Can the speech deleted by Twitter be repeated elsewhere by the same person who initially expressed it? If the answer is “yes”, Twitter hasn’t censored anyone. If the answer is “no”, I can’t want to see you explain that one — preferably with citations.
It's hilarious the mental gymnastics you go through to pretend this isn't censorship.
I don’t believe moderation is censorship largely for one specific reason: I know what acts that belief would justify.
Were I to believe moderation is censorship and Twitter was guilty of censoring someone any time it moderated legally protected speech, I could then justify acting in ways that would call for Twitter to “stop censoring people”. That would mean I could justify calling for, say, the compelled hosting of speech — no matter how offensive I think it is — under the guise of wanting “free speech on Twitter” or “a neutral public square” or some other horseshit reasoning.
But I don’t believe moderation is censorship. I believe moderation is the intentional curation of a community, no matter its size. I also believe censorship involves any attempt — successful or failed, governmental or civilian — to actively infringe upon the rights of free speech and association, such that someone feels they cannot speak at all. Being denied a space on a privately owned service that no one has a legal, moral, or ethical right to use is not censorship. Being booted from that space for violating the rules set down by the owner of the property on which you had the privilege of speaking is not censorship. Or, as the copypasta goes:
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.
When Twitter gives someone the boot for anti-queer speech, Twitter isn’t saying “you won’t” — or “can’t” — “say that anywhere”. It’s saying “we don’t do that here, and since you refuse to stop doing ‘that’, we’re showing you the door”. No effort has been made by Twitter to stop the bigot from going to Gab or Parler or some alt-reich shitpit Mastodon/Pleroma instance and saying the same speech what got the bigot banned from Twitter. No effort ever will be.
So before you toss the definition of “censorship” back in my face and shittalk me for not sharing your broad-ass interpretation of it, ask yourself the important questions: What actions would/could you justify with your belief of “moderation is censorship and it must be stopped”? And what consequences would those actions have on people who aren’t you — especially people who are already marginalized in society?
My comment is aimed at Koby and his usual stances on speech vis-á-vis moderation on Twitter and the like, not at the Nigeria situation. But in re: that situation, I believe no government should have the power to make any interactive web service host any kind of speech the service doesn’t want to host.
Please explain how Twitter — a privately owned service that does not operate as a public forum or government entity — can censor someone. Remember that posting on Twitter is a privilege, not a guaranteed legal right, and people who get banned from Twitter can repost their speech elsewhere.
Also, please point out examples of the speech for which conservatives were banned from Twitter in a way you feel is unfair or biased towards them.
Also also, please explain how that speech is “conservative speech”.
Neutral journalism doesn’t exist, Lodos. You can’t separate bias from journalism. Someone must decide what to publish, what to distill out of the mass of available data, and what facts to check. The best any journalist/editor can do is hope they pick the right facts, the right data, and the right stories.
your constant commenting about "but should the government force [whoever] to do [whatever]?"
Stop stealing Orange Cassidy’s gimmick.
Now that the pro wrestling reference is out of the way…
is little more than a disingenuous "otherwording" that mischaracterizes other people's views
No, it isn’t.
Every time I bust out that question (thank you PhraseExpress macros), I do it because someone — typically Koby, which is why I have that question macro’d to that name — has expressed an opinion or idea that suggests they believe the government should, in some capacity, compel a privately owned service to host some kind of content. In Koby’s case, he has continually talked about repealing or “fixing” 230 and the supposed “censorship” of conservative views (though he never explains which ones…) and how a service like Twitter should be “apolitical” in re: the speech it chooses to host.
The question is a straight-to-the-point yes-or-no question for a reason: If he truly believes in the ideas he espouses, he should have no problem answering “yes” — and if he doesn’t believe the government should force speech onto interactive web services, he should have no problem saying “no”. But he continually deflects from that One Simple Question (and numerous others along those lines) because to answer it directly would expose his beliefs, and he’d prefer to use dogwhistles instead of a bullhorn.
The question is simple and gets right to the heart of every discussion about repealing 230, enacting some sort of Fairness Doctrine for social media, and other discussions along those lines. I don’t assume that the question represents the beliefs of those to whom the question is posed — unless they refuse to answer or deflect the question with some bullshit. Anyone unafraid to say “no” (or “yes”!) would speak their answer, unqualified and direct and to the point. Anyone afraid to directly say “yes”, on the other hand…well, let’s say that refusing to answer, or deflecting the question, is itself an answer — and it says more about them than a simple “yes” ever could.
