to the extent new media giants become effective monopolies, they may deserve regulation as "public utilities"
Being large ≠ being a monopoly
Twitter and Facebook compete with each other as much as they compete with YouTube, Mastodon instances, Discord, Skype, 4chan, 8chan, Gab, Parler, and any other service you could consider a communications/social media service. That Twitter and Facebook dominate do not make them a monopoly over all those over services — or each other.
But since you want to play the “public utility” card here…well, you all but asked for this copypasta.
[ahem]
Social media services are not public fora; if you need a citation for that, look no further than a Supreme Court ruling from 2019 where Justice Brett Kavanaugh(!) wrote the majority opinion:
Under the Court’s cases, a private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises “powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” … It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function.
The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. … Under the Court’s cases, those functions include, for example, running elections and operating a company town. … The Court has ruled that a variety of functions do not fall into that category, including, for example: running sports associations and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating nursing homes, providing special education, representing indigent criminal defendants, resolving private disputes, and supplying electricity.
…
When the government provides a forum for speech (known as a public forum), the government may be constrained by the First Amendment, meaning that the government ordinarily may not exclude speech or speakers from the forum on the basis of viewpoint, or sometimes even on the basis of content[.]
By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine[.]
The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it “is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment[”.]
In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.
If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” … Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as “a stagecoach, with seats for everyone.” … That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be “to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country.” … The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property.
…
A private entity … who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.
(And that is the last time I plan to post that copypasta…this week.)
You won't say that, and we are taking action not just to ensure we won't let anyone willing to listen to you do so, but that you can't say anything else, that we would permit otherwise, either.
And when, pray tell, did Twitter’s ability to moderate speech on Twitter extend to social interaction networks outside of Twitter, to ISPs, and to meatspace itself vis-á-vis the media?
(Trick question. It didn’t.)
It was the entire fucking point of his ban. So much so that it was advertised as a feature of the ban on national television.
The same “national television” on which Donald Trump can still be heard to this day if he so wishes?
it wasn't just Twitter either. You had the entire set of major social media platforms making similar decisions.
So what.
Imagine if they did that to a progressive or better yet a corporate democrat president?
I’d wonder what he did to violate the TOS…like, y’know, Trump did.
Does Apple have to be "forced" into hosting views on it's devices that it, presumably, doesn't want to host?
Once someone owns an iPhone or an iPad, it’s theirs, not Apple’s. Apple can’t be “forced” to host a person’s views on devices that said person already owns.
Money paved the road to hell, and is the direct cause of countless deaths, illnesses, and ecological damage the world over.
So is Christianity. What’s your point.
It doesn't matter which views.
Ah, so I know the ones already, then…
any view point can switch between acceptable and unacceptable given enough time
And any social interaction network is free to decide what it believes is “acceptable” speech. Again: What’s your point.
even the Conservative views, that you are trying to force out of me to derail the conversation, are still very much unacceptable around the world but are becoming acceptable within certain undesirable groups
That you associate those views with conservatism says more about conservatism than it does about the services that don’t want to host such views.
The context isn't important, it's the action of blocking it that is.
Context is always important. That you’re not willing to state the views you believe are being blocked unfairly — that you’re trying to divorce the act of blocking from the context of what is being blocked — says a lot about you…and none of it is good.
The argument "Well they can just go elsewhere." makes sense when it's only one building or one site. The argument makes far less sense when you apply it to the entire world / the Internet in general.
Twitter is one site/service. So is Facebook. That millions of people make use of those services every day doesn’t make them the entirety of the Internet.
Scope is a thing when talking about the effects of censorship.
And if someone were being censored here, you might have a point. But Donald Trump can literally call a press conference tomorrow and have plenty of news outlets ready to put his voice and face on TV. He wasn’t censored. He was told he violated the terms of service and shown the door — which isn’t censorship. It can’t be censorship unless you believe a bar owner showing belligerent assholes the door for yelling racial slurs in the bar is also censorship.
you don't have freedom of speech if the two cannot communicate because of the censorship
You aren’t owed a right to communicate with someone on Facebook. If you were, nobody could block you on Facebook.
you seem to assume that everyone in existence is inwilling, antagonistic, or uninterested in what others have to say
I guarantee that out of the 7 billion people in this world, only a handful give a flying rat’s ass about what I have to say. Not everyone gives a fuck about what Lady Gaga says, either.
