Your argument expects me to side with the belief of “moderation is censorship”, and since censorship is bad, we must therefore stop censorship by Twitter.
You and Lodos seem to agree that the definition of “censorship” should be expansive enough to include moderation. I’m pretty sure you don’t see censorship as a good thing. If you view moderation as “censorship” (regardless of who does it) and you believe censorship is a bad thing (which I would hope you do!), the only logical conclusion to draw from those two ideas is that you believe “censorship” on Twitter is bad. Anyone who thinks censorship is bad generally wants to prevent/stop censorship — ergo, if you believe “censorship” on Twitter is bad, you likely want to prevent/stop Twitter from “censoring” people.
If my logic is flawed, so be it. But I’m working with what you and Lodos gave me; if my argument on this point is flawed, your logic being anything close to flawless is…unlikely.
my issue is my distaste for censorship. Being legal doesn’t make it any more palatable. It simply makes it legal.
Do you stand against censorship? If so, what makes “legal” censorship any more acceptable than illegal censorship — and for what reason will you not stand against both?
That is the logical issue I take with broader interpretations of censorship such as the one you hold: Ethically and morally, one cannot say they stand against censorship and still support the idea that some forms of “censorship” (e.g., moderation, editorial discretion) are acceptable.
Reducing the definition. Narrowing it.
As we should. Again: When everything is censorship, nothing is. Expanding the definition cheapens the word and eventually downplays the situations it accurately describes. To consider both a belligerent asshole getting booted from a local bar and a thin-skinned Congressman trying to silence an anonymous critic as censorship cheapens the censorial situation (the Congressman’s attempt at suppression) by conflating it with a less serious non-censorial situation (the asshole getting Jazzy Jeff’d out of a bar).
My concern is what happens when people accept removing, hiding, moderating, etc… as an acceptable daily occurrence. A worthy one.
Do you want other websites to resemble 4chan (/b/ in particular) or 8kun? Do you want Twitter to become a cesspool of spam, racism, queerphobia, and other forms of bigotry where only the worst content lives because everyone else didn’t want to deal with the “Worst People” Problem? Because that’s what happens when moderation — i.e., curating a community — doesn’t happen on a daily basis.
Moderation doesn’t censor. It gives a community a chance to thrive without its worst elements and outside agitators shitting up the place. But under your logic, moderation is censorship — and under the idea that censorship is bad, moderation is also bad, so preventing those “worst people” from speaking their mind on a platform is bad. Yes or no: Is that the position you really want to take?
Drawing the line between “moderation” and censorship is very difficult when the moderation is deletion.
No, it isn’t. Moderation is about the intentional curation of a community. Censorship is about stopping someone from speaking their mind. Moderation doesn’t — can’t — censor.
But deletion can become censorship when the deletion is done to hide a message (often political) and someone attempts to prevent the republishing of that message. That is bullshit, and I stand against it. But I don’t consider that moderation.
As for the Tumblr example: I consider that a rather heavy-handed form of editorial discretion. Tumblr is legally allowed to choose what speech it will and won’t host, after all.
Censorship is a cliff with an outledge to stand on. One that is constantly being eroded away. At the bottom of the cliff are millions of good intentions swords for the masses to die on.
You know what else has “good intentions” behind it? Defining moderation as “censorship” and standing against both. At the bottom of that cliff is compelled speech and the erosion of free association rights. How willing are you to say the government should compel Tumblr to host porn because Tumblr choosing not to host porn is “censorship”? Because up to now, it seems like you’d be going in that logical direction if not for your sudden turnaround concerning property rights.
Deletion is moderation in my Twitter/alt-right chud example. One company deleting speech from its platform doesn’t delete it everywhere.
Your argument expects me to side with the belief of “moderation is censorship”, and since censorship is bad, we must therefore stop censorship by Twitter. But by that logic, the only way to stop censorship — i.e., moderation — by Twitter is to compel the hosting of speech. Not only does that conclusion violate the First Amendment, it violates my own morals and ethics. I have no right to force anyone into hosting my speech; neither does anyone else. I cannot, and will never, agree with or support any argument that says otherwise.
Moderation isn’t censorship. You want me to believe otherwise? You’ll have to come up with a better argument than “nuh-uh to your uh-huh”.
Definitions aren’t the real issue. Interpretations of them are.
When a definition of “censorship” includes the word “suppress” (or “suppression”), ask yourself: What speech does Twitter suppress — i.e., “prevent the dissemination of” — when a moderator deletes a tweet that violates the TOS?
