You think you are popular. The far left are so unpopular they all have to move to specific cities where they congregate because they are so disliked by everyone else.
That could have been done without section 230s "good samaritan" clause. The purpose of the "good samaritan" was to give a government incentive for private actors censor speech.
Currently if a highly credentialed Doctor A disagrees with Dr. Fauci on an issue like say the origin of COVID-19 YouTube will libel Doctor saying that the Doctor is engaging in misinformation an incredibly damaging accusation to make to a professional and then YouTube can run and hide behind section 230 free from any reprisal for blatant libel.
Re: Conservatives and Libertarians are not the same thing
There is a big difference between a conservative and a capital L Libertarian. A conservative wants to conserve our country and traditions. Libertarian are dogmatic religious zealots. Conserving the country and traditions includes from private aggression. A fundamental disconnect between a Lockean limited government conservative and a near total anarchist Libertarian is the understanding that the fundamental purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people from private aggression.
"whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
And that is the fundamental constitutional problem with section 230. It was done expressly to incentivize private actors to take down constitutionally protected speech. This is also a fundamental problem the courts have never really addressed. They have addressed section 230 on a case by case basis. In some many cases the courts have found section 230 applies in others like the recent Malware bytes case they have found it does not but this is a case by case basis. They have never even looked at the fundamental constitutionality of the section itself.
When the author of the bill Chis Cox states that the intent of the bill was to incentivize private "moderation" aka censorship even of constitutionally protected material that crosses the line of state action.
If I'm a red state senator and I don't like abortions' I just cant pass a bill called 'The Reprocuctive Decency Act' with a section 230 that grants immunity both civil and criminal to anyone who blocks access to an abolition clinic. I cant take an overt action, the granting of immunity, to incentive private action that the government cannot constitutionally take because it infringes upon the rights of the citizens.
"When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control" ~Munn v. Illinios
Hard to argue that social media is not in the public interest. As such the State of Florida has every right under Munn to regulate it for the common good.
A peroxide drip is 3%. The lysol free and many other cleaners are a 1% peroxide solution. You are ignorant. When any cleaner calls itself 'no cholerine bleach' or 'no cholerine whitening' they mean its peroxide. Jesus people here are ignorant. You start at you conclusion and work your way back. Why not see if peroxide is a common cleaner before you spout off.
When you say household disinfectants you are talking about 4 major chemicals, benzalkonium (lysol), bleach, ammonia, peroxide(lysol free). Of these ammonia and peroxide are used intravenously in medicine. So 50% are used as benzalkonium medicine.
Yes a Pangolin had sex with a bat it couldn't have possibly be the research facility where in 2016 Dr. Peter Daszak, the same guy who led the WHO investigation into the lab, was crediting his colleagues for making 'real killer' corona virus through gain of function research.
Its not like this guy who was facing real jail time for violating the ban on funding of gain of function research would lie to protect himself. He is a doctor after all and that means he is a perfect and moral human being.
We should not have the CEO of Facebook e-mailing "Tony" personally and offering him the ability for Tony to censor his critics and giving him his personal cell phone number. Tony is an agent of the government and shouldn't be using back channels and personal phone numbers of Big Tech CEOs to get what he wants.
This buddy buddy relationship between titans of industry and government bureaucrats and politicians is another symptom of a failed social policy.
What we saw with the lab leek was pure corruption. It wasn't a mistake. Fauci was e-mailing Daszak the very same day he was told the virus may have been engineered referencing papers that credited the NIH for funding gain of function research. Fauci was then able to leverage the buddy buddy relationship with Zuckerberg to have his narrative be the dominant narrative. It was also the self serving narrative because funding gain of function research prior to 2017 was illegal.
We dont have the government that exists in the Constitution. We have a government that largely functions through exchanges between bureaucrats and staffers and over drinks at a foggy bottom bar.
On the post: Creating State Action Via Antitrust Law And Making The People Who've Been Wrong About The Constitutionality Of Content Moderation Suddenly Right
Re: Re: lol
You think you are popular. The far left are so unpopular they all have to move to specific cities where they congregate because they are so disliked by everyone else.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Thats What!
That could have been done without section 230s "good samaritan" clause. The purpose of the "good samaritan" was to give a government incentive for private actors censor speech.