Whatever Koby actually believes, I can only assume from his comment history and his devout refusal to directly answer my yes-or-no questions about his beliefs. The onus to clear up any faulty assumptions is on him. His continued refusal to do that is his problem, his burden, his responsibility — not mine. I can’t solve it for him. Neither can you.
Most of us here, I think. We've known it since he started calling for the repeal of 230 and the government takeover of social interaction networks under the guise of “enforcing viewpoint neutrality” or some other dogwhistle horseshit.
The internet is designed to eliminate gatekeepers.
Yes or no, Koby: 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? Please note that for the purposes of this discussion, the owners/operators of said service are “gatekeepers”, which you believe the Internet is designed to eliminate.
did they remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise?
In regards to my “Donald Trump is a wank pheasant” thought exercise? Yes — but only on Twitter, which means someone can go repost that exact same phrase elsewhere. Don’t fall for the “I have been silenced” fallacy. If you can get banned from Twitter and go elsewhere to say the same speech that got you banned, you haven’t been censored — you’ve been shown the door and asked to GTFO.
Posting on Twitter is a privilege. Having the reach that Twitter can offer is a privilege. Twitter does not and will never owe you a platform or an audience. You don’t actually own the private property (e.g., the servers) on which Twitter runs and Twitter is not a public forum or government entity, so you’re not entitled to shit from Twitter. The same goes for everyone else — including me.
Yes or no: 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? Please keep in mind that racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and the word “moist” are all legally protected speech under United States law.
If a homophobe gets kicked off Twitter for using the F-word — the bad F-word, that is — how does that prevent the homophobe from going right to 4chan or 8kun and using the word there?
Please note that if your answer is anything but “it doesn’t”, your answer is most likely bullshit. Please remember before you answer that posting on Twitter is a privilege and nobody has a right to “free reach”.
Please explain how Twitter — a privately owned service that does not operate as a public forum or government entity — can censor someone. Remember that posting on Twitter is a privilege, not a guaranteed legal right, and people who get banned from Twitter can repost their speech elsewhere.
Also, please point out examples of the speech for which conservatives were banned from Twitter in a way you feel is unfair or biased towards them.
Also also, please explain how that speech is “conservative speech”.
And my interpretation of the article is that its thrust is that, and "We've been helping install crooked judges and legislators all over so that we can delete the stuff you want deleted. Stop ruining what we're trying to do for you!"
You need some help from some airport terminal workers? Because you seem to be carrying a fair bit of baggage with you.
As I’ve said: I’m no fan of the Kochs or modern American conservatives in general. But this article doesn’t even remotely say “I want conservatives to shut the fuck up so they can keep fucking things up”. You’re the only commenter here bringing that bullshit into the conversation.
Whatever issues you have with the Kochs, conservatives, or whatever else can (and probably should) be put aside to look at the broader point — which is, as I’ve also said before, conservatives think voting for common carriage laws won’t be a vote for a Leopards Eating Faces outcome when it absolutely would be. I’m not saying “don’t stay mad at the Kochs”. Stay mad at them. But for this moment, maybe consider that there is a tiny bit of common ground between them and you on this subject. Then celebrate the fact that you can find even some minor common ground with people whose houses and livelihoods you’d probably want to see burned to the ground.
We’re brought together when we can put aside our differences and work towards common goals to benefit all peoples. Fighting against common carriage laws for social interaction networks is one such instance where that can happen. Rather than spit at people with differing politics who want to work with you in preventing those laws from becoming a reality, agree to disagree…on a great many things…while also accepting the help.
I would bet something about my political beliefs would piss you off. (If I took sucker bets, that is.) Would you spit in my face and refuse my help in fighting against common carriage laws if that were the case?
tl;dr — Stay mad at the Kochs for everything else, but if they’re on your side in this fight, that has to count for something.
Would you have Techdirt refuse to run material from anyone who might be even incidentally linked to Koch money? Or anyone who identifies themselves or their political ideology as “conservative”? Because that sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me, and I’m against modern American conservatism in general.
If Techdirt was running articles extolling the virtues of scaring queer people back into the closet or “maybe letting the rich hoard their wealth is actually a good thing” or whatever, I’d probably be one of the first regular readers to abandon ship. But they’re not. They ran a perfectly fine article about how common carriage laws for social interaction networks would backfire on conservatives who think such laws are the way to eliminate the imagined “anti-conservative bias” on social media. Which are you really more concerned about: The excellent point being made, or who may have funded the writer making that point?
