I didn’t see you express concern about the Nigerian people who will be most affected by the Nigerian government’s new move to control social media, so…just workin’ with what you give me, son.
Misusing the header functionality of Markdown doesn’t make your point any stronger, you know.
Just because you agree with the censorship doesn't make it not censorship.
Except it isn’t censorship. If someone were to post “Donald Trump is a wank pheasant” on Twitter and Twitter were to remove that post for whatever reason, absolutely nothing about that act can prevent that someone from reposting that speech on Facebook, Gab, Parler, 4chan, 8kun, YouTube, a Mastodon instance, or basically any other service that accepts third-party speech. How can that someone be censored if they’re not prevented — by threats or acts of either legal troubles or violence — from reposting their speech outside of the one site that said “we don’t want that here”?
You seem to be equating a denial of “free reach” — the imaginary “right” to an audience, to be heard, to make others listen against their will — with censorship. Nobody is entitled to an audience. Nobody is entitled to a platform on private property they don’t own. And being denied the privilege to speak on Twitter isn’t censorship. It’s Twitter showing someone the door.
Don’t come to me with this bullshit again until you can explain exactly what gives anyone the legal, moral, and ethical right to force their speech upon Twitter. If you can’t do that: Stay quiet and sit down while the grown folks talk, you sweet summer fetus.
Twitter won’t necessarily be hurt by any of this. Nigerians — those who use Twitter as their primary Internet communications tool, and those who want to develop social media platforms of their own without government interference — will be hurt by the decisions of the Nigerian government. That you seem to care less about that than you do about taunting Twitter about it is…telling.
Koby, do you think it's okay to force people against their will?
I don’t think he’s going to answer that question…mostly because his actual answer would make him look worse, in so many different ways, than he already does.
He isn’t a simpleton. He knows that saying “I want Twitter to let bigots post all the bigoted bullshit they want under the guise of ‘politics’ ” will make him look bad. He hints at it — “being ‘political’ will lead to a splinternet, so best to be apolitical” — without ever actually saying it. The problem for Koby in these discussions is simple: We can see that subtext.
He’s fine with bigots forcing their way onto platforms and spreading their bullshit everywhere. If he wasn’t, he could answer One Simple Question with a direct and intentional “no”. But since he’s never done that…
Getting political, instead of being a neutral platform, is still falling for the trap that will lead to the SplinterNet.
Yes or no, Koby: Do you belive, under the guise of “being apolitical” or “neutral”, that every social media service should allow the posting of content such as Klan propaganda and advertising for anti-queer “conversion ‘therapy’ ” regardless of whether the broader userbase wants to see/associate with that content? Please note that “well that isn’t political content” isn’t an answer because you know goddamned well that it is (or can be interpreted that way). “Users can just hide it” also isn’t an answer.
If you desire a global and open internet, then it's a dumb idea. If you want a fractured system of localized government-approved communication monopolies, then keep cheering on twitter's actions.
Explain how one social media service out of many deciding not to host content such as the content discussed in this article is a move towards a “splintered Internet”.
Then explain, without referencing any law in any country, what makes you believe someone is morally and ethically deserving of a spot on a privately owned service that they don’t own and isn’t a public forum. Please note that Twitter is not a public forum, no matter how much you and your troll brigade comrades say otherwise. Also note that legally, no one is entitled to a spot on Twitter — including agents of any government.
Then explain, also without referencing any law in any country, what makes you believe someone deserves — morally and ethically — to post whatever the fuck they want on that same service even (and especially) if their speech can cause real and genuine harm to others.
Yes or no, Koby, and I really want you to fucking answer this one: Does a platform choosing to moderate speech justify the censorship of that entire platform by a government body?
Government threats influence much moderation decisions directly and indirectly
Aside from laws and statutes that require the removal of illegal speech (e.g., CSAM), please provide examples of clear and direct threats from the United States government — at any level — that have influenced the moderation decisions of any social media service within the United States.
Fun thing to note in re: my comment — practically none of the usual suspects who whine about 230 and “censorship” (read: moderation) ever comment on articles about actual government censorship. Even when I give them the chance to air their grievances about the censorship they so thoroughly decry elsewhere, they don’t speak up. It’s almost as if their incessant whining about “censorship” would be rendered null and void when compared to actual instances of censorship. Imagine that~.
