that this is Sony's right to stop here. If McDonald's is simply buying up legit PS5 controllers and wrapping them in its own design and then giving those away, where's the infringement? It's a perfectly reasonable resale right...
There was no internet in 1959. Smith ran a bookstore. No moderation was occurring.
Koby: a bookseller choosing what books to stock and not to stock is moderating. And it is protected by the 1st Amendment. Because editorial choices are protected by the 1st Amendment.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest
Why do you keep posting this bizarre support of child porn, spam, and ISIS?
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.
First off, the 1st Amendment very much does protect foreigners, so that's just factually incorrect. Second, the use of memes including those showing beheadings and such are very much political beliefs. Hell, I was an expert witness in a case (which helped acquit a guy) and a key image in that case that I testified on was him showing the orange jumpsuit beheading still with an FBI agent's head super-imposed on the body about to be decapitated. And... the judge and the jury properly found that to be protected political speech.
While Gettr can articulate rules that were violated that led to post removal, other American social media corporations cannot
This is an outright fabrication Koby. Facebook and Twitter also articulate rules that were violated. It's just that ignorant fools like yourself stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it must be because of your conservative beliefs.
You're a silly person, Koby.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
Way to throw your support behind ISIS, Kobes. Bold move.
I didn't say all the environmental issues will be solved soon. I said that they're being worked on -- and they are. And you can rage against cryptocurrency as much as you want, but it's not going to magically go away. So why not be a part of the fucking solution and work towards making it better, rather than just screaming about it being terrible and doing fuck all to help.
You're not wrong to be concerned about the environmental impact and the pump-and-dump greedy scammers. But you're throwing out a ton of good stuff with the "burn it all to the ground" idea. There are real efforts underway to deal with the environmental issues, which will hopefully help significantly. Already there are cryptocurrencies out there that aren't so environmentally wasteful.
And beyond the benefits that Paul talked about, you're also missing out on the most real opportunity we have to build a better internet that isn't just controlled by a few internet giants, where control is really more distributed to the ends of the network, rather than the middle. Don't let the very real negatives eat up the very real positives as well. Focus on how we deal with those negatives, while still obtaining the potential benefits.
Literally nothing in this comment makes sense. You have made everyone dumber for you stupidity here.
You witnessed the results of your refusal to back Free Speech in social media backfire on you.
I have been an unwavering supporter of free speech. You have regularly demanded otherwise. But, this case has nothing to do with any of that. Trademark has never been covered by Section 230. My views would not have changed the outcome of this case.
230 needs to be dismantled.
Which would mean... MORE liability for websites, meaning they are MORE AGGRESSIVE and MORE LIKELY to take down content to avoid liability. In other words, your position would be an actual attack on free speech.
It could not be any worse than what we have now.
You have NO fucking clue. In every other country in the world, none of which have a 230, the ability for the powerful to silence those speaking truth to power is MUCH, MUCH greater, in part because of their lack of intermediary liability protections. It will be MUCH worse than it is now. If you think right now is bad, you are even dumber than I suspected.
There used to be a bumper sticker, it was an answer to the common bumper stickers of America, love it or leave it. The alternative was: America, change it or lose it.
Lol, wut?
They had the opportunity to preserve freedom and fair play while under 230 protection. They didn't, cheered on by writers such as yourself.
Lol, wut? Again, this case had fuck all to do with 230. Are you suggesting that websites must be forced to allow all trademark infringement? Or are you just so stupid that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?
Bye bye to 230, sooner or later. Bring the mess.
The mess being much more takedowns, especially of you and your friends' idiocy, because of the massive liability you freaks bring?
You anti-230 Trumpists are truly the dumbest fucking people around.
On the post: Good News: Twitter Announces An Excellent Lead For The Bluesky Decentralized Social Media Protocol Project
Re:
I've seen her plans for Bluesky, and you're wrong. She is a cryptocurrency fan for uses where it makes sense and not for situations where it does not. The fact that she has worked on other projects does not mean she will automatically wrap them into Bluesky.
On the post: Good News: Twitter Announces An Excellent Lead For The Bluesky Decentralized Social Media Protocol Project
Re:
Remember when Twitter built their company on having a community out there providing third party app support and suddenly pulled the plug on that, blocking major features to try and force users to use their ad laden mess of ever changing features and unwelcome suggestions?
Yes. Yes, I do. Which is why Bluesky is being set up as an independent organization. It's being seeded by Twitter, but is designed to stand on its own.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
So you are free to criticize an election if the government does it, even to the point of conspiracy theories, but if the government uses a private contractor you loose that right.
Um. No. No one said that. Nothing in this article suggests that.
Do you always make shit up when you can't push your chosen narrative? It's embarrassingly transparent.
You are always free to criticize an election. What you cannot do is, with actual malice (per NYT v. Sullivan) state deliberate false facts about someone or some company that is designed to harm their reputation. That's wholly different from "criticizing an election."
Dominion has zero right to file libel suits related to criticism of how it carried out a public function.
This is simply incorrect. You do not understand what you are talking about and your ignorance shows.