If you say “none”, your interpretation of “suppress” covers only censorship. Good show.
If you say “the speech in the tweet”, your interpretation of “suppress” covers both moderation and censorship, which ultimately treats the two acts as the same. That’s no good.
An alt-right chud who has a tweet defending Old 45’s Big Lie deleted by a moderator can still post the same speech elsewhere. Twitter can only censor/suppress speech if it can control whether that chud can repost their tweet elsewhere. Twitter can’t do that; you know that for a fact. To say otherwise — to treat censorship and moderation as one and the same — is to advance a dishonest argument. I cannot, and will not, do that.
Yelling “censorship” about anything that only feels like censorship ends up cheapening the word. (When everything is censorship, nothing is.) To avoid that issue, I define/interpret “censorship” to cover actual attempts to suppress speech and leave out acts that amount to being told “we don’t do that here”. I can’t refer to something that only “feels like” censorship as “censorship” — I have to look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the act. If someone can still speak their mind after being told to fuck off from private property that they don’t own, that isn’t censorship. I would change my mind on that if someone could offer an argument capable of making me change my mind. To date, no one has done so.
when the number of offered products is too large, the activity becomes illegal
No. No, it doesn’t. Quit trying to fuck up the lives of other people by claiming their stuff is illegal so they’ll be fined/jailed and you’ll be left with no competition. That isn’t victory — that’s cultural genocide.
The meshpage's output is better because it can be made available in the web.
Irrelevant. Everyone who uses Blender is fine with “antiquated” technology such as still image files, video files, and file formats that can export Blender data for the sake of sharing models. Nobody cares about your “teleporting” functionality.
All the other tech that deals with 3d stuff needs to be converted to other formats before pushing it to web pages.
Which is an incredibly minor hassle at worst. Nobody cares about that.
there's significant improvement in quality of the end result when the number of conversions required is smaller
The modelling/rendering output of Meshpage is inherently inferior to what can be done in Blender. Whether you can “teleport” that output directly to the web is irrelevant. Nobody cares about that.
You alone are responsible for your failures. Stop blaming others for your shortcomings.
Point to a single reliable source that defines censorship with … “implies a violation of civil rights!”
Per RationalWiki: “Censorship usually refers to a state's engaging in activities designed to suppress certain information or ideas. … More generally, the term is also used any time people in positions of power try to prevent facts or ideas embarrassing to them from coming to light. This can be done by editorial boards of periodicals and journals, by restricting what their writers can actually research or write about, or by restricting and censoring what they do write, preventing it from being published. … This type of censorship is not (and probably should not be) illegal; to force a journal or web site to promote ideas the owners and editors find anathema would be a violation of free speech. Actual censorship, however, is usually done much more maliciously, and threats (financial, legal, or physical) can be made to prevent something going to publication.”
I’m loathe to agree fully with all of that — it’s a fine, fine line between editorial discretion and censorship — but you asked and I obliged, so there you go.
It is well and truly now shown it is you, that have the narrower view of censorship. One so small as to be country specific.
No, it isn’t. What I believe is censorship applies to situations around the world; my “expertise” and focus on the matter lies within the U.S. because I live there. To wit: A government shutdown of access to the Internet in a non-U.S. country is as much censorship as it would be if the U.S. government (tried to) shut down Internet access.
You’re in a bubble as to what words mean.
Even if I am, at least I’m not referring to acts that aren’t censoring anyone as “censorship” — like, for example, a bar owner kicking out an unruly patron.
My change of opinion was acceptance of the property based rights in law
You’re missing the forest for the trees, then. Property rights are tangential to, but don’t override the importance of, the right of free association. You’ve accepted an argument based on one but seemingly refused to acknowledge the other.
A church can choose to associate (or not) with a preacher who professes God’s love — or hatred — for queer people. A bar can choose to associate (or not) with people who denounce — or promote — fascism. And if you and I are standing in an open field not owned by anyone, I can decide to walk away from you if I don’t like what you say — or stick around and listen if I do. In all three examples, property rights are irrelevant; what matters is the right to choose the association one wants with those people and their speech. The First Amendment guarantees that right to all Americans. To deny that right is to force association — to make others listen, to force others into hosting/publishing speech, to override property rights.
Any argument in favor of repealing 230 must first overcome one specific hurdle: “Will this fuck up the freedoms of speech and association?” Property rights are tangential to the argument, but they aren’t the whole argument.
Do you interpret it in some way that makes Twitter deleting a tweet not fit the definition?