Their size makes them vulnerable to a local level of fascism. Power in the hands of a small group of people reveals who they really are — and in cases like these, it reveals them to be petty assholes who abuse the power they have because they think that power lets them get away with it. They think no one will fight back or speak up because of fear.
And really, fascism is a philosophy of fear — of both the “undesirables” who are seen as “the problem” and the leader who fixes problems (political or otherwise) through violence (political and physical). Corrupt small-town police rule by fear: “Look, you don’t want me to arrest you and ruin your life, right? So stop getting in my way and I won’t get in yours.” Their brand of “justice” is less about justice and more about revenge. Since revenge is a confession of pain, that “justice” makes others feel pain they don’t deserve to feel.
What everyone in those towns seem to forget is a simple fact that would shift power in favor of the citizenry: The citizenry almost always outnumbers the cops. Even corrupt police can’t arrest/kill everyone in their small town without someone from the outside noticing.
Gatsby is also available on Standard Ebooks, which does a hell of a job on formatting and the like. They even included the original cover art, Celestial Eyes by Francis Cugat.
The United States was founded by colonizers who formed their “new nation” in part by using slave labor brought in from other lands to build over the lands stolen from indingenous peoples. Believing this country is above any cruel, dehumanizing, and violent act is to ignore its history.
If you have to submit your comments over and over again and change your IP address while doing so just to get through the spam filter…what do you think that says about you, Brainy?
also lol at “form contract”, motherfucker please, opening a form to the public doesn’t make a contract or create a public forum
When are you going to give us the examples we have asked for every time you bring this up, as in give us examples of political speech that has been moderated and that show the bias you blather about?
Koby will never do that because he knows doing so would immediately destroy his entire point. Why else do you think he’s not going to even try to answer the question I asked him about “conversion ‘therapy’ ” propaganda?
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
I didn’t see you express concern about the Nigerian people who will be most affected by the Nigerian government’s new move to control social media, so…just workin’ with what you give me, son.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Misusing the header functionality of Markdown doesn’t make your point any stronger, you know.
Except it isn’t censorship. If someone were to post “Donald Trump is a wank pheasant” on Twitter and Twitter were to remove that post for whatever reason, absolutely nothing about that act can prevent that someone from reposting that speech on Facebook, Gab, Parler, 4chan, 8kun, YouTube, a Mastodon instance, or basically any other service that accepts third-party speech. How can that someone be censored if they’re not prevented — by threats or acts of either legal troubles or violence — from reposting their speech outside of the one site that said “we don’t want that here”?
You seem to be equating a denial of “free reach” — the imaginary “right” to an audience, to be heard, to make others listen against their will — with censorship. Nobody is entitled to an audience. Nobody is entitled to a platform on private property they don’t own. And being denied the privilege to speak on Twitter isn’t censorship. It’s Twitter showing someone the door.
Don’t come to me with this bullshit again until you can explain exactly what gives anyone the legal, moral, and ethical right to force their speech upon Twitter. If you can’t do that: Stay quiet and sit down while the grown folks talk, you sweet summer fetus.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Twitter won’t necessarily be hurt by any of this. Nigerians — those who use Twitter as their primary Internet communications tool, and those who want to develop social media platforms of their own without government interference — will be hurt by the decisions of the Nigerian government. That you seem to care less about that than you do about taunting Twitter about it is…telling.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
No, you didn’t “fix” that for me. There was nothing to fix.
Yes or no: Does the removal of speech from Twitter prevent that exact same speech from being posted elsewhere?
If “no”: It ain’t censorship — it’s moderation.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
I don’t think he’s going to answer that question…mostly because his actual answer would make him look worse, in so many different ways, than he already does.
On the post: Does Taking Down Content Lead Ignorant People To Believe It's More Likely To Be True?
You seem upset. Did you have money riding on Logan Paul actually hitting more punches than he did last night?
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Oh, and one more thing: Damn, you really can’t answer a simple yes-or-no question, can you.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
He isn’t a simpleton. He knows that saying “I want Twitter to let bigots post all the bigoted bullshit they want under the guise of ‘politics’ ” will make him look bad. He hints at it — “being ‘political’ will lead to a splinternet, so best to be apolitical” — without ever actually saying it. The problem for Koby in these discussions is simple: We can see that subtext.