However, if we're going on about claims that a gov't official cannot sue for libel, does that mean you agree that Devin Nunes' various lawsuits are not allowed?
On the post: Facebook Is NOT The Internet; Stop Regulating As If It Was
Re: Re: Re: One Size Doesn't Fit All
So you're against all those GOP-led bills banning it?
On the post: Facebook Is NOT The Internet; Stop Regulating As If It Was
Re: One Size Doesn't Fit All
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
Koby, once again, I appreciate your dedication to standing up for Critical Race Theory, though it surprises me, given your other statements.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Twitter's SJW rulemakers and other pro-censors are constantly trying to come up with new and more detailed rules that would somehow allow them to ban the people that they don't like, while allowing those that they do, and somehow be able to remain consistent.
This is literally the opposite of what happened and what I described here. They are bending over backwards to NOT takedown grifting idiots so as to show how fair they're being. And idiots like the people you follow are exploiting that.
Twitter to just be honest and admit that they hate conservative political viewpoints,
Lol. You are not very bright.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
Koby, I'm surprised, but a little impressed, that you are now saying that Critical Race Theory is the strongest theory out there. Wasn't expecting that from you.
On the post: Dish, Cornerstone Of The Trump DOJ's 'Fix' For The T-Mobile Merger, Continues To Bleed Wireless, TV Subscribers
Re: FYI
At no point in Trump's Presidency was the DOJ "his."
Lol.
https://theintercept.com/2020/06/22/william-barr-has-turned-the-justice-department-into-a-law-firm- with-one-client-donald-trump/
https://theweek.com/articles/883638/william-barr-trumps-real-personal- attorney
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-joe-biden-politics-impeachments-7d134da 3dadd497e9af37c60278d68dc
Restless, stop lying to yourself and to everyone else.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well: Series About Antisemitism Removed By Instagram For Being Antisemetic
Re: Rules Can Be Illegitimate
Of course, when the topic is something we can all agree on, such as fighting against antisemitism, the old mantra of "their platform, their rules" goes out the window.
Where did I say that? It is still their platform and their rules. I have remained entirely consistent, unlike you.
Koby, I used to think you were just a confused, ignorant dupe. But now you're actively making shit up, I can only conclude that you're a troll.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
So.. by this argument, supporters of Nazis have the strongest opinions?
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: Re:
In fairness, if the OP really meant words and not posts, he might actually have a point. Editing individual words out of posts in order to change the meaning of the overall post could, I think, make the editor liable for their edits.
It would. Section 230 says that you become an information content provider (an ICP) if you "in whole or in part" contributed to the development of the content. Removing words that changes the meaning would clearly qualify, meaning 230 does not protect that scenario at all.
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: Re: Re: Mr. Masnick needs to read 1984 again
The topic above was does the first amendment apply to "private" Social media.
And the answer is no. And your original comment didn't touch on any of that. It just spewed nonsense.
The left and various ABC government agencies tell Social media that something or someone is posting misinformation and the "private" social media company moderates the informational post or individual out of existence. (1984/Minitrue Ministry of Truth)
Which is not how any of this actually works in practice. It's made up by conspiracy theory morons. Don't follow morons, Carl.
Then according to your position; there does not exist any "public forum" Social media where the 1st amendment applies.
I have made clear in the past, that IF a gov't official orders content taken down, then that gov't official violates the 1st Amendment. I've written extensively about that. THIS is not about that. THIS is about a weird claim that social media is magically a gov't actor even for choices it makes individually.
How would you feel if some company moderated your hosting service or internet connection out of existence because you posted misinformation?
I've had stuff moderated before (this site is full of examples). If I break someone's rules, then I live with it. If the government did it to me, then it's a 1st Amendment violation and I know how to fight for my rights. But if a private company asks me to go elsewhere, then I go elsewhere.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
Re: Great News
So a site the pledges Free Speech is now filled with those who are exercising free speech?
Did you not read the article dude? The point is that GETTR pulls down those posts, and so it's claim to "support free speech" is the same as every other social media platform. It allows free speech... so long as it doesn't violate its policies.
So we are now back to an era of Free Speech again? What are you writing about? You are pro-totalitarianism?
I have always supported free speech -- unlike you who supports gov't compelled speech.
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: Mr. Masnick needs to read 1984 again
lol wut?
Literally nothing in this comment responds to the points raised in the article.
Maybe all the people who disagree with the current political correctness / "wokeness" need to go silent ... like before the "contract with America" and the President Trump election.
No one has said that. And that has nothing at all to do with the issues being debated here.
Go back and learn something before you shit on my site again.
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No 1st Amendment Right To Censor
If you aren't even aware of the speech in question, you cannot moderate it one way or another.
A bookseller CHOOSES what books to stock, Koby. That they weren't aware that the book was deemed obscene is a different issue. The Supreme Court still found that a bookseller has the right to moderate their own property. Your claim that the 1st Amendment did not apply to moderation is blatantly, stupidly, false.
You come off as a foolish dupe, Koby.
Just like the section 230 exception, you are not acting in good faith.