I interpret “censorship” in a way that led me to craft this copypasta:
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.
It serves a simplified-yet-accurate portrayal of my beliefs about what equals censorship. To see the more drawn-out version, please read the two articles Techdirt let me write on the matter — which you can read by clicking on my profile.
Oh, and in re: the word “suppress” — that generally implies someone has prevented the speech in question from being either published or republished anywhere. Twitter deleting tweets does neither.
And! many choose to use social media in an official capacity. That needs to end.
Because you said so? Nah, fam, shit don’t work that way.
Politicians use social media because it’s where to find the biggest audience. But no one is entitled to an audience. If a politician ditches Twitter for a .gov blog and nobody shows up to read it, that sucks for the politician…and that sure as shit ain’t censorship.
I made it clear multiple times I’m not using the definition in a broad stroke to cover anything the the immediate act at the single time and place of occurrence.
You’ve literally used your interpretation of “censorship” to cover the act of a bar owner kicking out an unruly patron for espousing Nazi beliefs. Stop bullshitting me; it won’t work.
Being censored by Twitter doesn’t mean being censored everywhere. Twitter censoring a person on twitter is twitter censoring a person on twitter.
No, it isn’t. Twitter moderating speech isn’t censorship because censorship implies a violation of civil rights — either an inability to express a message or an inability to repeat an already-expressed message after it has been suppressed. Twitter banning some douchecanoe who whines about the existence of trans people hasn’t censored said douchecanoe — after all, someone getting banned from property they don’t own over speech the owners don’t want said on their property doesn’t violate anyone’s civil rights. The douchecanoe can sail on over to Parler and say the same damn thing.
If a Republican asks for an interview on CNN and are refused they have been censored by cnn. If a Democrat asks for an interview on Fox and is refused they have been censored by fox.
No, they haven’t. They’ve been refused a spot on those networks. They don’t have an absolute right to a spot on those networks any more than they have a right to a spot on Twitter. And they can still get their message out by going to the press or posting on social media or whatever else is at their disposal.
Equally if fox posts an op/Ed and then removes it that op Ed is censored by fox.
I’d consider that editorial discretion instead of censorship. Then again…
Take it elsewhere.
…if Fox prevented that from happening, the act would be censorship.
a film cut to make an R rating has been censored
If the film was published as an R-rated film, it wasn’t censored — it was editorial discretion from the studio/director. It might feel like censorship, but I wouldn’t consider that so.
That film in whole can still be found uncensored elsewhere.
If it can’t, it wasn’t censored.
And before you think to bring up “TV cuts”: That, too, is editorial discretion — albeit on behalf of Standards and Practices departments.
Censorship doesn’t have to cross boundaries. Be it private property boundaries or political (meaning borders).
But it does, generally, have to infringe upon civil rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Someone who uses multiple outlets to claim they were “silenced” by one platform hasn’t been denied their right to speak freely. They can’t credibly claim to be censored.
It doesn’t have to be gone everywhere to be gone anywhere, somewhere.
A person isn’t censored if, out of 100 places their words are published, one of those places removes that speech. That person can still find a different place to post that speech or build their own platform to post that speech.
You continue to interpret “censorship” in a way that turns virtually anything you feel is censorship into censorship. I mean, you’ve literally said that a bar owner tossing a Nazi out of said bar is “censorship”. Can you imagine how that bar owner would feel if you called them a “censor” — a suppressor of speech? Can you even think about how ridiculous you would sound in defending, however inadvertently, a Nazi’s non-existent right to sieg heil in a bar that doesn’t want to associate with Nazis?
Ask yourself whether holding on to this belief you have — this interpretation of “censorship” — will do you more good than harm. If you answer “yes it will”, you have problems that I can’t solve for you.
For starters something needs to be put in place so members of the government are not using private platforms for government business. Including official comments to the public.
That is what .gov websites are for.
Right now the federal government has departments spread across hundreds of .gov sites. Many with little to no traffic. The majority the population doesn’t know exists without scrolling to the second or third page of a net search.
So what? They exist. That they’re not heavily trafficked is more a PR problem than a “I wish this thing existed” problem.
Those who have the need, or even want, for direct access to the public should have a single official site to do so at.
And how do existing .gov websites prevent this from happening? Keep in mind that “because social media” is not a valid answer.
A place where what is posted is permanent and free from censorship (including moderation) for anything posted of official intent. Where it can be recorded permanently and directly via the LoC/NA.