Currently if a highly credentialed Doctor A disagrees with Dr. Fauci on an issue like say the origin of COVID-19 YouTube will libel Doctor saying that the Doctor is engaging in misinformation an incredibly damaging accusation to make to a professional and then YouTube can run and hide behind section 230 free from any reprisal for blatant libel.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Thats What!
And the government has no business granting immunity to encourage private actors to take down this offensive speech.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Conservatives and Libertarians are not the same thing
There is a big difference between a conservative and a capital L Libertarian. A conservative wants to conserve our country and traditions. Libertarian are dogmatic religious zealots. Conserving the country and traditions includes from private aggression. A fundamental disconnect between a Lockean limited government conservative and a near total anarchist Libertarian is the understanding that the fundamental purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people from private aggression.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Thats What!
"whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
And that is the fundamental constitutional problem with section 230. It was done expressly to incentivize private actors to take down constitutionally protected speech. This is also a fundamental problem the courts have never really addressed. They have addressed section 230 on a case by case basis. In some many cases the courts have found section 230 applies in others like the recent Malware bytes case they have found it does not but this is a case by case basis. They have never even looked at the fundamental constitutionality of the section itself.
When the author of the bill Chis Cox states that the intent of the bill was to incentivize private "moderation" aka censorship even of constitutionally protected material that crosses the line of state action.
If I'm a red state senator and I don't like abortions' I just cant pass a bill called 'The Reprocuctive Decency Act' with a section 230 that grants immunity both civil and criminal to anyone who blocks access to an abolition clinic. I cant take an overt action, the granting of immunity, to incentive private action that the government cannot constitutionally take because it infringes upon the rights of the citizens.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Public Interest - Cry Me a River
"When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control" ~Munn v. Illinios
Hard to argue that social media is not in the public interest. As such the State of Florida has every right under Munn to regulate it for the common good.
Cry me a river!
On the post: Fuck This Cheer In Particular Says The Supreme Court In Decision Upholding Students' Free Speech Rights
Re: Re: "Not A Court of Law"
This isn't a court of law. We don't submit all or evidence to the court before writing a post.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Instagram Takes Down Instagram Account Of Book About Instagram (2020)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a Differnece
A peroxide drip is 3%. The lysol free and many other cleaners are a 1% peroxide solution. You are ignorant. When any cleaner calls itself 'no cholerine bleach' or 'no cholerine whitening' they mean its peroxide. Jesus people here are ignorant. You start at you conclusion and work your way back. Why not see if peroxide is a common cleaner before you spout off.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Instagram Takes Down Instagram Account Of Book About Instagram (2020)
Re:
When you say household disinfectants you are talking about 4 major chemicals, benzalkonium (lysol), bleach, ammonia, peroxide(lysol free). Of these ammonia and peroxide are used intravenously in medicine. So 50% are used as benzalkonium medicine.
On the post: Stop Using Content Moderation Demands As An Effort To Hide The Government's Social Policy Failures
Re: Re: Yes It was a Pangolin
Yes a Pangolin had sex with a bat it couldn't have possibly be the research facility where in 2016 Dr. Peter Daszak, the same guy who led the WHO investigation into the lab, was crediting his colleagues for making 'real killer' corona virus through gain of function research.
Its not like this guy who was facing real jail time for violating the ban on funding of gain of function research would lie to protect himself. He is a doctor after all and that means he is a perfect and moral human being.
On the post: Stop Using Content Moderation Demands As An Effort To Hide The Government's Social Policy Failures
Then stop!
We should not have the CEO of Facebook e-mailing "Tony" personally and offering him the ability for Tony to censor his critics and giving him his personal cell phone number. Tony is an agent of the government and shouldn't be using back channels and personal phone numbers of Big Tech CEOs to get what he wants.
This buddy buddy relationship between titans of industry and government bureaucrats and politicians is another symptom of a failed social policy.
What we saw with the lab leek was pure corruption. It wasn't a mistake. Fauci was e-mailing Daszak the very same day he was told the virus may have been engineered referencing papers that credited the NIH for funding gain of function research. Fauci was then able to leverage the buddy buddy relationship with Zuckerberg to have his narrative be the dominant narrative. It was also the self serving narrative because funding gain of function research prior to 2017 was illegal.
We dont have the government that exists in the Constitution. We have a government that largely functions through exchanges between bureaucrats and staffers and over drinks at a foggy bottom bar.
Next >>