bills that sought to force social media companies to host all speech and not moderate.
We need to change that to "not moderate based on political affiliation". Currently, it does not appear that the Florida theme parks are censoring visitors to their websites based on politics. Forcing businesses to not discriminate based on certain other behaviors, such as sexual orientation, familial status, and religion, have been found constitutional.
The good news is that the state of Florida has also recently (yesterday) passed a voter ID law, which is expected to be signed by the governor. This means that SJWs at the big tech companies will advocate for a boycott on the state, thereby preventing social media platforms from taking advantage of the loophole.
It's very simple: people in their private lives and in their personal time can say whatever they want. When you're at work, tho, you're expected to do work. Your employer can tell you what to say as a condition of employment. It's not a free speech issue; it's a matter of business survival.
Numerous entertainment activities are enjoyable because they are an escape. Leftist puritans have sought to politicize everything, out of fear that some folks out there might be happy.
If SJWs are constantly making everything political, then it sounds like having no politics is a superior solution. Let the woke mob angst over the latest microaggression on their personal accounts and time, while leaving the rest of the employees alone to do some actual work.
He didn't? Funny, he ragged on corporations daring to speak their mind and how terrible it was that they could say bad things about politicians. There aren't many ways to interpret that. I thought you where for free-speech? Oh..I see, my mistake, it seems you are only for free-speech you agree with.
Ragging on corporations isn't anti-free speech. Pointing out that corporations are acting in a slimy manner isn't an attack on free speech. Criticism is a right that is guaranteed by free speech, not an attack on free speech. As I've said many times before, the solution to others saying things with which you disagree is to talk back against it. I really hope you try to look at the policy positions.
I see you have labeled them correctly, populist. Populists tend to fuck things up and damage the economy which usually take decades to fix.
I'll take being a populist over being a corporatist any day of the week. I'm not saying that you're a corporatist, but I'm proud to be on the side that corporations hate the most. The economic standard of living of society has already been heavily skewed out of proportion because of corporate power over the past few decades. The damage is already here. Support dialing them back.
Got that? Political views that go against Rubio are "toxic waste" and therefore must be regulated.
I always knew you were a lefist, because you can't help but get triggered anytime an elected official insults SJW woke corporatists. Thanks again for the confirmation.
Anyhow, it's a little disingenuous for you to say this, because I know that you're going to equate the term "regulated" with "policy positions on free speech". However, Rubio never advocated for policy positions regarding free speech in the op-ed.
Instead, I love the sound of the policy positions that he DOES mention. I do like the idea of increasing taxes and imposing tariffs on corporations that manufacture products overseas and steal American jobs. I do think that being able to form a union is a right, and corporations should have to operate on a level playing field globally with regard to labor. And perhaps corporations that cooperate with the Chinese government, after what the Chinese government did to the Uighurs, should face some sort of economic sanctions. Those are some policies that I can definitely get behind. I'd love to see Rubio and any other populist-wing Republicans work together with Democrats to make it happen.
Correct, section 230 applies in this case because noone is being prevented from speaking. If anything, it is the plaintiff that is trying to suppress speech.
Koby, am I allowed to come into your living room and scream at you day and night about what an ignorant fool you are?
If I were to make my living room a public forum, then yes. Social media ought to fall under common carrier law. It's the same as practically any other utility such as telephone service. It can be privately maintained behind the scenes, yet still a public good.
Again, "equal" enforcement which ignores actual context, would mean many, many, many more of your idiot buddies kicked offline, Koby.
There is no special context for investigative reporting. When leftists say "context", it almost always means that they're attempting to engage in selective enforcement, and not actually follow their own rules. The reality is that the context is: we don't like a certain person, so we're just going to censor them.
If enforcement were to be applied equally, it would require numerous TV networks and reporters and celebrities to also get punted, and the collateral damage would result in big tech deciding to simply allow all political speech. I find it likely that a repeal of section 230 would result in more speech, not less.
First off, the 1st Amendment protects against government intrusions into speech, and so it's literally impossible for "Big Tech" to "trample on the principles of the First Amendment" unless they're being compelled to do so by government actors.
It doesn't matter who does the trampling, whether it's a government agency, a school, the police, or a corporation. We value the concept of free speech in general, so when tech companies build an internet free speech zone, the corporations should be held to the same standard as government. They ought not become more powerful.
leaving out the fact that this does not matter one tiny bit. Twitter sets the rules on its own platform, and when it's making decisions on the rules
But it's one set of rules for conservatives, which the tech oligarchs hate, and another set of rules for everyone they like. This is precisely why section 230 should be repealed or reformed. The leftists freak out every time there's of a legal change that would mandate equal enforcement.