Moderation isn’t censorship. Otherwise: Good idea. So what’s stopping .gov websites from doing this right now?
Free from any manipulation.
Had you used “manipulation” instead of “censorship”, you wouldn’t have to keep defending an overly broad, overly permissive, and largely bullshit interpretation of the meaning of “censorship” that turns things that aren’t censorship into censorship.
Twitter finds a tweet objectionable and deletes it. By that definition, that is censorship.
No, it isn’t — because the person whose tweet Twitter deleted can still repost the tweet verbatim outside of Twitter.
Even if I were to grant that Twitter deleting a tweet is censorship (and I don’t), it would only be censorship on Twitter. That’s the problem with such a permissive definition of “censorship”: It can apply to situations that feel like censorship but aren’t.
You appear to believe I’m still calling twitter’s actions a violation of constitutionally protected free speech. I am not.
By referring to moderation as “censorship”, that is exactly what you’re doing. Moderation doesn’t violate civil rights. Censorship does.
Ideally, but it’s not constitutionally possible to force that. It violates property rights.
No, it violates the freedom of association. (Property rights are a tangential concern, though.)
a private company has the right to censor
No, it doesn’t. No private entity has a clear-cut inalienable right to prevent anyone — including the gotdamned president of the United States — from expressing themselves. That would be a violation of the First Amendment and censorship.
A private entity has a right, however, to choose which persons and speech it will associate with. And on property owned by that entity, that right remains theirs no matter how much other people might wish otherwise. That choice is not censorship.
Twitter can moderate speech on Twitter. That moderation doesn’t prevent anyone from speaking their minds on platforms outside of Twitter — or in meatspace. It also doesn’t violate any civil rights. While you may feel that such decisions are censorship, they aren’t. Feel free to explain how Twitter can censor someone who can provide an example of the “I have been silenced” fallacy…if you think you still can.
The idea that censorship can be performed by someone other than government is a mainstream one
And I’m not here to disagree with that. But for someone not in government to censor another person, they must employ either government resources (e.g., the courts) or use threats/acts of violence. Telling someone to fuck off doesn’t censor that person, no matter how much that person (or anyone else) might believe otherwise.
The more you keep stepping up with bullshit, the more commenters like I will keep smacking you down. Can’t stop, won’t stop.
As soon as they delete a comment it's been censored.
No, it’s been deleted from Twitter. The same person who made that comment can post the same comment on another website — including a website they own. Twitter can’t censor anyone.
suppress unacceptable parts
Your definition of “censorship” is unacceptable and untenable. I did not, however, try to suppress your speech. I asked you to think about going forward with that definition — one borne of ignorance, intentional or accidental — before posting again. You didn’t heed my advice, it seems.
I'm not ignorant. I have a broader view of what it means to censor.
A homeowner kicks out someone who yells obscenities. A bar owner kicking out someone who does a Nazi salute. Neither property owner has prevented anyone from speaking their mind, though — they’ve only told the offending parties to go speak their mind elsewhere.
If you believe those acts aren’t censorship, by all means: Explain the difference between those acts and Twitter moderating the speech of a third party who has no right to use Twitter.
If you believe those acts are censorship, by all means: Tell me exactly which civil rights were violated by the property owners.
Not liking my broad interpretation doesn't make it incorrect.
Having a broad interpretation makes possible the classification of any attempt at moderation as “censorship”. By watering down the definition of the term to include acts that don’t violate any civil rights, you cheapen the term and make taking your claims of “censorship” all the harder to believe.
Your definition must also lead to the idea that (what you think of as) “censorship” must be stopped at all costs. That cost, under your logic, seems to include the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. For what reason should the law force Twitter to host third-party speech its owners don’t want to host?
None of those definitions mandate it be a government agency.
Censorship can be carried out by people who aren’t government employees, sure. But that typically involves either the use of government resources (e.g., lawsuits) or threats/acts of violence (e.g., “print this and I’ll kill you”). Someone saying “we don’t do that here” and kicking you out if you do “that” again isn’t censorship — it’s someone telling you that you fucked up and you’re not welcome in that space any more.
You don’t have a right to use the property of others as your personal soapbox. Nobody does. And so long as the owner of that property isn’t trying to shut you up everywhere else, their kicking you out or telling you to shut the fuck up isn’t censorship. You can still believe it is, if you want. But before you say you still believe in that definition, ask yourself this: What actions would that belief justify?
If the answer involves actions that would violate the civil rights of another — like, say, trying to compel the hosting of speech — you have bigger problems than my shittalking.
