The problem with 230 is that it outlived its usefulness.
[citation needed]
It allowed the social media oligopoly [to] basically control[ ]speech online.
Well, shit, I guess I have to go tell everyone on the Fediverse that they have to shut all their instances down.
…OH WAIT NO THE FUCK I DON’T
Twitter and Facebook don’t “control speech” online. They don’t even control speech on each other’s platforms.
once somebody tries to make a site that even slightly deviates from the status quo, be it a payment processor or different social media site, it is quickly destroyed by the incumbent web hosting and credit card companies
Well, shit, I guess I have to go tell everyone on the Fediverse that their instances are actually dead.
…OH WAIT NO THE FUCK I DON’T
Web hosts generally don’t care if someone uses a given host for a social media service. Like all capitalist companies, they care if that service can reflect poorly upon the host (or put that host in legal jeopardy somehow). AWS didn’t stop hosting Parler because of any political affiliation. AWS stopped hosting Parler because of the nonexistent moderation and the bad press caused by said moderation.
And if you believe 230 has “outlived its usefulness”, you must also believe that Parler should lose the same protections as Twitter and Facebook. All three services rely on the same law for the same protections.
As for payment processors: Yes, it sucks that payment processors designed for the kinds of works and services that banks and credit card companies are typically loathe to touch can be annihilated because of that loathing. But 230 has nothing to do with that. Seek reform for that bullshit elsewhere.
A true competition to create the marketplace of ideas cannot be had in such conditions.
The marketplace already exists. Nobody has an obligation to entertain ideas they don’t want in their specific corner of the marketplace (i.e., to host speech they don’t want to host).
we got their anticompetetive practices that makes it all but impossible for any alternatives that aren't an echo chamber
People shouldn’t act like assholes if they don’t want to get kicked off a service with a diverse userbase. A conservative can be a conservative on social media without being a bigot. A liberal can be a liberal on social media without using ableist slurs to describe conservatives. If you have a problem with the values upheld by the TOS of a given service, find a different service or don’t use social media at all (which I recommend).
No site is obligated to host your speech — or anyone else’s. No site is obligated to change its TOS for your comfort. Don’t like how “SJW woke bullshit” is taking over Twitter? Go somewhere else. Don’t like the options outside of Twitter? Either stop being an asshole on Twitter or stop using social media. What the fuck is so hard about that?
To repeat the question: Can you name any blatantly unconstitutional anti-internet bills trying to be passed by Dems? Please note that threats of bringing a bill forward are not actually a bill.
I don't have to explain why applying such regulations, especially about political "balance", to social media would be a disaster for free speech
What’s sad is that yes, you kinda do have to. But I can do that for you.
See, plenty of people in the world think LGBTQ people are abominations unto God and must be “cured” of their “sin”. Such anti-gay activists may share propaganda about the discredited practice of psychological (and often physical) torture that is “conversion ‘therapy’ ” (or whatever name it goes by these days). Those activists tend to sit, far more often than not, on the side of conservatives.
A regulation designed for “viewpoint balance” would force any social media service to host that propaganda. Why? Simple: The pro–“conversion ‘therapy’ ” activists can say their view is “political” and “one side of the story” vis-á-vis LGBTQ rights and such. Any LGBTQ people on a social media service forced to host such speech would thus abandon that service in a heartbeat. While they will have access to other outlets, losing an outlet that made them feel less marginalized — especially because the outlet was forced by the government to make nice with bigots — will have a devastating effect on their mental health.
To anyone who thinks otherwise, I have One Simple Question for you. Yes or no: Should a government have the right, under the guise of “protecting political speech”, to force a social media service designed as a safe space for marginalized people into hosting speech that attacks and marginalizes those people?
Anti-queer propaganda — speech that is seen as “undesirable” by numerous platforms both major and minor — is associated more with conservatives/Republicans than any other political affiliation. For what reason should the government force any interactive web service to host such speech?