Section 230 does not require good faith. And I am speaking to you in good faith. I have tried for however long you've been on the site to engage you in good faith, and you lie, dissemble, avoid, and then disappear. I'm trying to get through to you that you are an ignorant fool.
Child porn, repetition, and death threats are not opinions.
You said getting censored proves your opinion is the strongest (which you repeat incessantly. By your own ridiculous standards, your statement is not opinion, since you keep repeating it.
I also see you've now given me permission to delete your repetition (not that I needed it, but thanks anyway).
In the meantime, since you are finally responding to my questions: why do you hate private property?
On the post: Everyone Being Dumb About IP: McDonald's No Longer Offering Dope Custom PS5 Controllers In Australia
Is it Sony's right?
I'm not convinced that this is Sony's right to stop here. If McDonald's is simply buying up legit PS5 controllers and wrapping them in its own design and then giving those away, where's the infringement? It's a perfectly reasonable resale right...
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: Re: Re: No 1st Amendment Right To Censor
There was no internet in 1959. Smith ran a bookstore. No moderation was occurring.
Koby: a bookseller choosing what books to stock and not to stock is moderating. And it is protected by the 1st Amendment. Because editorial choices are protected by the 1st Amendment.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest
Why do you keep posting this bizarre support of child porn, spam, and ISIS?
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: No 1st Amendment Right To Censor
Prior to the CDA of 1996 that established section 230, there was no established first amendment right to moderate content.
Lol. Smith v. California (1959) called, and says you're an ignorant buffoon, Koby.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
Re: Let's Check The Details
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.
First off, the 1st Amendment very much does protect foreigners, so that's just factually incorrect. Second, the use of memes including those showing beheadings and such are very much political beliefs. Hell, I was an expert witness in a case (which helped acquit a guy) and a key image in that case that I testified on was him showing the orange jumpsuit beheading still with an FBI agent's head super-imposed on the body about to be decapitated. And... the judge and the jury properly found that to be protected political speech.
While Gettr can articulate rules that were violated that led to post removal, other American social media corporations cannot
This is an outright fabrication Koby. Facebook and Twitter also articulate rules that were violated. It's just that ignorant fools like yourself stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it must be because of your conservative beliefs.
You're a silly person, Koby.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
Way to throw your support behind ISIS, Kobes. Bold move.
On the post: Biden's Infrastructure Bill Shouldn't Undermine Cryptocurrency Infrastructure In The Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't say all the environmental issues will be solved soon. I said that they're being worked on -- and they are. And you can rage against cryptocurrency as much as you want, but it's not going to magically go away. So why not be a part of the fucking solution and work towards making it better, rather than just screaming about it being terrible and doing fuck all to help.
On the post: Biden's Infrastructure Bill Shouldn't Undermine Cryptocurrency Infrastructure In The Process
Re: Re: Re:
You're not wrong to be concerned about the environmental impact and the pump-and-dump greedy scammers. But you're throwing out a ton of good stuff with the "burn it all to the ground" idea. There are real efforts underway to deal with the environmental issues, which will hopefully help significantly. Already there are cryptocurrencies out there that aren't so environmentally wasteful.
And beyond the benefits that Paul talked about, you're also missing out on the most real opportunity we have to build a better internet that isn't just controlled by a few internet giants, where control is really more distributed to the ends of the network, rather than the middle. Don't let the very real negatives eat up the very real positives as well. Focus on how we deal with those negatives, while still obtaining the potential benefits.
On the post: Last Month In An LA Court I Witnessed The Future Of A World Without Section 230; It Was A Mess
Re: The Whrildwind
Literally nothing in this comment makes sense. You have made everyone dumber for you stupidity here.
You witnessed the results of your refusal to back Free Speech in social media backfire on you.
I have been an unwavering supporter of free speech. You have regularly demanded otherwise. But, this case has nothing to do with any of that. Trademark has never been covered by Section 230. My views would not have changed the outcome of this case.
230 needs to be dismantled.
Which would mean... MORE liability for websites, meaning they are MORE AGGRESSIVE and MORE LIKELY to take down content to avoid liability. In other words, your position would be an actual attack on free speech.
It could not be any worse than what we have now.
You have NO fucking clue. In every other country in the world, none of which have a 230, the ability for the powerful to silence those speaking truth to power is MUCH, MUCH greater, in part because of their lack of intermediary liability protections. It will be MUCH worse than it is now. If you think right now is bad, you are even dumber than I suspected.
There used to be a bumper sticker, it was an answer to the common bumper stickers of America, love it or leave it. The alternative was: America, change it or lose it.
Lol, wut?
They had the opportunity to preserve freedom and fair play while under 230 protection. They didn't, cheered on by writers such as yourself.
Lol, wut? Again, this case had fuck all to do with 230. Are you suggesting that websites must be forced to allow all trademark infringement? Or are you just so stupid that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?
Bye bye to 230, sooner or later. Bring the mess.
The mess being much more takedowns, especially of you and your friends' idiocy, because of the massive liability you freaks bring?
You anti-230 Trumpists are truly the dumbest fucking people around.
Next >>