You assume that the entire internet doesn't want to allow certain people to speak.
LOLno. Certain segments of the Internet doesn’t want certain speech shitting things up.
Before I get hit with "say who they are" as if names are important here, Trump.
A large amount of people not wanting to hear Trump lie, lie, and lie again — all in service of the creeping fascism within the GOP — is not the same as “everyone” wanting Trump off the Internet, nor does it justify actually kicking him off the Internet entirely. He has every right to start his shitty little blog and say what he wants, and my wanting him to fuck off forever doesn’t deprive him of that right.
There is a difference between not wanting to listen to someone trying to talk to you, and not wanting to overhear someone trying to talk to others.
Not…really? If there is one, it’s negigible at best.
forbidding the latter is interfering with the rights of others
When did Twitter interfere with the right of Donald Trump to speak freely? Because from where I sit, Trump can still speak freely.
Banning speech on an open forum
That’s two. One more and you get the Kavanaugh copypasta.
for the crime of offending your personal tastes, you desire the right to execute others?
You’ve never heard of hyperbole, have you, Squidward?
I hear there are some sites out there that will ban you for that kind of talk
What kind of talk are you referring to? Be specific.
Considering some countries in the world demand social media user credentials prior to entry, I'd say there's quite a bit that should make them common carriers.
Nope. Nobody needs social media for anything.
You can start a blog if you want to share your thoughts with the world. You can use email if you want to keep in touch with people. You can keep sites bookmarked if you want to keep up with the latest news in whatever interest floats your boat (including boating). Whatever you think you need Twitter or Facebook for, you don’t.
Should they be required to pay to say what they want to family members without fear of censorship?
I’m pretty sure that’s what paid services such as “cellphone service” are for.
there are many people, mostly of younger generations but there are a few boomers as well, that use FB, Twitter, etc. as their primary means of communication with others
Question: If Twitter or Facebook decided tomorrow to shut down all their services without warning, what — if anything — would give the United States federal government any right to prevent that? Remember that Twitter and Facebook are privately owned corporations that don’t run public utilities.
Why shouldn't society be able to expand or change the definition over time?
Ain’t no problem with that per se. But you want to turn an inessential communications platform into a public utility because you’re butthurt about said platform banning bigots who happen to hold conservative views. Your reasons aren’t rooted in clarity of language or purpose — it’s rooted in spite.
Why should only industries you approve of be considered essential services?
Because anyone on this godforsaken dirtball can live their entire lives without ever once using social media. Facebook isn’t essential for living. Neither is Twitter.
Society can change it's entitlements if it wants to.
For what reason should the government be able to force speech onto privately owned platforms? Please not that I’ve a long copypasta concerning the idea of public fora and private property waiting in the wings, so you may want to answer this question with something other than “because I want it that way” or the equivalent thereof.
according to this site 5 "millions" followers shouldn't be able to reach you
Flag on the play: gross mischaracterization. 15 yard penalty, repeat the down.
If Trump wants 5 million followers to reach him, he can open his own social media service and let them all follow him there. Old 45 isn’t entitled to “free reach” — i.e., to have someone else give him an audience (or access to one). Nobody is entitled to that, no matter how much you might wish it otherwise.
Damn, man, y’all must want me to use all my copypastas today.
[ahem]
The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else.
230 doesn’t protect against defamation. But it does put liability for defamation on the person responsible for that defamation instead of the tool used by that person.
An idiot that can't determine the difference between censorship of a specific place and widespread default censorship will only make mistakes when talking about free speech.
A person who can’t understand the difference between moderation, discretion, and censorship will make more mistakes. COPYPASTA TIME:
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. Which one of those happened when Twitter gave Donald Trump the boot?
Why should Apple allow Conservatives, aka the people you disagree with, to use Apple products at all?
Because they’re people. For as much as I disagree with conservative views — moderate to extreme — people who hold such views deserve a spot in the public sphere as much as anyone else. That includes being able to buy products in marketplaces, digital and physical alike.
But what that doesn’t include is the right to force Twitter into hosting speech it doesn’t want to host. The right of free speech ends where Twitter’s right to free association begins.
Why should Apple allow Conservative views on their platform?
Because they like money? Also, which views, exactly?
If the entire IT industry blacklisted Conservatives
Oh, I don't know. Maybe all of the assholes who want to be the Internet PC police?