Moderation doesn’t involve the violation of civil rights. Censorship does.
Moderation is when Twitter kicks out someone who violated its TOS even if they used legally protected speech. Censorship is when the government acts to silence the legally protected speech of a critic.
The First Amendment doesn’t give anyone — including you — the right to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else. Twitter doesn’t have the power to violate your rights, and whatever it can do vis-á-vis moderation doesn’t violate your rights. Twitter can’t censor you. Stop thinking it can.
Every time you refer to moderation as censorship, you weaken the word “censorship”. You make it cover more and more actions that don’t violate civil rights because those actions hurt your feelings. When you do finally come across an actual instance of censorship, all that time you spent crying “wolf” (i.e., “censorship”) will bite you on the ass because people will refuse to believe you’re referring to actual censorship.
Your ignorance before may have been accidental. After this point, it will be intentional. Think about that before you post again.
You said you had changed your mind about Section 230, but then you wrote this…
By taking it out of the internet context it quickly becomes clear that forced speech isn’t acceptable. One would not expect to find The Satanic Bible or Setian Edda at the christian book store.
When that structure is moved back to the internet such censorship becomes clearly constitutional regardless of what anyone may think of the content being censored.
…which sounds a hell of a lot like a complaint about “censorship” (read: moderation) of speech on private property. If a bookstore can legally refuse to stock The Satanic Bible, for what reason should the law deny Twitter the right to legally refuse hosting speech from a third party?
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Okay, lemme break this down for you:
You and Lodos seem to agree that the definition of “censorship” should be expansive enough to include moderation. I’m pretty sure you don’t see censorship as a good thing. If you view moderation as “censorship” (regardless of who does it) and you believe censorship is a bad thing (which I would hope you do!), the only logical conclusion to draw from those two ideas is that you believe “censorship” on Twitter is bad. Anyone who thinks censorship is bad generally wants to prevent/stop censorship — ergo, if you believe “censorship” on Twitter is bad, you likely want to prevent/stop Twitter from “censoring” people.
If my logic is flawed, so be it. But I’m working with what you and Lodos gave me; if my argument on this point is flawed, your logic being anything close to flawless is…unlikely.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Do you stand against censorship? If so, what makes “legal” censorship any more acceptable than illegal censorship — and for what reason will you not stand against both?
That is the logical issue I take with broader interpretations of censorship such as the one you hold: Ethically and morally, one cannot say they stand against censorship and still support the idea that some forms of “censorship” (e.g., moderation, editorial discretion) are acceptable.
As we should. Again: When everything is censorship, nothing is. Expanding the definition cheapens the word and eventually downplays the situations it accurately describes. To consider both a belligerent asshole getting booted from a local bar and a thin-skinned Congressman trying to silence an anonymous critic as censorship cheapens the censorial situation (the Congressman’s attempt at suppression) by conflating it with a less serious non-censorial situation (the asshole getting Jazzy Jeff’d out of a bar).
Do you want other websites to resemble 4chan (/b/ in particular) or 8kun? Do you want Twitter to become a cesspool of spam, racism, queerphobia, and other forms of bigotry where only the worst content lives because everyone else didn’t want to deal with the “Worst People” Problem? Because that’s what happens when moderation — i.e., curating a community — doesn’t happen on a daily basis.
Moderation doesn’t censor. It gives a community a chance to thrive without its worst elements and outside agitators shitting up the place. But under your logic, moderation is censorship — and under the idea that censorship is bad, moderation is also bad, so preventing those “worst people” from speaking their mind on a platform is bad. Yes or no: Is that the position you really want to take?
No, it isn’t. Moderation is about the intentional curation of a community. Censorship is about stopping someone from speaking their mind. Moderation doesn’t — can’t — censor.
But deletion can become censorship when the deletion is done to hide a message (often political) and someone attempts to prevent the republishing of that message. That is bullshit, and I stand against it. But I don’t consider that moderation.
As for the Tumblr example: I consider that a rather heavy-handed form of editorial discretion. Tumblr is legally allowed to choose what speech it will and won’t host, after all.
You know what else has “good intentions” behind it? Defining moderation as “censorship” and standing against both. At the bottom of that cliff is compelled speech and the erosion of free association rights. How willing are you to say the government should compel Tumblr to host porn because Tumblr choosing not to host porn is “censorship”? Because up to now, it seems like you’d be going in that logical direction if not for your sudden turnaround concerning property rights.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
If I’ve misrepresented your logic, by all means — point out the mistake.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Deletion is moderation in my Twitter/alt-right chud example. One company deleting speech from its platform doesn’t delete it everywhere.
