Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should force Twitter to host Ku Klux Klan propaganda? Keep in mind that Klan propaganda is technically “political speech”, so you can’t duck the question by claiming otherwise.
Answer the goddamn question. A “yes” or a “no” will suffice.
google appears to refuse to consider information from some sources that are important to the user, but google dislikes.
Google is under no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to index links from sites that are largely collections of bullshit disguised as “news” or “political punditry”. But please, feel free to explain — if you can — how Google is under such an obligation despite legal protections against compelled speech and association. I’ll wait.
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should force Twitter to host Ku Klux Klan propaganda? Keep in mind that Klan propaganda is technically “political speech”, so you can’t duck the question by claiming otherwise.
We already have the situation where common carriage isn’t a thing. We already see those pressure campaigns. What do you want done about that right now other than the passage of common carriage rules for social interaction networks?
Also, I should note that the “family-friendly spaces” bit was part of the original intent of Section 230, and if’n you don’t believe me, believe the actual, factual, on-the-Congressional-record words of Republican lawmaker Chris Cox:
We want to encourage people like Prodigy, like CompuServe, like America Online, like the new Microsoft network, to do everything possible for us, the customer, to help us control, at the portals of our computer, at the front door of our house, what comes in and what our children see.
…
[O]ur amendment will do two basic things: First, it will protect computer Good Samaritans, online service providers, anyone who provides a front end to the Internet, let us say, who takes steps to screen indecency and offensive material for their customers. It will protect them from taking on liability such as occurred in the Prodigy case in New York that they should not face for helping us and for helping us solve this problem. Second, it will establish as the policy of the United States that we do not wish to have content regulation by the Federal Government of what is on the Internet, that we do not wish to have a Federal Computer Commission with an army of bureaucrats regulating the Internet because frankly the Internet has grown up to be what it is without that kind of help from the Government. In this fashion we can encourage what is right now the most energetic technological revolution that any of us has ever witnessed. We can make it better. We can make sure that it operates more quickly to solve our problem of keeping pornography away from our kids, keeping offensive material away from our kids, and I am very excited about it.
conservative family values are anti-porn and anti-LGBTQ+, and their end-goal is to get rid of that content entirely, not simply create spaces where there’s no porn allowed
And by pushing for common carriage rules for social media services (at a bare minimum), conservatives will fail in that goal. Under common carriage rules, there wouldn’t be a space “where there’s no porn allowed”.
Anyone who can read that article and still defend trying to strip away the ability of social interaction networks to moderate based on “equality” or “being apolitical” or whatever — which includes efforts to revoke Section 230 — is braver than I thought.
…
…okay, well, they’re not “braver”, but it’s a far nicer word than the more accurate (and more demeaning) alternative.
Summarizing a point of argument in a way that distorts the point into saying something it does not and attributes the false interpretation to the person who raised the original point.
A blatant attempt to make winning an argument easier for someone who is out of their depth in said argument.
Example: You will often find the phrases “in other words” or “so you’re saying” at the beginning of an instance of otherwording.
They seem to delight when it comes to kicking conservatives off their platform
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes? Con: LOL no…no not those views Me: So…deregulation? Con: Haha no not those views either Me: Which views, exactly? Con: Oh, you know the ones
On the post: Chief Publishing Lobbyist Maria Pallante Claims Copyright Is 'Under Assault' At Annual Meeting
Yeah, but that’s a socialist institution and Koby haet socialism.
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
Not an answer.
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should force Twitter to host Ku Klux Klan propaganda? Keep in mind that Klan propaganda is technically “political speech”, so you can’t duck the question by claiming otherwise.
Answer the goddamn question. A “yes” or a “no” will suffice.
On the post: Ohio Files Bizarre And Nonsensical Lawsuit Against Google, Claiming It's A Common Carrier; But What Does That Even Mean?
I believe the word you’re looking for is “communism”.
On the post: Ohio Files Bizarre And Nonsensical Lawsuit Against Google, Claiming It's A Common Carrier; But What Does That Even Mean?
The joke will be on conservatives when the very tools they seek to break for others will also be broken for them.
On the post: Ohio Files Bizarre And Nonsensical Lawsuit Against Google, Claiming It's A Common Carrier; But What Does That Even Mean?
Google is under no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to index links from sites that are largely collections of bullshit disguised as “news” or “political punditry”. But please, feel free to explain — if you can — how Google is under such an obligation despite legal protections against compelled speech and association. I’ll wait.
On the post: Chief Publishing Lobbyist Maria Pallante Claims Copyright Is 'Under Assault' At Annual Meeting
Good.
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should force Twitter to host Ku Klux Klan propaganda? Keep in mind that Klan propaganda is technically “political speech”, so you can’t duck the question by claiming otherwise.
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
To wit: Voting restriction laws and gerrymandering.
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
Well good luck with that fam. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
We already have the situation where common carriage isn’t a thing. We already see those pressure campaigns. What do you want done about that right now other than the passage of common carriage rules for social interaction networks?
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
Also, I should note that the “family-friendly spaces” bit was part of the original intent of Section 230, and if’n you don’t believe me, believe the actual, factual, on-the-Congressional-record words of Republican lawmaker Chris Cox:
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
And by pushing for common carriage rules for social media services (at a bare minimum), conservatives will fail in that goal. Under common carriage rules, there wouldn’t be a space “where there’s no porn allowed”.
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
Anyone who can read that article and still defend trying to strip away the ability of social interaction networks to moderate based on “equality” or “being apolitical” or whatever — which includes efforts to revoke Section 230 — is braver than I thought.
…
…okay, well, they’re not “braver”, but it’s a far nicer word than the more accurate (and more demeaning) alternative.
On the post: CNET Amplifies FCC's Carr's Attempt To Force 'Big Tech' To Pay 'Big Telecom' For No Reason
otherwording (or in-other-wordsing) — noun
Summarizing a point of argument in a way that distorts the point into saying something it does not and attributes the false interpretation to the person who raised the original point.
Example: You will often find the phrases “in other words” or “so you’re saying” at the beginning of an instance of otherwording.
See also: strawman; your post
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)
On the post: European Commission Betrays Internet Users By Cravenly Introducing Huge Loophole For Copyright Companies In Upload Filter Guidance
Or both. That’s highly plausible, given that he thinks the Back button on browsers is about protecting copyright instead of navigation.
On the post: European Commission Betrays Internet Users By Cravenly Introducing Huge Loophole For Copyright Companies In Upload Filter Guidance
Copyright isn’t brain damage — it’s technological annihilation.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: May 30th - June 5th
forget it, Mike, it’s Hamilton
you’re talking to someone who is in dire need of either more or less of their medication — damned if I can tell which one, though
On the post: Does Taking Down Content Lead Ignorant People To Believe It's More Likely To Be True?
this is just sad, Hamilton
go back to the hospital
On the post: Does Taking Down Content Lead Ignorant People To Believe It's More Likely To Be True?
are you not taking enough of your meds or are you taking too much
Next >>