You have a right to peacefully protest, but you don't have a right to riot and loot and be a thug. It turns out that the "fiery but mostly peaceful" destruction was not a hallucination. Perhaps, the leftists should just stick to wrecking their own cities.
How Do You Debate Section 230 When One Side Constantly Lies About It?
Good news: you did it! The answer to debating against someone is with more speech. Personally, I think you did a bad job of it, offering a massive column of text that mostly offered opinion, instead of proving that someone was "lying". That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.
But what IS a problem is the left wing fascist solution, which is to engage in censorship. Leftists do not want debate, and cannot tolerate counterpoints to be heard. Instead, they want their opponents' opinion to be declared "lying" and preemptively removed.
That's why leftists are attempting to coop with big tech platforms: envy. Currently, tech platforms have the power that they have desired, which is the ability to censor those with which they disagree. Reform section 230, and obligate those who build an internet public square to provide it under common carrier laws, with equal access and rules for everyone.
Without the threat of tariffs to protect American workers, it's no doubt that Foxconn has nothing left to fear. Foxconn fully understands that they can outsource the means of production with impunity.
This problem seems to be similar to the right to repair issues that crop up. Due to a lack of competition, product owners are beholden to the manufacturer, instead of being able to purchase a model that they can fix themselves. While perhaps automobiles, farm equipment, or modern smartphones would be too complex for a small group of hobbyists to manufacture, perhaps a milkshake machine is simple enough for a small business to design and and sell an alternative.
Maybe the cops can fight this one in court, to have the evidence against them thrown out, and spend the money necessary to set precedence in court for the rest of us?
A public property is one owned by the gov't.. It's not effectively a public property until after the republicans in their everlasting disrespect for private property effectively expropriate it, then it will be "effectively a public property"
In recent history, democrats strongly considered reclassifying ISPs as a utility under common carrier rules. Republicans are simply considering the next step: reclassifying internet platforms as a common carrier. Utilities can be privately owned, and privately maintained, but also a public good which is subject to government regulation and mandates. I think both sides are starting to agree on the general principle.
So, uh, remember that whole thing about respecting free speech and not bringing back the fairness doctrine? This legislative concept is literally bringing back the fairness doctrine.
The fairness doctrine was applied to publishers, not platforms, which is why it was wrong. The public wants it applied to platforms, and not publishers. If you build an online version of a town square, then it's effectively a public property.
This isn't a Goldilocks fairy tale, in which some moderation is too much, and some moderation is too little
The public wants more moderation on certain topics, such as reducing pornography or child exploitation. But they want less on political topics, such as banning someone simply for supporting a certain policy decision.
This shows how totally unprincipled and ignorant the Republicans are on this topic.
The principle is to target moderation where it belongs. Allow free speech of ideas to flourish in virtual public forums, while cutting out illegal behavior. Some people have a problem with making these sorts of value judgements, but a lot of us don't.
Really? It seems odd that this should be the point that leaves people feeling uncomfortable.
Some people are okay with the power of big corporations, as long as the corporations bow down to them. But should corporations dare act defiant, only then do they begin to get angsty. If you ever come to rely on large industries always being "on your side", justified or not, eventually someday you're going to find yourself disappointed.
This motion was denied and Apple's copyright case tossed out by the judge, who found it "puzzling, if not disingenuous" Apple would claim virtual phones used to find security vulnerabilities somehow harmed iPhone sales (though the anti-circumvention part of the case lives on).
A number of acquaintances of mine were Apple enthusiasts, and I remember at the time of this incident that they were rather hopeful that Apple products were nearly impenetrable. Then, we got news that the phone got cracked, and the enthusiasts were no longer so enthusiastic. Rather, they seemed resigned to the concept that the contents of their phone couldn't be cracked by some off-the-street thief, but the 3-letttered U.S. agencies could do whatever they wanted.
Their constant purchases and upgrades to the latest model have dwindled since then.
On the post: Disney Got Itself A 'If You Own A Themepark...' Carveout From Florida's Blatantly Unconstitutional Social Media Moderation Bill
We need to change that to "not moderate based on political affiliation". Currently, it does not appear that the Florida theme parks are censoring visitors to their websites based on politics. Forcing businesses to not discriminate based on certain other behaviors, such as sexual orientation, familial status, and religion, have been found constitutional.