I don’t like Breitbart. I think we’d all be better off if it were shut down. But if someone wants to read it, that’s out of my control.
Or how about all of those upstream service providers who are so thin skinned that they think the words of other people on sites run by other people who use their services are somehow their own words coming straight out of their mouth.
Assuming that their upstream DNS or web hosting provider doesn't decide to censor the site for their butthurt.
While we can question whether such decisions go too far vis-á-vis moderation, for now, those service providers have the right to decide what speech (and persons) they will and won’t associate with. Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the right to make AWS host, say, Stormfront?
those who cry the loudest when accusing others tend to be themselves guilty of the same accusation
Now, what were you saying about accusations and confessions, again?
Since when did a site's design become a censurable offense?
The design of Trump’s microblog isn’t “censurable” (whatever the fuck you think that means in this context). But it is laughable, mockable, pitiable, and — if you take the stats mentioned in the article at face value — doing nothing to keep his supporters enthralled.
My views that it shouldn't matter what I say, if people want to listen to me, they should be able to do so.
For what reason should they have the right to force Twitter into giving them a bullhorn? Switch out Twitter with Mastodon, Parler, Gab, Techdirt, etc. and the question remains the same.
Having certain guarantees enforced by law, like no reading of the mail for the post office, or that service is available to everyone regardless of political views is a good thing.
Yes or no: Do you believe a social interaction network designed primarily by and for Black people should have to host white supremacist propaganda posted by an actual white supremacist? Keep in mind that such speech is legally protected and white supremacy is a political ideology. And yes, the question remains the same even if you flip the racial identities.
Techdirt isn't the only place where people can talk about Techdirt's stories, and the legislation doesn't change that.
But Techdirt would become the one place where people couldn’t talk about Techdirt articles — often with the writers of those stories themselves. I can’t think of any way to justify that outcome as a net positive.
It just introduces additional requirements for those sites who wish to straddle the lines between "publisher" and "provider."
Other than a desire to sue platforms into the ground over third-party speech, for what reason should the law make that distinction?
Creating a well defined label for sites that primarily serve user-generated content makes it much harder for a would-be abuser to take said sites to court for speech protected by the First Amendment.
Section 230 already hamstrings the ability of an abusive asshole to sue sites into the ground over third-party speech.
the internet and the IT industry in general has a massive hard-on for being both overly helpful to end-users and not expecting them to know or do anything related to their devices or personal security. While also demanding full situational awareness online and demanding that everyone else do the fact-checking themselves. We've seen how that policy works out: It resulted in a failed coup attempt committed by idiots who failed to distinguish fact from fiction.
I hope this isn’t an attempt to lay the blame for the Insurrection of January 6th at the feet of Facebook and Twitter. They didn’t tell people to go storm the Capitol building. Those companies played a role in spreading the mis- and disinformation that led to people believing Old 45’s Big Lie, sure. But saying they’re the reason people broke into the Capitol is ridiculous.
you [have] no understanding of the expectations that have been laid out for the general public
Expectations are disappointments planned in advance. Get over it.
Nor what needs to be done to correct it while maintaining as much freedom of expression as possible given those constraints.
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? Keep in mind that speech such as racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and Limp Bizkit song lyrics are all protected speech.
Using “we” to represent a group of people who aren’t doing anything to help you develop games is delusional. Also I’m surprised — IRC? I would’ve thought you would’ve developed your own method of “teleporting alphabets”.
The bigger issue here is that Citron refuses to recognize how (and how frequently) those in power abuse tools of content suppression to silence voices they don't want to hear.
And sometimes not on purpose. When adult-oriented content (e.g., porn) gets driven from platforms, LGBTQ people are inevitably hit first and hardest by such bans because of preëxisting biases about LGBTQ content — namely, that such content is inherently sexual/adult-oriented.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
…THIRD BASE
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Being large ≠ being a monopoly
Twitter and Facebook compete with each other as much as they compete with YouTube, Mastodon instances, Discord, Skype, 4chan, 8chan, Gab, Parler, and any other service you could consider a communications/social media service. That Twitter and Facebook dominate do not make them a monopoly over all those over services — or each other.
But since you want to play the “public utility” card here…well, you all but asked for this copypasta.
