And how long should they subject themselves to that harassment, hmm? How long do you think should they tolerate it? And since you so despise censorship, for what reason shouldn’t the platform step in to do something about that harassment by, say, banning the troll in a way that prevents them from getting back on the platform?
[bigots] have just as much right to their speech as we do
Do they have the right to a spot on Twitter? Do they have a right to make queer people listen to their speech? Do they have a right to make Twitter force queer people to listen?
And most importantly: Do you think they should have those rights?
There used to be an art in trolling trolls.
There still is. But that doesn’t mean we need to accept their presence in private spaces where they’re not welcome — unless, of course, you think we should do exactly that because FrEe SpEeCh and DiVeRsItY oF tHoUgHt.
Because trolls who aren’t featured eventually give up.
Define “eventually” in this context. How long a period of time are we talking here? Because we’ve got this one troll here who’s been pissed off for a decade about having someome quote Barack Obama at him… 👀
I respect the private property rights more than free speech rights. And therefore accept the private service has the rights to moderate at any level they chose.
And yet, you have continually come down on the side of reforming 230 — on the side of people who want compelled hosting. You don’t accept those rights; you begrudge their existence while looking for a way to erase them.
I’m not sure what you mean by “your mentions”.
You say you use Twitter, yet you have no idea what “mentions” are? You are woefully undereducated about social media; no wonder you think the way you do about it.
Learn you some shit on that, then we can continue that part of the conversation. (Don’t look at me to educate you. That isn’t my responsibility.)
Another thing stated in the same paragraphing of the discussion was a, look into it, and b) with doctors involved.
No doctor — except maybe for a complete sociopath — would seriously consider injecting household disinfectants into people even as an experiment. (And before you say “BuT hE dIdN’t SaY hOuSeHoLd DiSiNfEcTaNtS!”: Again, look at the context of what was said directly before he brought up the idea and know that Trump is a…simple thinker.) That you’re still defending the idea — and you are, whether you realize it or not — makes me all the more sure that you really are a libertarian.
Is a film that failed classification in the UK still available in France?
Possibly. How the fuck should I know.
So was the editing (if done) for classification censorship?
Arguably, yes — because the editing was done at the behest (or for the approval) of a government entity.
If they stand by their art and don’t release it at all was it censored in England if I can drive to France?
Possibly. How the fuck should I know.
Having access somewhere else doesn’t change localised censorship.
Yes, it does. It means the original is still out there — that you might have to jump through some hoops (legal or…otherwise) to see the original doesn’t change the fact that the original still exists.
Private Censorship is legal. I just frown upon it.
You’ve never once disagreed with me when I’ve said that you believe censorship is an evil that must be prevented. So if you dislike “private censorship”, and you believe censorship must be prevented (possibly at all costs), how can you still believe a social media service should have the absolute right to delete content/ban users?
over moderation has created very soft and easily offended populations
Have you considered that maybe people are more “easily offended” because they’ve always been offended at certain kinds of content (e.g., bigoted speech) but haven’t had the chance to express that openly until recently? No, of course you haven’t. You probably think people upset about, say, anti-queer propaganda are just too “easily offended” about queer people being called f⸻ts — including the queer people themselves.
Should people be protected from the big cruel world?
Moderation isn’t about “be[ing] protected” from the world. It’s about curating a community. In some cases, that means creating as safe a space as possible for people who are otherwise marginalized in society. Not everyone wants to go online and be reminded of how shit the world is when they check their social media feeds — including their mentions.
people have lost their shell in dealing with it
No, they’ve lost their taste for being polite about dealing with bigots and assholes.
What if there is no description or warning? What if that content is thrust upon you full and out in the open, such as being put into your Twitter mentions? For what reason should you have to subject yourself to content you don’t want to see for the sake of moderating it out of your timeline when Twitter could try to prevent that situation from happening in the first place?
There’s a difference between stumbling across something and flagging it, and intentionally looking at things I know will be against my tastes.
And what if someone blows into your mentions with that bullshit — for what reason should you shoulder the burden of moderating that bullshit if Twitter could at least try to prevent it from reaching your timeline first? Oh, right, I forgot — you think that would be CeNsOrShIp.
I do not equate all moderation to censorship, only deletion.
Then you may as well equate all moderation to censorship. A platform getting rid of speech it doesn’t want to host doesn’t censor anybody — the asshole is free to speak the same speech elsewhere. That deletion is a key part of curating a community; few people want to be known for coddling bigots, even by “hiding” their speech (while still actually hosting it). But since you believe deletion is censorship…well, you can likely see how commenters here have concluded that you’re in favor of compelled hosting, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.
