He also seems to think Wordle itself spammed social media, when actual people “spammed” it themselves. Hell, part of the fun of Wordle is comparing results and maybe even trying to guess the route people took to get the right word (if they did get it). I don’t know how long that’ll last when the Times finally gets hold of the game, though. (I suspect the NYT will paywall the game within a year, maybe two at the most.) But yeah, it’s funny how a simple, free-to-play brainteaser game with no ads and a fun way of sharing results on social media can turn into a huge hit, huh.
We'd have a lot fewer problems if we just required an IQ test of anyone running for office.
No, we’d only have a different set of problems. IQ is a horrible way to test for “intelligence” anyway—after all, who gets to decide what “intelligent” means in that (or any other) context, and how does that weigh against the capability of serving in public office?
this would become a tool for grievances by anyone in politics against opponents, whether based in reality or in delusions
Which means of course it would be (ab)used by Republicans as soon as they possibly could.
…what? Don’t give me that look. Republican politics these days, far moreso than Democrat politics, are practically all about airing and “fixing” conservative grievances.
Social media services are not public fora. A Supreme Court ruling from 2019, for which Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, doesn’t directly address social media but still provides the logic necessary to counter any “yes they are public fora” argument:
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.
Other people see hundreds of thousands dead and think 'This is horrible, we should have been well over a million corpses by now, I'd better do something to ensure that for the next time!'
Social interaction networks already have tools for user curation—notably, the Block and Mute functions. What you’re saying, whether you realize it or not, is that end users should be forced to endure harassment and spam and malicious interactions for the sake of curation. SIN operators can prevent a hefty amount of that outcome by way of moderation, as well they should.
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should make a given social interaction network force its users to suffer through malicious interactions for the sake of hosting speech said SIN wouldn’t otherwise host?
Someone posting a message to social media does not take away from others' ability to communicate, no matter how much you disagree with the message.
Corollary: Taking away someone’s ability to communicate on a given social interaction network doesn’t take away their ability to communicate in general.
But hey, if you want to defend forcing Twitter to carry the speech of Nazis, white supremacists, and Nickelback stans, that’s your choice. At least have the testicular fortitude to stand behind it this time.
the only thing that got any kind of attention is them deciding to rebrand its characters so that Tucker Carlson can whine about how he's not as sexually attracted to them as he used to be
In a tiny bit of fairness, Tucker Carlson openly fretting to a national TV audience about the fuckability of an anthropomorphic piece of candy is objectively hilarious.
(Mars totally deserves more attention for the child labor thing, though.)
Reminder: 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.
A privately owned open-to-the-public service such as Twitter has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to carry anyone’s speech. That remains a fact no matter what Georgia’s elected dumbasses (or the usual “moderation is censorship, actually” crowd around here) have to say about it. But if they want to go on the record as saying Twitter should be forced to host Klan propaganda…well, I hope someone points out how this law is saying exactly that.
I’m sure people capable of rational independent thought have said something like that before. Then again, being capable of it and demonstrating the ability to do it are two different things.
I am something of a vanguard in that regard, I admit. But the commentariat as a whole is, by and far, a veritable league of legends in their own right. That said, I do have to remain humble—earthbound, you might say—so I don’t metaphorically fly too close to the sun like that kid Icarus.
The humor of that comment has a half-life of about 2 seconds. Even then, that humor is a far cry from what we usually tag as “funny” around these parts. After all, the Techdirt commentariat has a golden eye for the best of the best. Marking the funniest posts as such is something of a call of duty for us around here. That said, I won’t leave you left for dead—you’ll get a Funny vote from me.
On the post: Another 'Wordle' App Mixup Occurs, Only This Time Recipient Of Undue Rewards Builds Good Will
He also seems to think Wordle itself spammed social media, when actual people “spammed” it themselves. Hell, part of the fun of Wordle is comparing results and maybe even trying to guess the route people took to get the right word (if they did get it). I don’t know how long that’ll last when the Times finally gets hold of the game, though. (I suspect the NYT will paywall the game within a year, maybe two at the most.) But yeah, it’s funny how a simple, free-to-play brainteaser game with no ads and a fun way of sharing results on social media can turn into a huge hit, huh.