It seems plausible that arguments over this office humor list had become disruptive to work performance and mangement took the opportunity to put a stop to it and try to forestall similar issues in the future.
Maybe management should’ve tried stopping people from using that list of names as a source of humor steeped in cruelty (and maybe some bigotry). Sweeping the issue under the rug with that “no politics” dictate doesn’t solve the root issue in this situation.
How is that different from current practice where I get $48 for 8 years of work?
Under your copyright scheme, you wouldn’t even be able to offer Meshpage as a tool for doing anything, since — by the standards you believe should be set for programmers and copyright infringement prevention — your program wouldn’t even be able to do anything. And that’s if the programs you used to make your program would even let you make your program, since they would also exist under your copyright scheme.
When legitimate people spend time trying to get the onerous copyright requirements implemented, they will learn practices that are actually useful
…like how to get around DRM that either refuses to work or can no longer “phone home” to the system that “clears” the DRM mechanism.
Those pirates who never bothered to consider these issues, will be blinking like a red flag in the government's copyright checking tooling.
And when the number of “pirates” rises above a number that the legal system couldn’t reasonably punish and society couldn’t afford to bankrupt into homelessness and poverty, what then, toilet paper man?
authors are completely different breed, since they need to follow the strictest copyright standards, or else they never get their copyrighted works to the market
You really don’t think self-published works are a thing, do you.
This this kind of "pirate - end user - author" kind of levelisation pattern can be used to plan marketing activities for different user groups.
Marketing to all three groups is always going to be different regardless of whatever “levelization” means in your fucked-up mind. But pirates will always be both the hardest sell and the easiest, ironically enough. They’re willing to support quality products instead of whatever the media says is The Next Big Thing — so making a good product is the easiest way to make a convert out of a pirate.
pirates will just receive different treatment than what luxury they'll give to real authors
Do either CNN or MSNBC have hosts who routinely spout misinformation and lies, white supremacist rhetoric, and what practically counts as defenses for fascism? I just wanna know if you’re okay with all that going on over at Fox News in general and Tucker Carlson’s show specifically.
there is the possib[ility] that someone could own another human as a slave?
Possible? Slavery is still a thing in the United States. The government owns lots of slaves — only these days they’re referred to as “prisoners” because slavery is only legal as a punishment for criminals.
if the 19th Amendment isn't absolute, that would mean it's possible that the government could deny people the right to vote based on their sex/gender?
Plenty of conservative white Christians would love to make that happen, of that I’m sure.
Tucker Carlson stumps for white supremacists vis-á-vis promotion of the “great replacement ‘theory’ ” and recently called for viewers to have the authorities alerted to parents who have their children wear masks outside. He isn’t a “dissident”. He is a threat.
When you're at work, tho, you're expected to do work.
What if, as a part of work, someone talks about a situation like the Basecamp situation with the “funny names” — would that discussion be “political” because it might bring up race, or would that discussion be “political” because it calls attention company practices that the company would prefer everyone to ignore?
Techdirt isn’t legally, morally, or ethically required to comfort your feelings. Don’t like the bias? Go somewhere else. Whining about the bias won’t do shit here.
On the post: Joe Biden Yells A Dumb Anti-Free Speech Trope In An Uncrowded Congress
[citation needed]
Well, shit, I guess I have to go tell everyone on the Fediverse that they have to shut all their instances down.
…OH WAIT NO THE FUCK I DON’T
Twitter and Facebook don’t “control speech” online. They don’t even control speech on each other’s platforms.
Well, shit, I guess I have to go tell everyone on the Fediverse that their instances are actually dead.
…OH WAIT NO THE FUCK I DON’T
Web hosts generally don’t care if someone uses a given host for a social media service. Like all capitalist companies, they care if that service can reflect poorly upon the host (or put that host in legal jeopardy somehow). AWS didn’t stop hosting Parler because of any political affiliation. AWS stopped hosting Parler because of the nonexistent moderation and the bad press caused by said moderation.