The article is, in my opinion, essentially saying "Hey conservatives, don't go for common carriage if you want to eliminate porn and gay people from the Internet."
It isn’t. The article is saying “hey, conservatives — go for common carriage and everything you want to delete from the Internet will overrun the Internet instead”. It is literally pointing out that conservative-minded content will be just as washed away by spam, porn, and spam porn (those sick fuckers…) as will liberal/progressive content. Family-friendly spaces, religious spaces, any space earmarked by and for conservatives — all of them will come under attack, and all of them will eventually fall.
Look, I’m no fan of prudish conservative bullshit like keeping queer people in the closet and thinking a picture of a bare tit is more dangerous than a video of someone getting shot in the head. But pushing common carriage laws will not stop that shit from happening. If anything, the flood of “degenerate” content will precede a push for stronger content controls, which will inevitably turn into a push for making the Internet a one-way broadcast system instead of a communications network. Common carriage rules for social interaction networks will benefit nobody but spammers, trolls, con artists, and assholes.
…huh. Now I can see why conservatives want common carriage laws.
Bing is owned by Microsoft. I don’t care what you think of the service itself — if you think Microsoft doesn’t have its finger on the scale in any capacity, you’re fooling yourself into believing nonsense. I mean, the Tank Man controversy from this past weekend alone is proof enough of that.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Can the speech deleted by Twitter be repeated elsewhere by the same person who initially expressed it? If the answer is “yes”, Twitter hasn’t censored anyone. If the answer is “no”, I can’t want to see you explain that one — preferably with citations.
I don’t believe moderation is censorship largely for one specific reason: I know what acts that belief would justify.
Were I to believe moderation is censorship and Twitter was guilty of censoring someone any time it moderated legally protected speech, I could then justify acting in ways that would call for Twitter to “stop censoring people”. That would mean I could justify calling for, say, the compelled hosting of speech — no matter how offensive I think it is — under the guise of wanting “free speech on Twitter” or “a neutral public square” or some other horseshit reasoning.
But I don’t believe moderation is censorship. I believe moderation is the intentional curation of a community, no matter its size. I also believe censorship involves any attempt — successful or failed, governmental or civilian — to actively infringe upon the rights of free speech and association, such that someone feels they cannot speak at all. Being denied a space on a privately owned service that no one has a legal, moral, or ethical right to use is not censorship. Being booted from that space for violating the rules set down by the owner of the property on which you had the privilege of speaking is not censorship. Or, as the copypasta goes:
When Twitter gives someone the boot for anti-queer speech, Twitter isn’t saying “you won’t” — or “can’t” — “say that anywhere”. It’s saying “we don’t do that here, and since you refuse to stop doing ‘that’, we’re showing you the door”. No effort has been made by Twitter to stop the bigot from going to Gab or Parler or some alt-reich shitpit Mastodon/Pleroma instance and saying the same speech what got the bigot banned from Twitter. No effort ever will be.
So before you toss the definition of “censorship” back in my face and shittalk me for not sharing your broad-ass interpretation of it, ask yourself the important questions: What actions would/could you justify with your belief of “moderation is censorship and it must be stopped”? And what consequences would those actions have on people who aren’t you — especially people who are already marginalized in society?
On the post: Not As Surprising As You May Think: Garland DOJ Says That Trump Denying Raping E. Jean Carroll Was Official Presidential Business
Between this and the DOJ promising to “vigorously” defend of the right of religious schools that receive federal funding to discriminate against queer people, the current DOJ is…uh…not looking much different than the DOJ under Trump. Then again, at least we knew the Trump DOJ was being overseen by bigots and bullshitters from the get-go.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Pretty Much Every Platform Overreacts To Content Removal Stimuli (2015)
or else what, you’re gonna keep spamming this comments section
shut up, Meg
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
My comment is aimed at Koby and his usual stances on speech vis-á-vis moderation on Twitter and the like, not at the Nigeria situation. But in re: that situation, I believe no government should have the power to make any interactive web service host any kind of speech the service doesn’t want to host.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
I read it. So what.
Please explain how Twitter — a privately owned service that does not operate as a public forum or government entity — can censor someone. Remember that posting on Twitter is a privilege, not a guaranteed legal right, and people who get banned from Twitter can repost their speech elsewhere.