On the post: Another 'Wordle' App Mixup Occurs, Only This Time Recipient Of Undue Rewards Builds Good Will
And let’s not forget that Wordle got sold to the New York Times for seven figures. I’m sure that one stings, too. 😁
On the post: Another 'Wordle' App Mixup Occurs, Only This Time Recipient Of Undue Rewards Builds Good Will
Please return to your hole, you lunatic.
On the post: Governor Inslee Wants To Jail Politicians Who Lie? What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
No, we’d only have a different set of problems. IQ is a horrible way to test for “intelligence” anyway—after all, who gets to decide what “intelligent” means in that (or any other) context, and how does that weigh against the capability of serving in public office?
On the post: Governor Inslee Wants To Jail Politicians Who Lie? What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Which means of course it would be (ab)used by Republicans as soon as they possibly could.
…what? Don’t give me that look. Republican politics these days, far moreso than Democrat politics, are practically all about airing and “fixing” conservative grievances.
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
If you’re going to attempt satire, at least try to make it funny.
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
YOUR WISH HAS BEEN GRANTED.
Social media services are not public fora. A Supreme Court ruling from 2019, for which Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, doesn’t directly address social media but still provides the logic necessary to counter any “yes they are public fora” argument:
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
We typically call them “capitalists”.
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
It’s less that they don’t understand and more that they don’t care.
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
Social interaction networks already have tools for user curation—notably, the Block and Mute functions. What you’re saying, whether you realize it or not, is that end users should be forced to endure harassment and spam and malicious interactions for the sake of curation. SIN operators can prevent a hefty amount of that outcome by way of moderation, as well they should.
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should make a given social interaction network force its users to suffer through malicious interactions for the sake of hosting speech said SIN wouldn’t otherwise host?
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
Corollary: Taking away someone’s ability to communicate on a given social interaction network doesn’t take away their ability to communicate in general.
But hey, if you want to defend forcing Twitter to carry the speech of Nazis, white supremacists, and Nickelback stans, that’s your choice. At least have the testicular fortitude to stand behind it this time.
On the post: Nintendo Sics Lawyers To Take Down Fan-Made FPS 'Pokemon' Game Footage
In a tiny bit of fairness, Tucker Carlson openly fretting to a national TV audience about the fuckability of an anthropomorphic piece of candy is objectively hilarious.
(Mars totally deserves more attention for the child labor thing, though.)
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
After Amazon buys their own telco.
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
Reminder: 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.
A privately owned open-to-the-public service such as Twitter has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to carry anyone’s speech. That remains a fact no matter what Georgia’s elected dumbasses (or the usual “moderation is censorship, actually” crowd around here) have to say about it. But if they want to go on the record as saying Twitter should be forced to host Klan propaganda…well, I hope someone points out how this law is saying exactly that.
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
I’m sure people capable of rational independent thought have said something like that before. Then again, being capable of it and demonstrating the ability to do it are two different things.
On the post: Nintendo Sics Lawyers To Take Down Fan-Made FPS 'Pokemon' Game Footage
Hey now, no need to cause any trouble here.
On the post: Nintendo Sics Lawyers To Take Down Fan-Made FPS 'Pokemon' Game Footage
I am something of a vanguard in that regard, I admit. But the commentariat as a whole is, by and far, a veritable league of legends in their own right. That said, I do have to remain humble—earthbound, you might say—so I don’t metaphorically fly too close to the sun like that kid Icarus.
On the post: Nintendo Sics Lawyers To Take Down Fan-Made FPS 'Pokemon' Game Footage
See also: The Woolie Protocol, so named in relation to a certain video by Woolie
On the post: Nintendo Sics Lawyers To Take Down Fan-Made FPS 'Pokemon' Game Footage
The humor of that comment has a half-life of about 2 seconds. Even then, that humor is a far cry from what we usually tag as “funny” around these parts. After all, the Techdirt commentariat has a golden eye for the best of the best. Marking the funniest posts as such is something of a call of duty for us around here. That said, I won’t leave you left for dead—you’ll get a Funny vote from me.
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
Y’all can always lay the smack down on Lostinlodos.
Next >>