Moderation isn’t censorship. Quit using loaded terms in an attempt to distort the argument with emotion.
Moderation is censorship no matter how many times you say it isn't.
Moderation is about being responsible — responsible for curating a community and doing whatever is necessary to keep things running smoothly.
Moderation is censorship no matter how many times you call censorship moderation.
Responsibility for a post should always lie with whoever made the post. Don’t blame Toyota when someone uses a Corolla to run someone over.
Completely agree. So why do companies remove posts that are entirely legal, aren't spam? Section 230 protections do not extend to companies that act as a service and a publisher. Pick one.
As I said above, moderation is not an abuse of either 230 or the First Amendment.
Moderation is censorship no matter how many times you say it isn't.
It is exercising the legal right of association, which the First Amendment grants and 230 protects.
I award you gold for mental gymnastics. Censorship is in no fucking sane world, protected by the first amendment or 230.
Whether a company is “dominated” by supporters of a given political party is irrelevant to the law.
Ah, so when you're morally wrong (engaging in censorship) fall back on legality instead. You would not be saying the same thing if they were all biased against democrats, I guarantee it.
230 protects the right of Gab admins to moderate with a conservative bent.
No it doesn't. And they don't.
Saying otherwise means you believe moderation should either have no political bias whatsoever (good fuckin’ luck with making that happen)
or only have political bias if it favors conservatives. Speaking of which…
What makes you think I'm a conservative? I'm a registered Pacific Green and have never voted republican in my life.
You’ll find no authoritarianism here. Nobody on this site thinks Twitter should run the country — or that the government should run Twitter, for that matter.
That's a cute strawman version of authoritarianism. You should be ashamed of using a strawman fallacy.
Have you seriously not seen the articles that have shittalked Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other “Big Tech” companies for making horrible/ignorant/petty decisions that rarely benefit anyone other than themselves? Because I don’t think you have.
None of them have attacked their authoritarian censorship. None. Which is precisely the problem I just complained about. techdirt has done nothing but defend their censorship and misdefine it as "moderation" because they know censorship is bad.
Leave if you’re dissatisfied with the political leanings of this site (and its commentariat).
At least you admit to your bias, but not any of the wrongdoings because of it.
Whining about shit you can’t change in the hopes that your whining will make people suddenly see the light and bend over backwards to make you (and only you) happy is an offshoot of hatereading. Trust me when I say doing that shit only ever fucks you up.
Ahh yes criticism is whining when it's directed at you, but criticism when directed at the authoritarians.
In general, Techdirt and the commentariat support the right of services to moderate as they see fit. We don’t always agree with how services moderate. That doesn’t change our support for their having that right. Twitter can ban antifascists to placate conservatives; we’ll say “that’s bullshit”, but we’ll also say “it’s still their right to be that shitty”. That isn’t supporting authoritarianism. It’s supporting the freedom of association — and freedom from the compelled association/hosting of speech.
Nobody's compelling anyone to interact on a website. This is just a ginned up excuse to censor people who commit wrongthink. Calling it banning and censoring "supporting the freedom of association might just earn you the second gold medal in mental gymnastics.
…all of which is to get down to One Simple Question. 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?
Of course not. But we should stop pretending that censorship by other than government means is still censorship. And companies that censor content by their users deserve no, and should receive no section 230 protections. That free speech is important, and that most speech today is online, and it's becoming a huge problem that 4-5 companies with the same political leaning are targeting and censoring people who disagree with them, while rendering the first amendment moot without the government having to do a thing.
And is great for sites unlike facebook, twitter and reddit that don't abuse it.
Either you're responsible for all of the content or none of it.
This nonsense of censoring users and not being responsible at the same time is both an abuse of section 230 and a flagrant circumvention of the first amendment by Democrat dominated companies.
Just look at their employee donations on opensecrets.org. Every single one of them, their employees and excecs donate 90%+ to Democrats and Democrat run PACs.
They should be forced to carry a (D-CA) designation just like the news likes to brand congress with to avoid any nasty critical thinking.
Techdirt and their increasing on sided authoritarianism is making me regret buying a techdirt tshirt.
It used to be a company that revealed the dirt in tech. Now they're just concealing it if it's done for the Left reasons.
It's great for publishers who don't try to be a platform and for platforms that don't try to be a publisher, but it's a huge fucking problem when platforms decide to be a publisher and the arbiter of other people's speech.
Conservatives and moderates understand liberals better than liberals understand them.
Those who identified as “very liberal” performed notably worse than anyone else.
The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.”
To a lot of people anyone who disagrees with them is a conservative/republican/raging asshole/insurrectionist/racist/nazi, and then they ban them for it.
Well we do know they have a trending blacklist, which is worse than artificial trends. Only twitter employees actually know what is really trending, and it's not what you see under "trending" on their website.
What many erroneously (and ironically) declare as “censorship” is really no different from the editorial discretion enjoyed by newspapers, broadcasters, and your local bookstore.
Absolute horseshit. It's still censorship no matter who does it.
Letting four big tech companies all with the same political bias control discourse is circumvention of the 1st amendment without ever having to get a bill passed congress.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Telegram Gains Users But Struggles To Remove Violent Content (2021)
Re: Re:
The government is long past needing raided: https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem
The election integrity protestors had the right location, just not the best reason.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Telegram Gains Users But Struggles To Remove Violent Content (2021)
"violent content"
There's no such thing. Videos are not and cannot be violent.
What's with this newspeak shit of calling anything you want to denigrate violent?