The good news is that the state of Florida has also recently (yesterday) passed a voter ID law, which is expected to be signed by the governor. This means that SJWs at the big tech companies will advocate for a boycott on the state, thereby preventing social media platforms from taking advantage of the loophole.
On the post: Verizon's Media Failure Is Complete As Company Eyes AOL/Yahoo Sale
Cursed Asset
AOL is approaching a kind of Hope Diamond cursed status. I can't believe anyone would want to pay billions for it.
On the post: Basecamp Bans Politics, An Act That Itself Is Political
Re: Re: Don't Spread Misery
It's very simple: people in their private lives and in their personal time can say whatever they want. When you're at work, tho, you're expected to do work. Your employer can tell you what to say as a condition of employment. It's not a free speech issue; it's a matter of business survival.
On the post: Basecamp Bans Politics, An Act That Itself Is Political
Don't Spread Misery
Numerous entertainment activities are enjoyable because they are an escape. Leftist puritans have sought to politicize everything, out of fear that some folks out there might be happy.
If SJWs are constantly making everything political, then it sounds like having no politics is a superior solution. Let the woke mob angst over the latest microaggression on their personal accounts and time, while leaving the rest of the employees alone to do some actual work.
On the post: Senator Marco Rubio: Speech I Disagree With Is Pollution
Re: Re: Thy name is hypocrisy
Ragging on corporations isn't anti-free speech. Pointing out that corporations are acting in a slimy manner isn't an attack on free speech. Criticism is a right that is guaranteed by free speech, not an attack on free speech. As I've said many times before, the solution to others saying things with which you disagree is to talk back against it. I really hope you try to look at the policy positions.
I'll take being a populist over being a corporatist any day of the week. I'm not saying that you're a corporatist, but I'm proud to be on the side that corporations hate the most. The economic standard of living of society has already been heavily skewed out of proportion because of corporate power over the past few decades. The damage is already here. Support dialing them back.
On the post: Senator Marco Rubio: Speech I Disagree With Is Pollution
Got Triggered
I always knew you were a lefist, because you can't help but get triggered anytime an elected official insults SJW woke corporatists. Thanks again for the confirmation.
Anyhow, it's a little disingenuous for you to say this, because I know that you're going to equate the term "regulated" with "policy positions on free speech". However, Rubio never advocated for policy positions regarding free speech in the op-ed.
Instead, I love the sound of the policy positions that he DOES mention. I do like the idea of increasing taxes and imposing tariffs on corporations that manufacture products overseas and steal American jobs. I do think that being able to form a union is a right, and corporations should have to operate on a level playing field globally with regard to labor. And perhaps corporations that cooperate with the Chinese government, after what the Chinese government did to the Uighurs, should face some sort of economic sanctions. Those are some policies that I can definitely get behind. I'd love to see Rubio and any other populist-wing Republicans work together with Democrats to make it happen.
On the post: Google Says Pretty Much Everything Shields It From Being Sued Over Things Telegram Users Said
Re: Section 230 Protects Anti-Semites as well!
Correct, section 230 applies in this case because noone is being prevented from speaking. If anything, it is the plaintiff that is trying to suppress speech.
On the post: Senator Bill Hagerty Believes Compelled Speech Is 'Liberty'; And Anyone Upset With Moderation Choices Should Be Able To Sue
Re: Re: It's A Public Forum
If I were to make my living room a public forum, then yes. Social media ought to fall under common carrier law. It's the same as practically any other utility such as telephone service. It can be privately maintained behind the scenes, yet still a public good.
On the post: James O'Keefe Sues Twitter For Defamation... For Shutting Down His Account
Re: Re: Selective Enforcement
There is no special context for investigative reporting. When leftists say "context", it almost always means that they're attempting to engage in selective enforcement, and not actually follow their own rules. The reality is that the context is: we don't like a certain person, so we're just going to censor them.
If enforcement were to be applied equally, it would require numerous TV networks and reporters and celebrities to also get punted, and the collateral damage would result in big tech deciding to simply allow all political speech. I find it likely that a repeal of section 230 would result in more speech, not less.
On the post: Senator Bill Hagerty Believes Compelled Speech Is 'Liberty'; And Anyone Upset With Moderation Choices Should Be Able To Sue
It's A Public Forum
It doesn't matter who does the trampling, whether it's a government agency, a school, the police, or a corporation. We value the concept of free speech in general, so when tech companies build an internet free speech zone, the corporations should be held to the same standard as government. They ought not become more powerful.