Your argument expects me to side with the belief of “moderation is censorship”, and since censorship is bad, we must therefore stop censorship by Twitter. But by that logic, the only way to stop censorship — i.e., moderation — by Twitter is to compel the hosting of speech. Not only does that conclusion violate the First Amendment, it violates my own morals and ethics. I have no right to force anyone into hosting my speech; neither does anyone else. I cannot, and will never, agree with or support any argument that says otherwise.
Moderation isn’t censorship. You want me to believe otherwise? You’ll have to come up with a better argument than “nuh-uh to your uh-huh”.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Definitions aren’t the real issue. Interpretations of them are.
When a definition of “censorship” includes the word “suppress” (or “suppression”), ask yourself: What speech does Twitter suppress — i.e., “prevent the dissemination of” — when a moderator deletes a tweet that violates the TOS?
If you say “none”, your interpretation of “suppress” covers only censorship. Good show.
An alt-right chud who has a tweet defending Old 45’s Big Lie deleted by a moderator can still post the same speech elsewhere. Twitter can only censor/suppress speech if it can control whether that chud can repost their tweet elsewhere. Twitter can’t do that; you know that for a fact. To say otherwise — to treat censorship and moderation as one and the same — is to advance a dishonest argument. I cannot, and will not, do that.
Yelling “censorship” about anything that only feels like censorship ends up cheapening the word. (When everything is censorship, nothing is.) To avoid that issue, I define/interpret “censorship” to cover actual attempts to suppress speech and leave out acts that amount to being told “we don’t do that here”. I can’t refer to something that only “feels like” censorship as “censorship” — I have to look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the act. If someone can still speak their mind after being told to fuck off from private property that they don’t own, that isn’t censorship. I would change my mind on that if someone could offer an argument capable of making me change my mind. To date, no one has done so.
On the post: Steam Still Can't Seem To Keep Its Hands Off Some 'Sex Games' Despite Hands Off Policy
No. No, it doesn’t. Quit trying to fuck up the lives of other people by claiming their stuff is illegal so they’ll be fined/jailed and you’ll be left with no competition. That isn’t victory — that’s cultural genocide.
On the post: Steam Still Can't Seem To Keep Its Hands Off Some 'Sex Games' Despite Hands Off Policy
Irrelevant. Everyone who uses Blender is fine with “antiquated” technology such as still image files, video files, and file formats that can export Blender data for the sake of sharing models. Nobody cares about your “teleporting” functionality.
Which is an incredibly minor hassle at worst. Nobody cares about that.
The modelling/rendering output of Meshpage is inherently inferior to what can be done in Blender. Whether you can “teleport” that output directly to the web is irrelevant. Nobody cares about that.
You alone are responsible for your failures. Stop blaming others for your shortcomings.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Per RationalWiki: “Censorship usually refers to a state's engaging in activities designed to suppress certain information or ideas. … More generally, the term is also used any time people in positions of power try to prevent facts or ideas embarrassing to them from coming to light. This can be done by editorial boards of periodicals and journals, by restricting what their writers can actually research or write about, or by restricting and censoring what they do write, preventing it from being published. … This type of censorship is not (and probably should not be) illegal; to force a journal or web site to promote ideas the owners and editors find anathema would be a violation of free speech. Actual censorship, however, is usually done much more maliciously, and threats (financial, legal, or physical) can be made to prevent something going to publication.”
I’m loathe to agree fully with all of that — it’s a fine, fine line between editorial discretion and censorship — but you asked and I obliged, so there you go.
No, it isn’t. What I believe is censorship applies to situations around the world; my “expertise” and focus on the matter lies within the U.S. because I live there. To wit: A government shutdown of access to the Internet in a non-U.S. country is as much censorship as it would be if the U.S. government (tried to) shut down Internet access.
Even if I am, at least I’m not referring to acts that aren’t censoring anyone as “censorship” — like, for example, a bar owner kicking out an unruly patron.
You’re missing the forest for the trees, then. Property rights are tangential to, but don’t override the importance of, the right of free association. You’ve accepted an argument based on one but seemingly refused to acknowledge the other.