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 272: Section 230 Matters, With Ron Wyden & Chris Cox
Re:
Yes it is.
Oh look, a strawman fallacy and an ad hominem all in one!
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 272: Section 230 Matters, With Ron Wyden & Chris Cox
Re:
Yes it is.
So you're not concerned because you you agree with their censorship.
On the post: FBI Director Uses January 6 Insurrection To, Once Again, Ask For Encryption Backdoors
insurrection lol
An 'insurrection' where they had more American flags than weapons.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 272: Section 230 Matters, With Ron Wyden & Chris Cox
Re:
Moderation is censorship no matter how many times you say it isn't.
Moderation is censorship no matter how many times you call censorship moderation.
Completely agree. So why do companies remove posts that are entirely legal, aren't spam? Section 230 protections do not extend to companies that act as a service and a publisher. Pick one.
Moderation is censorship no matter how many times you say it isn't.
I award you gold for mental gymnastics. Censorship is in no fucking sane world, protected by the first amendment or 230.
Ah, so when you're morally wrong (engaging in censorship) fall back on legality instead. You would not be saying the same thing if they were all biased against democrats, I guarantee it.
No it doesn't. And they don't.
What makes you think I'm a conservative? I'm a registered Pacific Green and have never voted republican in my life.
That's a cute strawman version of authoritarianism. You should be ashamed of using a strawman fallacy.
None of them have attacked their authoritarian censorship. None. Which is precisely the problem I just complained about. techdirt has done nothing but defend their censorship and misdefine it as "moderation" because they know censorship is bad.
At least you admit to your bias, but not any of the wrongdoings because of it.
Ahh yes criticism is whining when it's directed at you, but criticism when directed at the authoritarians.
Nobody's compelling anyone to interact on a website. This is just a ginned up excuse to censor people who commit wrongthink. Calling it banning and censoring "supporting the freedom of association might just earn you the second gold medal in mental gymnastics.
Of course not. But we should stop pretending that censorship by other than government means is still censorship. And companies that censor content by their users deserve no, and should receive no section 230 protections. That free speech is important, and that most speech today is online, and it's becoming a huge problem that 4-5 companies with the same political leaning are targeting and censoring people who disagree with them, while rendering the first amendment moot without the government having to do a thing.
If this doesn't alarm you, you're a fool.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 272: Section 230 Matters, With Ron Wyden & Chris Cox
Re: Re: 230 matters
Moderation is censorship. Only idiots think it isn't.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 272: Section 230 Matters, With Ron Wyden & Chris Cox
230 matters
And is great for sites unlike facebook, twitter and reddit that don't abuse it.
Either you're responsible for all of the content or none of it.
This nonsense of censoring users and not being responsible at the same time is both an abuse of section 230 and a flagrant circumvention of the first amendment by Democrat dominated companies.
Just look at their employee donations on opensecrets.org. Every single one of them, their employees and excecs donate 90%+ to Democrats and Democrat run PACs.
They should be forced to carry a (D-CA) designation just like the news likes to brand congress with to avoid any nasty critical thinking.
Techdirt and their increasing on sided authoritarianism is making me regret buying a techdirt tshirt.
It used to be a company that revealed the dirt in tech. Now they're just concealing it if it's done for the Left reasons.
On the post: Yet Another Story Shows How Facebook Bent Over Backwards To Put In Place Different Rules For Conservatives
suuuuuure they did
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/facebook-inc/recipients?id=D000033563
On the post: Annoyance Builds At Elon Musk Getting A Billion In Subsidies For Starlink Broadband
What's a billion?
We already gave the telecom oligopoly 200 billion in tax breaks and got literally nothing for it.
At least he's actually delivering starlink.
On the post: Annoyance Builds At Elon Musk Getting A Billion In Subsidies For Starlink Broadband
What's a billion?
On the post: The Many Reasons To Celebrate Section 230
230
It's great for publishers who don't try to be a platform and for platforms that don't try to be a publisher, but it's a huge fucking problem when platforms decide to be a publisher and the arbiter of other people's speech.
On the post: How Can Conservatives Fight Back Against Big Tech? For A Start, Just Be Sane Again.
I'm just going to leave this here
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re:
Twitter was allowed to have growing pains and sort them out. Parler is not.
Remember when twitter as a concept was a joke and nobody cared? That was like 13 years ago.
On the post: Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely
Re: Re: Re: lies
To a lot of people anyone who disagrees with them is a conservative/republican/raging asshole/insurrectionist/racist/nazi, and then they ban them for it.
On the post: Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely
Re: Re: lies
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/twitter-conservative-bans-anti-free-speech/
On the post: Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely
lies
"The first being that "Conservative censorship" isn't actually a thing."
Ridiculous. You know it's a thing. We know it's a thing. Liberals know it's a thing. Why lie?
On the post: Just As #DiaperDon Starts Trending, Trump Claims That Twitter Uses 'Fake' Trends, Calls For 'Termination' Of Section 230
Trending blacklist
On the post: Your Problem Is Not With Section 230, But The 1st Amendment
censorship
Absolute horseshit. It's still censorship no matter who does it.
Letting four big tech companies all with the same political bias control discourse is circumvention of the 1st amendment without ever having to get a bill passed congress.
On the post: White House Once Again Circulating A Draft Executive Order On Social Media Bias
The White House is right
Because they are. I'm a left leaning anti-authoritarian and a registered Pacific Green, but I can still see this is true.
Authoritarianism and censorship isn't a good thing, even if they're done for all the Left reasons.
Next >>