So there are methods that generally work. That don’t resort to complete deletion.
And if they worked universally, and they didn’t present something of a “time bomb” situation in that the speech is still on the servers waiting to be discovered, maybe you would have a point. But they don’t. So you don’t.
Context?
Yes, it’s something you should look into. Specifically: When Trump raised the idea of injecting disinfectants into people as a means of fighting COVID-19, he did so after a presentation of how household disinfectants — including bleach, which was mentioned by name — could kill the COVID-19 virus on non-porous surfaces. Old 45 is a simple thinker, as are a significant number of his followers. He hears something like “bleach kills the virus” and thinks “hey let’s inject that into people to kill the virus” without thinking about…uh, let’s say “obvious side effects”. Sure, the media went a bit overboard in suggesting that Trump directly said people should inject bleach into themselves as a means of fighting COVID — that much, I’ll grant. But it isn’t hard to see how they got there, considering Trump was likely thinking that exact thought as he spoke.
Don’t blame me for the perception that a not-zero number of Trump sycophants think injecting bleach as a COVID-killer is a good idea. Blame the guy who made that line of thinking even possible in the first place: Donald “if people want to go back to the beach, they need to inject themselves with bleach” Trump.
Any modification takes away the rights of the private service owners.
And considering how you keep whining about “censorship”, it’s clear that — at best — you lean towards the side of preventing “censorship” (i.e., compelled hosting).
enough times I click on some sites embedded tweet and it asked for a log in
I’ve literally never been asked to log into Twitter to see a tweet, embedded or directly. Whatever the fuck you’re doing wrong is on you.
we just disagree on where the burden of work should be
For what reason should an end user be forced to do the kind of work that can destroy — and has destroyed, and will continue to destroy — those who moderate large services as a paid job?
You say “the user” can moderate content. I say Twitter has the right to delete content it doesn’t want to host and ban the assholes who post it.
You put the burden of moderation on end users. I put that burden on the service — where it largely belongs. Yes, users can and should curate their own experience. But they shouldn’t be responsible for doing the job of a moderator.
[Facebook and Twitter decide] what goes out and what doesn’t.
Both services have automated systems that look for keywords and such to moderate, sure. (It’s probably how I got dinged by Twitter for cussing at a Verified User once.) But neither service has a “pre-publication” system that holds back posts for personalized (or even automated) vetting before the post goes live. They don’t decide “what goes out” — they decide what stays up after it goes out. Moderation is always reactive.
Who the owner chooses to side with.
And under “reform 230” ideas, that owner wouldn’t be able to side against the racist because the speech of the racist is legally protected and must therefore be hosted under the principles of Freeze Peach.
some companies I support/use had made the terrible disgusting, but monetarily understandable, choice to close down self-hosted forums
Maybe they got tired of dealing with a smaller version of the Worst People Problem. Maybe they weren’t seeing enough traffic to justify keeping those forums open.
sometimes progressives say stupid things and the only way to grab screenshot proof of their stupidity is to be logged in
Not…really? Like, between Twitter itself and various instances of the Nitter frontend, I can take screenshots of publicly viewable tweets just fine.
Also: You’re implying that conservatives don’t post bullshit — or that you’re explicitly overlooking their bullshit because you’re aligned with them politically.
Just because it exists doesn’t mean I need to look at it.
Any “reform 230” argument rests on a single idea: A service must host all kinds of legal-yet-offensive speech to prevent “censorship” (read: moderation that deletes speech). Under that idea, moderators couldn’t delete such speech — and users would need to first view it so they could then filter it.
What was that you were saying about “not needing to look at it”, again?
There’s a high difference between moving content inappropriate to the topic elsewhere and deleting it.
One is useful if the speech is appropriate for another section of the website. The other is useful if there isn’t an appropriate section or the service doesn’t want to host that speech. Most “reform 230” arguments take that “we don’t want to host that” option out of the equation. You continue to argue that moderation is censorship; your argument thus implies that any moderation that deletes speech must be stopped at all costs.
I actually wish, hope for, the day someone comes along to buy back CIS and it’s freedom.
Considering the full context of the partial sentence to which you replied there, you literally sound like you’re hoping for CIS to become overrun with the kind of speech I mentioned. That, uh…that doesn’t reflect well on you, dude.
Still keeping that misquote lie alive i see.
Still insisting that I’m “misquoting” even though I know both the original quote and the context in which it was said — that I’m somehow intellectually disabled — because your feelings get hurt when I accurately and truthfully point out that context, I see.