A church can choose to associate (or not) with a preacher who professes God’s love — or hatred — for queer people. A bar can choose to associate (or not) with people who denounce — or promote — fascism. And if you and I are standing in an open field not owned by anyone, I can decide to walk away from you if I don’t like what you say — or stick around and listen if I do. In all three examples, property rights are irrelevant; what matters is the right to choose the association one wants with those people and their speech. The First Amendment guarantees that right to all Americans. To deny that right is to force association — to make others listen, to force others into hosting/publishing speech, to override property rights.
Any argument in favor of repealing 230 must first overcome one specific hurdle: “Will this fuck up the freedoms of speech and association?” Property rights are tangential to the argument, but they aren’t the whole argument.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
I interpret “censorship” in a way that led me to craft this copypasta:
It serves a simplified-yet-accurate portrayal of my beliefs about what equals censorship. To see the more drawn-out version, please read the two articles Techdirt let me write on the matter — which you can read by clicking on my profile.
Oh, and in re: the word “suppress” — that generally implies someone has prevented the speech in question from being either published or republished anywhere. Twitter deleting tweets does neither.
On the post: Chicago PD Oversight Says Officers Racked Up 100 Misconduct Allegations During A Single Wrong Address Raid
Re:
Da Bears?
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Irrelevant.
Because you said so? Nah, fam, shit don’t work that way.
Politicians use social media because it’s where to find the biggest audience. But no one is entitled to an audience. If a politician ditches Twitter for a .gov blog and nobody shows up to read it, that sucks for the politician…and that sure as shit ain’t censorship.
You’ve literally used your interpretation of “censorship” to cover the act of a bar owner kicking out an unruly patron for espousing Nazi beliefs. Stop bullshitting me; it won’t work.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
No, it isn’t. Twitter moderating speech isn’t censorship because censorship implies a violation of civil rights — either an inability to express a message or an inability to repeat an already-expressed message after it has been suppressed. Twitter banning some douchecanoe who whines about the existence of trans people hasn’t censored said douchecanoe — after all, someone getting banned from property they don’t own over speech the owners don’t want said on their property doesn’t violate anyone’s civil rights. The douchecanoe can sail on over to Parler and say the same damn thing.
No, they haven’t. They’ve been refused a spot on those networks. They don’t have an absolute right to a spot on those networks any more than they have a right to a spot on Twitter. And they can still get their message out by going to the press or posting on social media or whatever else is at their disposal.
I’d consider that editorial discretion instead of censorship. Then again…
…if Fox prevented that from happening, the act would be censorship.
If the film was published as an R-rated film, it wasn’t censored — it was editorial discretion from the studio/director. It might feel like censorship, but I wouldn’t consider that so.
If it can’t, it wasn’t censored.
And before you think to bring up “TV cuts”: That, too, is editorial discretion — albeit on behalf of Standards and Practices departments.
But it does, generally, have to infringe upon civil rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Someone who uses multiple outlets to claim they were “silenced” by one platform hasn’t been denied their right to speak freely. They can’t credibly claim to be censored.
A person isn’t censored if, out of 100 places their words are published, one of those places removes that speech. That person can still find a different place to post that speech or build their own platform to post that speech.
You continue to interpret “censorship” in a way that turns virtually anything you feel is censorship into censorship. I mean, you’ve literally said that a bar owner tossing a Nazi out of said bar is “censorship”. Can you imagine how that bar owner would feel if you called them a “censor” — a suppressor of speech? Can you even think about how ridiculous you would sound in defending, however inadvertently, a Nazi’s non-existent right to sieg heil in a bar that doesn’t want to associate with Nazis?
Ask yourself whether holding on to this belief you have — this interpretation of “censorship” — will do you more good than harm. If you answer “yes it will”, you have problems that I can’t solve for you.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
That is what .gov websites are for.
So what? They exist. That they’re not heavily trafficked is more a PR problem than a “I wish this thing existed” problem.
And how do existing .gov websites prevent this from happening? Keep in mind that “because social media” is not a valid answer.
Moderation isn’t censorship. Otherwise: Good idea. So what’s stopping .gov websites from doing this right now?
Had you used “manipulation” instead of “censorship”, you wouldn’t have to keep defending an overly broad, overly permissive, and largely bullshit interpretation of the meaning of “censorship” that turns things that aren’t censorship into censorship.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
I’m claiming Twitter moderation isn’t censorship and the interpretation of that definition is far too permissive in what qualifies as censorship.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
No, it isn’t — because the person whose tweet Twitter deleted can still repost the tweet verbatim outside of Twitter.