Also, please point out examples of the speech for which conservatives were banned from Twitter in a way you feel is unfair or biased towards them.
Also also, please explain how that speech is “conservative speech”.
On the post: Does Taking Down Content Lead Ignorant People To Believe It's More Likely To Be True?
Neutral journalism doesn’t exist, Lodos. You can’t separate bias from journalism. Someone must decide what to publish, what to distill out of the mass of available data, and what facts to check. The best any journalist/editor can do is hope they pick the right facts, the right data, and the right stories.
On the post: Data Analysis Shows That Trump's Messages Still Received Tons Of Attention; Though His Disinformation Doesn't Travel As Far
shut up, Wallace
On the post: Data Analysis Shows That Trump's Messages Still Received Tons Of Attention; Though His Disinformation Doesn't Travel As Far
First thing’s first:
Stop stealing Orange Cassidy’s gimmick.
Now that the pro wrestling reference is out of the way…
No, it isn’t.
Every time I bust out that question (thank you PhraseExpress macros), I do it because someone — typically Koby, which is why I have that question macro’d to that name — has expressed an opinion or idea that suggests they believe the government should, in some capacity, compel a privately owned service to host some kind of content. In Koby’s case, he has continually talked about repealing or “fixing” 230 and the supposed “censorship” of conservative views (though he never explains which ones…) and how a service like Twitter should be “apolitical” in re: the speech it chooses to host.
The question is a straight-to-the-point yes-or-no question for a reason: If he truly believes in the ideas he espouses, he should have no problem answering “yes” — and if he doesn’t believe the government should force speech onto interactive web services, he should have no problem saying “no”. But he continually deflects from that One Simple Question (and numerous others along those lines) because to answer it directly would expose his beliefs, and he’d prefer to use dogwhistles instead of a bullhorn.
The question is simple and gets right to the heart of every discussion about repealing 230, enacting some sort of Fairness Doctrine for social media, and other discussions along those lines. I don’t assume that the question represents the beliefs of those to whom the question is posed — unless they refuse to answer or deflect the question with some bullshit. Anyone unafraid to say “no” (or “yes”!) would speak their answer, unqualified and direct and to the point. Anyone afraid to directly say “yes”, on the other hand…well, let’s say that refusing to answer, or deflecting the question, is itself an answer — and it says more about them than a simple “yes” ever could.
Whatever Koby actually believes, I can only assume from his comment history and his devout refusal to directly answer my yes-or-no questions about his beliefs. The onus to clear up any faulty assumptions is on him. His continued refusal to do that is his problem, his burden, his responsibility — not mine. I can’t solve it for him. Neither can you.
On the post: Data Analysis Shows That Trump's Messages Still Received Tons Of Attention; Though His Disinformation Doesn't Travel As Far
Most of us here, I think. We've known it since he started calling for the repeal of 230 and the government takeover of social interaction networks under the guise of “enforcing viewpoint neutrality” or some other dogwhistle horseshit.
On the post: Data Analysis Shows That Trump's Messages Still Received Tons Of Attention; Though His Disinformation Doesn't Travel As Far
Yes or no, Koby: 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? Please note that for the purposes of this discussion, the owners/operators of said service are “gatekeepers”, which you believe the Internet is designed to eliminate.
On the post: Citizen Drops Its Plan To Become Private Cops, Claims It Was Never Interested In Forming A Private Security Force
I get the feeling Citizen wanted their security force to be less “police” and more “Punisher”, given that the app was originally named Vigilante.
On the post: Three Years After An Officer Killed A Suicidal Teen, Law Enforcement Releases Report That Raises More Questions
And if you train an officer to be a soldier, everyone else looks like a threat — even when they aren’t.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
In regards to my “Donald Trump is a wank pheasant” thought exercise? Yes — but only on Twitter, which means someone can go repost that exact same phrase elsewhere. Don’t fall for the “I have been silenced” fallacy. If you can get banned from Twitter and go elsewhere to say the same speech that got you banned, you haven’t been censored — you’ve been shown the door and asked to GTFO.
Posting on Twitter is a privilege. Having the reach that Twitter can offer is a privilege. Twitter does not and will never owe you a platform or an audience. You don’t actually own the private property (e.g., the servers) on which Twitter runs and Twitter is not a public forum or government entity, so you’re not entitled to shit from Twitter. The same goes for everyone else — including me.