For what reason should a service that refuses to moderate third-party speech be less liable for that speech than a service that moderates third-party speech and maybe misses a few things here in there because humanity isn’t perfect?
Just that the platform can be sued for this speech, according to existing laws.
Existing law says they can’t generally be sued over moderation decisions. The law that says so is 47 U.S.C. § 230 — i.e., the same law you’re arguing should somehow be “fixed” to allow lawsuits over moderation decisions.
Just like a newspaper can be legitimately sued for what it publishes
A newspaper has editors who decide what to publish before it is published. Twitter doesn’t moderate speech until after someone publishes it on Twitter. The two situations are not remotely the same at all.
sometimes there's merit to sue a bar from banning some customers
If the bar bans customers for being Black, sure. If the bar bans customers for being belligerent assholes, hell no. The difference there is whether the bar bans someone for what they do or for who they are.
The same goes for Twitter: It can’t ban people based on race or other protected classes (e.g., religion), but it can ban people who violate the TOS by posting racial slurs aimed at people of color. Twitter has that right, and nobody — including you — has yet to adequately explain why it shouldn’t.
GEnie died because the service wasn’t self supporting, let alone profitable.
Unless you can conclusively prove GE’s moderation efforts had anything to do with that, your point is moot.
Prodigy being family friendly was a limiting factor in further growth.
And under 230, Prodigy had the absolute legal right to moderate in such a way that it remained family-friendly. Without 230, we could possibly have seen a SCOTUS ruling that said Prodigy is liable for third-party speech — a ruling which would’ve destroyed Prodigy…and any subsequent service that dared to be anything but a precursory version of 4chan.
AOL and CIS survived for one reason, and one alone, a dedicated user based that would not allow them to die.
Unless you can prove that the moderation efforts (or lack thereof) on the part AOL and CIS are responsible for that dedicated user base, your point is moot.
We won’t ever see open uncensored services anymore, let alone unmoderated completely.
I have a challenge for you.
Go to 8kun. Find any given politics-based, porn-based, or “random” board on the site that looks heavily trafficked. Surf that board for one hour without any breaks or without looking at any other website. You don’t have to view individual threads (and I wouldn’t recommend it). You need only to browse the pages of that board you selected and refresh the front page of the board for updates. You must keep all images visible at all times and view as many of them as possible at full size. You must view every video file that you come across. You must not use any wordfiltering userscripts or browser extensions to hide offensive language. (Exceptions can, will, and should be made for any CSAM you may run across as you browse.)
If you can last the full hour without feeling disgusted with yourself or humanity — without wondering why anyone would want to host that speech, would want to post that speech, would want to experience that speech — only then will you have earned the right to argue in favor of turning the entire Internet into 8kun. If you can’t…well, don’t say I didn’t warn you that you would be stepping into every circle of Dante’s Hell.
Being free has put the service at the call of the advertisers.
Advertisers want to sell their products to as wide an audience as possible. Must you really be told why they wouldn’t want to associate with a platform widely regarded as a home for white nationalists, bigots, fascists, Trump stans, and people who still think bleach injections could stop COVID-19 for good?
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
And how long should they subject themselves to that harassment, hmm? How long do you think should they tolerate it? And since you so despise censorship, for what reason shouldn’t the platform step in to do something about that harassment by, say, banning the troll in a way that prevents them from getting back on the platform?
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
I don’t respond to otherwording.
And yet, you have cotinually sided with those who want to reform 230.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Do they have the right to a spot on Twitter? Do they have a right to make queer people listen to their speech? Do they have a right to make Twitter force queer people to listen?
And most importantly: Do you think they should have those rights?
There still is. But that doesn’t mean we need to accept their presence in private spaces where they’re not welcome — unless, of course, you think we should do exactly that because FrEe SpEeCh and DiVeRsItY oF tHoUgHt.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 287: Regulating Amplification Is A Lot Harder Than You Think
saying it over and over doesn’t make it true, Jhon
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Define “eventually” in this context. How long a period of time are we talking here? Because we’ve got this one troll here who’s been pissed off for a decade about having someome quote Barack Obama at him… 👀
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
And yet, you have continually come down on the side of reforming 230 — on the side of people who want compelled hosting. You don’t accept those rights; you begrudge their existence while looking for a way to erase them.
You say you use Twitter, yet you have no idea what “mentions” are? You are woefully undereducated about social media; no wonder you think the way you do about it.