[ahem]
Social media services are not public fora; if you need a citation for that, look no further than a Supreme Court ruling from 2019 where Justice Brett Kavanaugh(!) wrote the majority opinion:
(And that is the last time I plan to post that copypasta…this week.)
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
nope
And when, pray tell, did Twitter’s ability to moderate speech on Twitter extend to social interaction networks outside of Twitter, to ISPs, and to meatspace itself vis-á-vis the media?
(Trick question. It didn’t.)
The same “national television” on which Donald Trump can still be heard to this day if he so wishes?
So what.
I’d wonder what he did to violate the TOS…like, y’know, Trump did.
Once someone owns an iPhone or an iPad, it’s theirs, not Apple’s. Apple can’t be “forced” to host a person’s views on devices that said person already owns.
So is Christianity. What’s your point.
Ah, so I know the ones already, then…
And any social interaction network is free to decide what it believes is “acceptable” speech. Again: What’s your point.
That you associate those views with conservatism says more about conservatism than it does about the services that don’t want to host such views.
Context is always important. That you’re not willing to state the views you believe are being blocked unfairly — that you’re trying to divorce the act of blocking from the context of what is being blocked — says a lot about you…and none of it is good.
Twitter is one site/service. So is Facebook. That millions of people make use of those services every day doesn’t make them the entirety of the Internet.
And if someone were being censored here, you might have a point. But Donald Trump can literally call a press conference tomorrow and have plenty of news outlets ready to put his voice and face on TV. He wasn’t censored. He was told he violated the terms of service and shown the door — which isn’t censorship. It can’t be censorship unless you believe a bar owner showing belligerent assholes the door for yelling racial slurs in the bar is also censorship.
You aren’t owed a right to communicate with someone on Facebook. If you were, nobody could block you on Facebook.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Try “minutes”.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Yours is based on a faulty assumption.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
I guarantee that out of the 7 billion people in this world, only a handful give a flying rat’s ass about what I have to say. Not everyone gives a fuck about what Lady Gaga says, either.
LOLno. Certain segments of the Internet doesn’t want certain speech shitting things up.
A large amount of people not wanting to hear Trump lie, lie, and lie again — all in service of the creeping fascism within the GOP — is not the same as “everyone” wanting Trump off the Internet, nor does it justify actually kicking him off the Internet entirely. He has every right to start his shitty little blog and say what he wants, and my wanting him to fuck off forever doesn’t deprive him of that right.
Not…really? If there is one, it’s negigible at best.
When did Twitter interfere with the right of Donald Trump to speak freely? Because from where I sit, Trump can still speak freely.
That’s two. One more and you get the Kavanaugh copypasta.
You’ve never heard of hyperbole, have you, Squidward?
What kind of talk are you referring to? Be specific.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
How popular is USENET compared to Twitter or Facebook?
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Nope. Nobody needs social media for anything.
You can start a blog if you want to share your thoughts with the world. You can use email if you want to keep in touch with people. You can keep sites bookmarked if you want to keep up with the latest news in whatever interest floats your boat (including boating). Whatever you think you need Twitter or Facebook for, you don’t.
I’m pretty sure that’s what paid services such as “cellphone service” are for.
…fucking what
Question: If Twitter or Facebook decided tomorrow to shut down all their services without warning, what — if anything — would give the United States federal government any right to prevent that? Remember that Twitter and Facebook are privately owned corporations that don’t run public utilities.
Ain’t no problem with that per se. But you want to turn an inessential communications platform into a public utility because you’re butthurt about said platform banning bigots who happen to hold conservative views. Your reasons aren’t rooted in clarity of language or purpose — it’s rooted in spite.
Because anyone on this godforsaken dirtball can live their entire lives without ever once using social media. Facebook isn’t essential for living. Neither is Twitter.
For what reason should the government be able to force speech onto privately owned platforms? Please not that I’ve a long copypasta concerning the idea of public fora and private property waiting in the wings, so you may want to answer this question with something other than “because I want it that way” or the equivalent thereof.
Flag on the play: gross mischaracterization. 15 yard penalty, repeat the down.
If Trump wants 5 million followers to reach him, he can open his own social media service and let them all follow him there. Old 45 isn’t entitled to “free reach” — i.e., to have someone else give him an audience (or access to one). Nobody is entitled to that, no matter how much you might wish it otherwise.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Thank you, based PhraseExpress.
Damn, man, y’all must want me to use all my copypastas today.