And if you believe 230 has “outlived its usefulness”, you must also believe that Parler should lose the same protections as Twitter and Facebook. All three services rely on the same law for the same protections.
As for payment processors: Yes, it sucks that payment processors designed for the kinds of works and services that banks and credit card companies are typically loathe to touch can be annihilated because of that loathing. But 230 has nothing to do with that. Seek reform for that bullshit elsewhere.
The marketplace already exists. Nobody has an obligation to entertain ideas they don’t want in their specific corner of the marketplace (i.e., to host speech they don’t want to host).
People shouldn’t act like assholes if they don’t want to get kicked off a service with a diverse userbase. A conservative can be a conservative on social media without being a bigot. A liberal can be a liberal on social media without using ableist slurs to describe conservatives. If you have a problem with the values upheld by the TOS of a given service, find a different service or don’t use social media at all (which I recommend).
No site is obligated to host your speech — or anyone else’s. No site is obligated to change its TOS for your comfort. Don’t like how “SJW woke bullshit” is taking over Twitter? Go somewhere else. Don’t like the options outside of Twitter? Either stop being an asshole on Twitter or stop using social media. What the fuck is so hard about that?
On the post: Disney Got Itself A 'If You Own A Themepark...' Carveout From Florida's Blatantly Unconstitutional Social Media Moderation Bill
To repeat the question: Can you name any blatantly unconstitutional anti-internet bills trying to be passed by Dems? Please note that threats of bringing a bill forward are not actually a bill.
On the post: Disney Got Itself A 'If You Own A Themepark...' Carveout From Florida's Blatantly Unconstitutional Social Media Moderation Bill
Democrats, more often than not, get angry about things that hurt other people.
Republicans, more often than not, get angry about things that don’t let them hurt other people.
On the post: Basecamp Bans Politics, An Act That Itself Is Political
Translation: “I love to see a company let its employed bigots run amok with no consequences.”
On the post: Disney Got Itself A 'If You Own A Themepark...' Carveout From Florida's Blatantly Unconstitutional Social Media Moderation Bill
The law doesn’t make that distinction. Why should we?
On the post: Canadian Government Wants To Regulate Social Media Like Broadcast
What’s sad is that yes, you kinda do have to. But I can do that for you.
See, plenty of people in the world think LGBTQ people are abominations unto God and must be “cured” of their “sin”. Such anti-gay activists may share propaganda about the discredited practice of psychological (and often physical) torture that is “conversion ‘therapy’ ” (or whatever name it goes by these days). Those activists tend to sit, far more often than not, on the side of conservatives.
A regulation designed for “viewpoint balance” would force any social media service to host that propaganda. Why? Simple: The pro–“conversion ‘therapy’ ” activists can say their view is “political” and “one side of the story” vis-á-vis LGBTQ rights and such. Any LGBTQ people on a social media service forced to host such speech would thus abandon that service in a heartbeat. While they will have access to other outlets, losing an outlet that made them feel less marginalized — especially because the outlet was forced by the government to make nice with bigots — will have a devastating effect on their mental health.
To anyone who thinks otherwise, I have One Simple Question for you. Yes or no: Should a government have the right, under the guise of “protecting political speech”, to force a social media service designed as a safe space for marginalized people into hosting speech that attacks and marginalizes those people?
On the post: Disney Got Itself A 'If You Own A Themepark...' Carveout From Florida's Blatantly Unconstitutional Social Media Moderation Bill
Anti-queer propaganda — speech that is seen as “undesirable” by numerous platforms both major and minor — is associated more with conservatives/Republicans than any other political affiliation. For what reason should the government force any interactive web service to host such speech?
On the post: Basecamp Bans Politics, An Act That Itself Is Political
You have no power here, but feel free to think you do if that makes you feel better.