On the post: James O'Keefe Sues Twitter For Defamation... For Shutting Down His Account
Selective Enforcement
But it's one set of rules for conservatives, which the tech oligarchs hate, and another set of rules for everyone they like. This is precisely why section 230 should be repealed or reformed. The leftists freak out every time there's of a legal change that would mandate equal enforcement.
The anti-conservative bias is very obvious here.
On the post: Florida Governor Signs Law That Punishes Protesters For Protesting, Denies Them Bail
Re:
You have a right to peacefully protest, but you don't have a right to riot and loot and be a thug. It turns out that the "fiery but mostly peaceful" destruction was not a hallucination. Perhaps, the leftists should just stick to wrecking their own cities.
On the post: How Do You Debate Section 230 When One Side Constantly Lies About It?
That's How
Good news: you did it! The answer to debating against someone is with more speech. Personally, I think you did a bad job of it, offering a massive column of text that mostly offered opinion, instead of proving that someone was "lying". That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.
But what IS a problem is the left wing fascist solution, which is to engage in censorship. Leftists do not want debate, and cannot tolerate counterpoints to be heard. Instead, they want their opponents' opinion to be declared "lying" and preemptively removed.
That's why leftists are attempting to coop with big tech platforms: envy. Currently, tech platforms have the power that they have desired, which is the ability to censor those with which they disagree. Reform section 230, and obligate those who build an internet public square to provide it under common carrier laws, with equal access and rules for everyone.
On the post: The Trump-Hyped Foxconn Wisconsin Deal Finally Falls Completely Apart
No Teeth
Without the threat of tariffs to protect American workers, it's no doubt that Foxconn has nothing left to fear. Foxconn fully understands that they can outsource the means of production with impunity.
On the post: Captive Markets Are Just Hostages; Or Why Your McDonalds Never Seems To Have A Functioning Shake Machine
Monopoly
This problem seems to be similar to the right to repair issues that crop up. Due to a lack of competition, product owners are beholden to the manufacturer, instead of being able to purchase a model that they can fix themselves. While perhaps automobiles, farm equipment, or modern smartphones would be too complex for a small group of hobbyists to manufacture, perhaps a milkshake machine is simple enough for a small business to design and and sell an alternative.
On the post: Internal Affairs Used Clearview To Identify Two NYPD Officers Caught Drinking On The Job
Setting Precedent
Maybe the cops can fight this one in court, to have the evidence against them thrown out, and spend the money necessary to set precedence in court for the rest of us?
On the post: Republican's 'Big Tech Accountability' Platform Calls For Both More And Less Moderation, And A 'Not Fairness Doctrine' Fairness Doctrine
Re: Re: You Know It's Good When Maz Panicks
In recent history, democrats strongly considered reclassifying ISPs as a utility under common carrier rules. Republicans are simply considering the next step: reclassifying internet platforms as a common carrier. Utilities can be privately owned, and privately maintained, but also a public good which is subject to government regulation and mandates. I think both sides are starting to agree on the general principle.
On the post: Republican's 'Big Tech Accountability' Platform Calls For Both More And Less Moderation, And A 'Not Fairness Doctrine' Fairness Doctrine
You Know It's Good When Maz Panicks
The fairness doctrine was applied to publishers, not platforms, which is why it was wrong. The public wants it applied to platforms, and not publishers. If you build an online version of a town square, then it's effectively a public property.
The public wants more moderation on certain topics, such as reducing pornography or child exploitation. But they want less on political topics, such as banning someone simply for supporting a certain policy decision.
The principle is to target moderation where it belongs. Allow free speech of ideas to flourish in virtual public forums, while cutting out illegal behavior. Some people have a problem with making these sorts of value judgements, but a lot of us don't.
On the post: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Google/Apple Criticized... For Seeking To Protect Privacy In UK Gov't Covid Contact Tracing
Uncooperative
Some people are okay with the power of big corporations, as long as the corporations bow down to them. But should corporations dare act defiant, only then do they begin to get angsty. If you ever come to rely on large industries always being "on your side", justified or not, eventually someday you're going to find yourself disappointed.
On the post: Small Australian Company Cracked The San Bernardino Shooter's IPhone For The FBI
A number of acquaintances of mine were Apple enthusiasts, and I remember at the time of this incident that they were rather hopeful that Apple products were nearly impenetrable. Then, we got news that the phone got cracked, and the enthusiasts were no longer so enthusiastic. Rather, they seemed resigned to the concept that the contents of their phone couldn't be cracked by some off-the-street thief, but the 3-letttered U.S. agencies could do whatever they wanted.
Their constant purchases and upgrades to the latest model have dwindled since then.
Next >>