[ahem]
The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
230 doesn’t protect against defamation. But it does put liability for defamation on the person responsible for that defamation instead of the tool used by that person.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
A person who can’t understand the difference between moderation, discretion, and censorship will make more mistakes. COPYPASTA TIME:
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. Which one of those happened when Twitter gave Donald Trump the boot?
Because they’re people. For as much as I disagree with conservative views — moderate to extreme — people who hold such views deserve a spot in the public sphere as much as anyone else. That includes being able to buy products in marketplaces, digital and physical alike.
But what that doesn’t include is the right to force Twitter into hosting speech it doesn’t want to host. The right of free speech ends where Twitter’s right to free association begins.
Because they like money? Also, which views, exactly?
…fucking what
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
I don’t like Breitbart. I think we’d all be better off if it were shut down. But if someone wants to read it, that’s out of my control.
…fucking what
While we can question whether such decisions go too far vis-á-vis moderation, for now, those service providers have the right to decide what speech (and persons) they will and won’t associate with. Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the right to make AWS host, say, Stormfront?
Trump repeatedly accused Democratic voters of committing voter fraud. Turns out, one of his voters committed voter fraud.
Now, what were you saying about accusations and confessions, again?
The design of Trump’s microblog isn’t “censurable” (whatever the fuck you think that means in this context). But it is laughable, mockable, pitiable, and — if you take the stats mentioned in the article at face value — doing nothing to keep his supporters enthralled.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
For what reason should they have the right to force Twitter into giving them a bullhorn? Switch out Twitter with Mastodon, Parler, Gab, Techdirt, etc. and the question remains the same.
On the post: Baltimore Prosecutor Asks FCC To Go After Local News Broadcasters She Doesn't Like
Hey, I didn’t say they were trustworthy — only that they’re not direct replicas of Fox News.
On the post: Bad Section 230 Bills Come From Both Sides Of The Aisle: Schakowsky/Castor Bill Would Be A Disaster For The Open Internet
Yes or no: Do you believe a social interaction network designed primarily by and for Black people should have to host white supremacist propaganda posted by an actual white supremacist? Keep in mind that such speech is legally protected and white supremacy is a political ideology. And yes, the question remains the same even if you flip the racial identities.
But Techdirt would become the one place where people couldn’t talk about Techdirt articles — often with the writers of those stories themselves. I can’t think of any way to justify that outcome as a net positive.
Other than a desire to sue platforms into the ground over third-party speech, for what reason should the law make that distinction?
Section 230 already hamstrings the ability of an abusive asshole to sue sites into the ground over third-party speech.
I hope this isn’t an attempt to lay the blame for the Insurrection of January 6th at the feet of Facebook and Twitter. They didn’t tell people to go storm the Capitol building. Those companies played a role in spreading the mis- and disinformation that led to people believing Old 45’s Big Lie, sure. But saying they’re the reason people broke into the Capitol is ridiculous.
Expectations are disappointments planned in advance. Get over it.
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? Keep in mind that speech such as racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and Limp Bizkit song lyrics are all protected speech.
On the post: Steam Still Can't Seem To Keep Its Hands Off Some 'Sex Games' Despite Hands Off Policy
Plenty of games on Steam use “obsolete” graphics technology — e.g., pixel art or low-poly/PlayStation One–esque aesthetics. Try another argument.
On the post: Steam Still Can't Seem To Keep Its Hands Off Some 'Sex Games' Despite Hands Off Policy
Using “we” to represent a group of people who aren’t doing anything to help you develop games is delusional. Also I’m surprised — IRC? I would’ve thought you would’ve developed your own method of “teleporting alphabets”.
On the post: Why Is Wired So Focused On Misrepresenting Section 230?
And sometimes not on purpose. When adult-oriented content (e.g., porn) gets driven from platforms, LGBTQ people are inevitably hit first and hardest by such bans because of preëxisting biases about LGBTQ content — namely, that such content is inherently sexual/adult-oriented.
On the post: Estate Of 'Tintin' Comic Creator Loses On Fair Use Grounds To Artist Putting Tintin Alongside Women
Do I have to?
On the post: Bad Section 230 Bills Come From Both Sides Of The Aisle: Schakowsky/Castor Bill Would Be A Disaster For The Open Internet
Did you think through this proposal before you posted it, or did you think everyone would agree with you so you wouldn’t need to think it through?
Next >>