He’s fine with bigots forcing their way onto platforms and spreading their bullshit everywhere. If he wasn’t, he could answer One Simple Question with a direct and intentional “no”. But since he’s never done that…
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Yes or no, Koby: Do you belive, under the guise of “being apolitical” or “neutral”, that every social media service should allow the posting of content such as Klan propaganda and advertising for anti-queer “conversion ‘therapy’ ” regardless of whether the broader userbase wants to see/associate with that content? Please note that “well that isn’t political content” isn’t an answer because you know goddamned well that it is (or can be interpreted that way). “Users can just hide it” also isn’t an answer.
Explain how one social media service out of many deciding not to host content such as the content discussed in this article is a move towards a “splintered Internet”.
Then explain, without referencing any law in any country, what makes you believe someone is morally and ethically deserving of a spot on a privately owned service that they don’t own and isn’t a public forum. Please note that Twitter is not a public forum, no matter how much you and your troll brigade comrades say otherwise. Also note that legally, no one is entitled to a spot on Twitter — including agents of any government.
Then explain, also without referencing any law in any country, what makes you believe someone deserves — morally and ethically — to post whatever the fuck they want on that same service even (and especially) if their speech can cause real and genuine harm to others.
I’ll wait.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
…will exemplify the “Worst People” Problem.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Twitter is not the entire fucking Internet, you goddamned dumbass.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
I assume he’ll be calling for the censorship of Techdirt next.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Yes or no, Koby, and I really want you to fucking answer this one: Does a platform choosing to moderate speech justify the censorship of that entire platform by a government body?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
[wanking motion]
Aside from laws and statutes that require the removal of illegal speech (e.g., CSAM), please provide examples of clear and direct threats from the United States government — at any level — that have influenced the moderation decisions of any social media service within the United States.
I’ll wait.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Fun thing to note in re: my comment — practically none of the usual suspects who whine about 230 and “censorship” (read: moderation) ever comment on articles about actual government censorship. Even when I give them the chance to air their grievances about the censorship they so thoroughly decry elsewhere, they don’t speak up. It’s almost as if their incessant whining about “censorship” would be rendered null and void when compared to actual instances of censorship. Imagine that~.
On the post: Small Town Police Chief Hit With Actual Criminal Charges After Threatening A Critic With Bogus Criminal Charges
Their size makes them vulnerable to a local level of fascism. Power in the hands of a small group of people reveals who they really are — and in cases like these, it reveals them to be petty assholes who abuse the power they have because they think that power lets them get away with it. They think no one will fight back or speak up because of fear.
And really, fascism is a philosophy of fear — of both the “undesirables” who are seen as “the problem” and the leader who fixes problems (political or otherwise) through violence (political and physical). Corrupt small-town police rule by fear: “Look, you don’t want me to arrest you and ruin your life, right? So stop getting in my way and I won’t get in yours.” Their brand of “justice” is less about justice and more about revenge. Since revenge is a confession of pain, that “justice” makes others feel pain they don’t deserve to feel.
What everyone in those towns seem to forget is a simple fact that would shift power in favor of the citizenry: The citizenry almost always outnumbers the cops. Even corrupt police can’t arrest/kill everyone in their small town without someone from the outside noticing.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: May 30th - June 5th
Gatsby is also available on Standard Ebooks, which does a hell of a job on formatting and the like. They even included the original cover art, Celestial Eyes by Francis Cugat.
On the post: Following DC Circuit Ruling In Public Records Case, New Request Demands Senate Intel Committee Reveal Full CIA Torture Report
The United States was founded by colonizers who formed their “new nation” in part by using slave labor brought in from other lands to build over the lands stolen from indingenous peoples. Believing this country is above any cruel, dehumanizing, and violent act is to ignore its history.
On the post: Following DC Circuit Ruling In Public Records Case, New Request Demands Senate Intel Committee Reveal Full CIA Torture Report
If you have to submit your comments over and over again and change your IP address while doing so just to get through the spam filter…what do you think that says about you, Brainy?
also lol at “form contract”, motherfucker please, opening a form to the public doesn’t make a contract or create a public forum
fuck off back to Gab
On the post: As Western Democracies Ramp Up Efforts To Censor Social Media, Russia Appears To Feel Emboldened To Do More Itself
Koby will never do that because he knows doing so would immediately destroy his entire point. Why else do you think he’s not going to even try to answer the question I asked him about “conversion ‘therapy’ ” propaganda?
Next >>