Even if I were to grant that Twitter deleting a tweet is censorship (and I don’t), it would only be censorship on Twitter. That’s the problem with such a permissive definition of “censorship”: It can apply to situations that feel like censorship but aren’t.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
By referring to moderation as “censorship”, that is exactly what you’re doing. Moderation doesn’t violate civil rights. Censorship does.
No, it violates the freedom of association. (Property rights are a tangential concern, though.)
No, it doesn’t. No private entity has a clear-cut inalienable right to prevent anyone — including the gotdamned president of the United States — from expressing themselves. That would be a violation of the First Amendment and censorship.
A private entity has a right, however, to choose which persons and speech it will associate with. And on property owned by that entity, that right remains theirs no matter how much other people might wish otherwise. That choice is not censorship.
Twitter can moderate speech on Twitter. That moderation doesn’t prevent anyone from speaking their minds on platforms outside of Twitter — or in meatspace. It also doesn’t violate any civil rights. While you may feel that such decisions are censorship, they aren’t. Feel free to explain how Twitter can censor someone who can provide an example of the “I have been silenced” fallacy…if you think you still can.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
And I’m not here to disagree with that. But for someone not in government to censor another person, they must employ either government resources (e.g., the courts) or use threats/acts of violence. Telling someone to fuck off doesn’t censor that person, no matter how much that person (or anyone else) might believe otherwise.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
The more you keep stepping up with bullshit, the more commenters like I will keep smacking you down. Can’t stop, won’t stop.
No, it’s been deleted from Twitter. The same person who made that comment can post the same comment on another website — including a website they own. Twitter can’t censor anyone.
Your definition of “censorship” is unacceptable and untenable. I did not, however, try to suppress your speech. I asked you to think about going forward with that definition — one borne of ignorance, intentional or accidental — before posting again. You didn’t heed my advice, it seems.
A homeowner kicks out someone who yells obscenities. A bar owner kicking out someone who does a Nazi salute. Neither property owner has prevented anyone from speaking their mind, though — they’ve only told the offending parties to go speak their mind elsewhere.
If you believe those acts aren’t censorship, by all means: Explain the difference between those acts and Twitter moderating the speech of a third party who has no right to use Twitter.
Having a broad interpretation makes possible the classification of any attempt at moderation as “censorship”. By watering down the definition of the term to include acts that don’t violate any civil rights, you cheapen the term and make taking your claims of “censorship” all the harder to believe.
Your definition must also lead to the idea that (what you think of as) “censorship” must be stopped at all costs. That cost, under your logic, seems to include the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. For what reason should the law force Twitter to host third-party speech its owners don’t want to host?
Censorship can be carried out by people who aren’t government employees, sure. But that typically involves either the use of government resources (e.g., lawsuits) or threats/acts of violence (e.g., “print this and I’ll kill you”). Someone saying “we don’t do that here” and kicking you out if you do “that” again isn’t censorship — it’s someone telling you that you fucked up and you’re not welcome in that space any more.
You don’t have a right to use the property of others as your personal soapbox. Nobody does. And so long as the owner of that property isn’t trying to shut you up everywhere else, their kicking you out or telling you to shut the fuck up isn’t censorship. You can still believe it is, if you want. But before you say you still believe in that definition, ask yourself this: What actions would that belief justify?
If the answer involves actions that would violate the civil rights of another — like, say, trying to compel the hosting of speech — you have bigger problems than my shittalking.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Moderation doesn’t involve the violation of civil rights. Censorship does.
Moderation is when Twitter kicks out someone who violated its TOS even if they used legally protected speech. Censorship is when the government acts to silence the legally protected speech of a critic.
The First Amendment doesn’t give anyone — including you — the right to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else. Twitter doesn’t have the power to violate your rights, and whatever it can do vis-á-vis moderation doesn’t violate your rights. Twitter can’t censor you. Stop thinking it can.
Every time you refer to moderation as censorship, you weaken the word “censorship”. You make it cover more and more actions that don’t violate civil rights because those actions hurt your feelings. When you do finally come across an actual instance of censorship, all that time you spent crying “wolf” (i.e., “censorship”) will bite you on the ass because people will refuse to believe you’re referring to actual censorship.
Your ignorance before may have been accidental. After this point, it will be intentional. Think about that before you post again.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
You said you had changed your mind about Section 230, but then you wrote this…
…which sounds a hell of a lot like a complaint about “censorship” (read: moderation) of speech on private property. If a bookstore can legally refuse to stock The Satanic Bible, for what reason should the law deny Twitter the right to legally refuse hosting speech from a third party?
Next >>