On the post: Basecamp Bans Politics, An Act That Itself Is Political
Maybe management should’ve tried stopping people from using that list of names as a source of humor steeped in cruelty (and maybe some bigotry). Sweeping the issue under the rug with that “no politics” dictate doesn’t solve the root issue in this situation.
On the post: It Took Four Months And Thousands Of Dollars To Overturn One Manifestly Stupid Upload Block: Imagine How Bad It Will Soon Be With EU Copyright Directive's Blanket Use Of Filters
Under your copyright scheme, you wouldn’t even be able to offer Meshpage as a tool for doing anything, since — by the standards you believe should be set for programmers and copyright infringement prevention — your program wouldn’t even be able to do anything. And that’s if the programs you used to make your program would even let you make your program, since they would also exist under your copyright scheme.
On the post: It Took Four Months And Thousands Of Dollars To Overturn One Manifestly Stupid Upload Block: Imagine How Bad It Will Soon Be With EU Copyright Directive's Blanket Use Of Filters
…like how to get around DRM that either refuses to work or can no longer “phone home” to the system that “clears” the DRM mechanism.
And when the number of “pirates” rises above a number that the legal system couldn’t reasonably punish and society couldn’t afford to bankrupt into homelessness and poverty, what then, toilet paper man?
You really don’t think self-published works are a thing, do you.
Marketing to all three groups is always going to be different regardless of whatever “levelization” means in your fucked-up mind. But pirates will always be both the hardest sell and the easiest, ironically enough. They’re willing to support quality products instead of whatever the media says is The Next Big Thing — so making a good product is the easiest way to make a convert out of a pirate.
…fucking what
can you post one comment without a sentence so nonsensical that it breaks the average brain when said brain tries to parse it
On the post: The EPIC Effect: Microsoft Changes Revenue Split To Match EPIC Store, Steam Holds Firm
By all means, flag away. 😆
On the post: Joe Biden Yells A Dumb Anti-Free Speech Trope In An Uncrowded Congress
Ice floe, nowhere to go
On the post: The EPIC Effect: Microsoft Changes Revenue Split To Match EPIC Store, Steam Holds Firm
Would you call that an…Epic win? 😁
On the post: Thanks To Crappy Cable Channel Bundles, Non-Watchers Hugely Subsidize Tucker Carlson And Fox News
Do either CNN or MSNBC have hosts who routinely spout misinformation and lies, white supremacist rhetoric, and what practically counts as defenses for fascism? I just wanna know if you’re okay with all that going on over at Fox News in general and Tucker Carlson’s show specifically.
On the post: Joe Biden Yells A Dumb Anti-Free Speech Trope In An Uncrowded Congress
Possible? Slavery is still a thing in the United States. The government owns lots of slaves — only these days they’re referred to as “prisoners” because slavery is only legal as a punishment for criminals.
Plenty of conservative white Christians would love to make that happen, of that I’m sure.
On the post: Thanks To Crappy Cable Channel Bundles, Non-Watchers Hugely Subsidize Tucker Carlson And Fox News
Tucker Carlson stumps for white supremacists vis-á-vis promotion of the “great replacement ‘theory’ ” and recently called for viewers to have the authorities alerted to parents who have their children wear masks outside. He isn’t a “dissident”. He is a threat.
On the post: Basecamp Bans Politics, An Act That Itself Is Political
What if, as a part of work, someone talks about a situation like the Basecamp situation with the “funny names” — would that discussion be “political” because it might bring up race, or would that discussion be “political” because it calls attention company practices that the company would prefer everyone to ignore?
On the post: Joe Biden Yells A Dumb Anti-Free Speech Trope In An Uncrowded Congress
Please point to stories from reputable news outlets that prove Biden is “anti–free speech”.
On the post: Basecamp Bans Politics, An Act That Itself Is Political
Techdirt isn’t legally, morally, or ethically required to comfort your feelings. Don’t like the bias? Go somewhere else. Whining about the bias won’t do shit here.
Next >>