Learn you some shit on that, then we can continue that part of the conversation. (Don’t look at me to educate you. That isn’t my responsibility.)
No doctor — except maybe for a complete sociopath — would seriously consider injecting household disinfectants into people even as an experiment. (And before you say “BuT hE dIdN’t SaY hOuSeHoLd DiSiNfEcTaNtS!”: Again, look at the context of what was said directly before he brought up the idea and know that Trump is a…simple thinker.) That you’re still defending the idea — and you are, whether you realize it or not — makes me all the more sure that you really are a libertarian.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Possibly. How the fuck should I know.
Arguably, yes — because the editing was done at the behest (or for the approval) of a government entity.
Possibly. How the fuck should I know.
Yes, it does. It means the original is still out there — that you might have to jump through some hoops (legal or…otherwise) to see the original doesn’t change the fact that the original still exists.
You’ve never once disagreed with me when I’ve said that you believe censorship is an evil that must be prevented. So if you dislike “private censorship”, and you believe censorship must be prevented (possibly at all costs), how can you still believe a social media service should have the absolute right to delete content/ban users?
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Have you considered that maybe people are more “easily offended” because they’ve always been offended at certain kinds of content (e.g., bigoted speech) but haven’t had the chance to express that openly until recently? No, of course you haven’t. You probably think people upset about, say, anti-queer propaganda are just too “easily offended” about queer people being called f⸻ts — including the queer people themselves.
Moderation isn’t about “be[ing] protected” from the world. It’s about curating a community. In some cases, that means creating as safe a space as possible for people who are otherwise marginalized in society. Not everyone wants to go online and be reminded of how shit the world is when they check their social media feeds — including their mentions.
No, they’ve lost their taste for being polite about dealing with bigots and assholes.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
What if there is no description or warning? What if that content is thrust upon you full and out in the open, such as being put into your Twitter mentions? For what reason should you have to subject yourself to content you don’t want to see for the sake of moderating it out of your timeline when Twitter could try to prevent that situation from happening in the first place?
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
And what if someone blows into your mentions with that bullshit — for what reason should you shoulder the burden of moderating that bullshit if Twitter could at least try to prevent it from reaching your timeline first? Oh, right, I forgot — you think that would be CeNsOrShIp.
Then you may as well equate all moderation to censorship. A platform getting rid of speech it doesn’t want to host doesn’t censor anybody — the asshole is free to speak the same speech elsewhere. That deletion is a key part of curating a community; few people want to be known for coddling bigots, even by “hiding” their speech (while still actually hosting it). But since you believe deletion is censorship…well, you can likely see how commenters here have concluded that you’re in favor of compelled hosting, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.
And if they worked universally, and they didn’t present something of a “time bomb” situation in that the speech is still on the servers waiting to be discovered, maybe you would have a point. But they don’t. So you don’t.
Yes, it’s something you should look into. Specifically: When Trump raised the idea of injecting disinfectants into people as a means of fighting COVID-19, he did so after a presentation of how household disinfectants — including bleach, which was mentioned by name — could kill the COVID-19 virus on non-porous surfaces. Old 45 is a simple thinker, as are a significant number of his followers. He hears something like “bleach kills the virus” and thinks “hey let’s inject that into people to kill the virus” without thinking about…uh, let’s say “obvious side effects”. Sure, the media went a bit overboard in suggesting that Trump directly said people should inject bleach into themselves as a means of fighting COVID — that much, I’ll grant. But it isn’t hard to see how they got there, considering Trump was likely thinking that exact thought as he spoke.
Don’t blame me for the perception that a not-zero number of Trump sycophants think injecting bleach as a COVID-killer is a good idea. Blame the guy who made that line of thinking even possible in the first place: Donald “if people want to go back to the beach, they need to inject themselves with bleach” Trump.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
And considering how you keep whining about “censorship”, it’s clear that — at best — you lean towards the side of preventing “censorship” (i.e., compelled hosting).
I’ve literally never been asked to log into Twitter to see a tweet, embedded or directly. Whatever the fuck you’re doing wrong is on you.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Even if you can access it literally anywhere else?
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
For what reason should an end user be forced to do the kind of work that can destroy — and has destroyed, and will continue to destroy — those who moderate large services as a paid job?
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
You say “the user” can moderate content. I say Twitter has the right to delete content it doesn’t want to host and ban the assholes who post it.