Yes or no: 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? Please keep in mind that racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and the word “moist” are all legally protected speech under United States law.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
If a homophobe gets kicked off Twitter for using the F-word — the bad F-word, that is — how does that prevent the homophobe from going right to 4chan or 8kun and using the word there?
Please note that if your answer is anything but “it doesn’t”, your answer is most likely bullshit. Please remember before you answer that posting on Twitter is a privilege and nobody has a right to “free reach”.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Please explain how Twitter — a privately owned service that does not operate as a public forum or government entity — can censor someone. Remember that posting on Twitter is a privilege, not a guaranteed legal right, and people who get banned from Twitter can repost their speech elsewhere.
Also, please point out examples of the speech for which conservatives were banned from Twitter in a way you feel is unfair or biased towards them.
Also also, please explain how that speech is “conservative speech”.
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
You need some help from some airport terminal workers? Because you seem to be carrying a fair bit of baggage with you.
As I’ve said: I’m no fan of the Kochs or modern American conservatives in general. But this article doesn’t even remotely say “I want conservatives to shut the fuck up so they can keep fucking things up”. You’re the only commenter here bringing that bullshit into the conversation.
Whatever issues you have with the Kochs, conservatives, or whatever else can (and probably should) be put aside to look at the broader point — which is, as I’ve also said before, conservatives think voting for common carriage laws won’t be a vote for a Leopards Eating Faces outcome when it absolutely would be. I’m not saying “don’t stay mad at the Kochs”. Stay mad at them. But for this moment, maybe consider that there is a tiny bit of common ground between them and you on this subject. Then celebrate the fact that you can find even some minor common ground with people whose houses and livelihoods you’d probably want to see burned to the ground.
We’re brought together when we can put aside our differences and work towards common goals to benefit all peoples. Fighting against common carriage laws for social interaction networks is one such instance where that can happen. Rather than spit at people with differing politics who want to work with you in preventing those laws from becoming a reality, agree to disagree…on a great many things…while also accepting the help.
I would bet something about my political beliefs would piss you off. (If I took sucker bets, that is.) Would you spit in my face and refuse my help in fighting against common carriage laws if that were the case?
tl;dr — Stay mad at the Kochs for everything else, but if they’re on your side in this fight, that has to count for something.
On the post: Why The Ninth Circuit's Decision In Lemmon V. Snap Is Wrong On Section 230 And Bad For Online Speech
Other than a Darwin Award, maybe…
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
Would you have Techdirt refuse to run material from anyone who might be even incidentally linked to Koch money? Or anyone who identifies themselves or their political ideology as “conservative”? Because that sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me, and I’m against modern American conservatism in general.
If Techdirt was running articles extolling the virtues of scaring queer people back into the closet or “maybe letting the rich hoard their wealth is actually a good thing” or whatever, I’d probably be one of the first regular readers to abandon ship. But they’re not. They ran a perfectly fine article about how common carriage laws for social interaction networks would backfire on conservatives who think such laws are the way to eliminate the imagined “anti-conservative bias” on social media. Which are you really more concerned about: The excellent point being made, or who may have funded the writer making that point?
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
It isn’t. The article is saying “hey, conservatives — go for common carriage and everything you want to delete from the Internet will overrun the Internet instead”. It is literally pointing out that conservative-minded content will be just as washed away by spam, porn, and spam porn (those sick fuckers…) as will liberal/progressive content. Family-friendly spaces, religious spaces, any space earmarked by and for conservatives — all of them will come under attack, and all of them will eventually fall.
Look, I’m no fan of prudish conservative bullshit like keeping queer people in the closet and thinking a picture of a bare tit is more dangerous than a video of someone getting shot in the head. But pushing common carriage laws will not stop that shit from happening. If anything, the flood of “degenerate” content will precede a push for stronger content controls, which will inevitably turn into a push for making the Internet a one-way broadcast system instead of a communications network. Common carriage rules for social interaction networks will benefit nobody but spammers, trolls, con artists, and assholes.
…huh. Now I can see why conservatives want common carriage laws.
On the post: Ohio Files Bizarre And Nonsensical Lawsuit Against Google, Claiming It's A Common Carrier; But What Does That Even Mean?
Bing is owned by Microsoft. I don’t care what you think of the service itself — if you think Microsoft doesn’t have its finger on the scale in any capacity, you’re fooling yourself into believing nonsense. I mean, the Tank Man controversy from this past weekend alone is proof enough of that.
Next >>