You put the burden of moderation on end users. I put that burden on the service — where it largely belongs. Yes, users can and should curate their own experience. But they shouldn’t be responsible for doing the job of a moderator.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Both services have automated systems that look for keywords and such to moderate, sure. (It’s probably how I got dinged by Twitter for cussing at a Verified User once.) But neither service has a “pre-publication” system that holds back posts for personalized (or even automated) vetting before the post goes live. They don’t decide “what goes out” — they decide what stays up after it goes out. Moderation is always reactive.
And under “reform 230” ideas, that owner wouldn’t be able to side against the racist because the speech of the racist is legally protected and must therefore be hosted under the principles of Freeze Peach.
Maybe they got tired of dealing with a smaller version of the Worst People Problem. Maybe they weren’t seeing enough traffic to justify keeping those forums open.
Not…really? Like, between Twitter itself and various instances of the Nitter frontend, I can take screenshots of publicly viewable tweets just fine.
Also: You’re implying that conservatives don’t post bullshit — or that you’re explicitly overlooking their bullshit because you’re aligned with them politically.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Any “reform 230” argument rests on a single idea: A service must host all kinds of legal-yet-offensive speech to prevent “censorship” (read: moderation that deletes speech). Under that idea, moderators couldn’t delete such speech — and users would need to first view it so they could then filter it.
What was that you were saying about “not needing to look at it”, again?
One is useful if the speech is appropriate for another section of the website. The other is useful if there isn’t an appropriate section or the service doesn’t want to host that speech. Most “reform 230” arguments take that “we don’t want to host that” option out of the equation. You continue to argue that moderation is censorship; your argument thus implies that any moderation that deletes speech must be stopped at all costs.
Considering the full context of the partial sentence to which you replied there, you literally sound like you’re hoping for CIS to become overrun with the kind of speech I mentioned. That, uh…that doesn’t reflect well on you, dude.
Still insisting that I’m “misquoting” even though I know both the original quote and the context in which it was said — that I’m somehow intellectually disabled — because your feelings get hurt when I accurately and truthfully point out that context, I see.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
For what reason should a service that refuses to moderate third-party speech be less liable for that speech than a service that moderates third-party speech and maybe misses a few things here in there because humanity isn’t perfect?
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Existing law says they can’t generally be sued over moderation decisions. The law that says so is 47 U.S.C. § 230 — i.e., the same law you’re arguing should somehow be “fixed” to allow lawsuits over moderation decisions.
A newspaper has editors who decide what to publish before it is published. Twitter doesn’t moderate speech until after someone publishes it on Twitter. The two situations are not remotely the same at all.
If the bar bans customers for being Black, sure. If the bar bans customers for being belligerent assholes, hell no. The difference there is whether the bar bans someone for what they do or for who they are.
The same goes for Twitter: It can’t ban people based on race or other protected classes (e.g., religion), but it can ban people who violate the TOS by posting racial slurs aimed at people of color. Twitter has that right, and nobody — including you — has yet to adequately explain why it shouldn’t.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Unless you can conclusively prove GE’s moderation efforts had anything to do with that, your point is moot.
And under 230, Prodigy had the absolute legal right to moderate in such a way that it remained family-friendly. Without 230, we could possibly have seen a SCOTUS ruling that said Prodigy is liable for third-party speech — a ruling which would’ve destroyed Prodigy…and any subsequent service that dared to be anything but a precursory version of 4chan.
Unless you can prove that the moderation efforts (or lack thereof) on the part AOL and CIS are responsible for that dedicated user base, your point is moot.
I have a challenge for you.
Go to 8kun. Find any given politics-based, porn-based, or “random” board on the site that looks heavily trafficked. Surf that board for one hour without any breaks or without looking at any other website. You don’t have to view individual threads (and I wouldn’t recommend it). You need only to browse the pages of that board you selected and refresh the front page of the board for updates. You must keep all images visible at all times and view as many of them as possible at full size. You must view every video file that you come across. You must not use any wordfiltering userscripts or browser extensions to hide offensive language. (Exceptions can, will, and should be made for any CSAM you may run across as you browse.)
If you can last the full hour without feeling disgusted with yourself or humanity — without wondering why anyone would want to host that speech, would want to post that speech, would want to experience that speech — only then will you have earned the right to argue in favor of turning the entire Internet into 8kun. If you can’t…well, don’t say I didn’t warn you that you would be stepping into every circle of Dante’s Hell.
Advertisers want to sell their products to as wide an audience as possible. Must you really be told why they wouldn’t want to associate with a platform widely regarded as a home for white nationalists, bigots, fascists, Trump stans, and people who still think bleach injections could stop COVID-19 for good?
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
How?
Next >>