It still keeps bugging me how this shit keeps happening in the US
Believe me, this shit bugs a hell of a lot of USAmericans, too.
As for why it keeps happening? The primary reason is power—and specifically, the power of law enforcement to fuck up someone’s entire life, justifiably or not. Those who have that power won’t give it up easily.
I take a similar approach: I turn on Do Not Disturb, but allow Priorities (i.e., numbers in my contacts list) to alert me via ringtones/notifications. Everything else stays silent, though it does turn on the screen—a small price to pay for not letting any bullshit bother me.
we keep saying "Platforms have the right to moderate however they want", but few stop to think about what users want
I would wager that the vast majority of social media users want a platform that lets them speak their mind without having to face shitloads of harassment and hatred for either their speech or specific facets of their identity (e.g., their sexual orientation). The details of how that happens don’t matter as much as the broad-strokes desire to have a platform that hasn’t given in to the “Worst People” Problem.
the court might have felt Brock's lawsuit was a waste of its time
Any court that believes a lawsuit filed against an actual First Amendment violation is “a waste of its time”, especially in a context such as the one in this case, is a court that needs reminding that the First Amendment protects everyone—including people that the courts don’t like.
the low opinion that the general public has developed of Section 230
I can all but guarantee that a simple majority of Americans don’t even know what Section 230 is. If they had the proper and correct information about what Section 230 is (something you or your anti-230 brethren would never give out), they’d likely have a positive opinion of it.
The new Republican party is coming out against the Chamber of Commerce, and believe that a repeal will end the ability of social media to moderate based upon on political beliefs.
They would be wrong. Social media companies currently moderate based on a form of community standards—i.e., standards they believe will net them the largest possible community. Remove 230 and they’ll moderate based on politics—specifically, they’ll moderate to make sure nothing beyond milquetoast, lukewarm, overwhelmingly centrist bullshit will ever be on their servers so they can avoid any and all legal liability for any third-party speech. To wit: Without 230, Twitter would’ve banned Donald Trump long before January 2021.
The current Democrat legislators are loving the campaign donations from California, and enjoy the idea that the entrenched tech monopolies can do to speech what the government cannot.
Funny, then, that alternatives to Twitter and Facebook exist—and that neither Twitter nor Facebook can stop those alternatives from existing.
Remember: 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—legally, morally, or ethically—to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else.
Any lawmaker who wants to cause intentional suffering as a pretext to writing “good” legislation doesn’t deserve to hold any office at any level of government.
Look at all the book bans and anti-CRT bills/laws across the country: Not only are they led primarily (if not entirely) by Republicans/conservatives, they’re primarily targeting books by people of color.
My bad on misremembering how many articles on NFTs were posted here. I have a bit of a blind spot in re: NFTs, in that I tend to be extra-wary (and extra-weary) of pro-NFT shit, which might cloud my perception of how pro-NFT a certain source/site truly is when a pro-NFT piece pops up. Apologies for being a bit overboard there.
That said: I’m still not convinced that NFTs are/can be a good thing in any capacity—especially given how much environmental damage NFTs/blockchains can do.
Yeah, as much as I like reading (and commenting on) this site, these recent pro-NFT articles showing up is…concerning, to say the least. Especially when everyone who isn’t a head-up-their-ass fart-smelling techbro douchecanoe with an ounce of sense can see what a fucking scam NFTs are.
I’m sure that on some planet, NFTs are actually a good thing. The problem here? This is Earth.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Please go jump in the pond nearest to your home, since you want to act like a silly goose and all.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Well, they all still have assholes, so…
On the post: Pennsylvania Says Legal Medical Marijuana Means Cops Can't Just Sniff Their Way Into Warrantless Searches
Believe me, this shit bugs a hell of a lot of USAmericans, too.
As for why it keeps happening? The primary reason is power—and specifically, the power of law enforcement to fuck up someone’s entire life, justifiably or not. Those who have that power won’t give it up easily.
On the post: Remembering The Fight Against SOPA 10 Years Later... And What It Means For Today
…fucking what
On the post: Why U.S. Robocall Hell Seemingly Never Ends
I take a similar approach: I turn on Do Not Disturb, but allow Priorities (i.e., numbers in my contacts list) to alert me via ringtones/notifications. Everything else stays silent, though it does turn on the screen—a small price to pay for not letting any bullshit bother me.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
How many workers have died in Amazon warehouses, again?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
I don’t know, Jeff Bezos is still a free man and a billionaire.
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
I would wager that the vast majority of social media users want a platform that lets them speak their mind without having to face shitloads of harassment and hatred for either their speech or specific facets of their identity (e.g., their sexual orientation). The details of how that happens don’t matter as much as the broad-strokes desire to have a platform that hasn’t given in to the “Worst People” Problem.
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
You must have started reading Techdirt within the past week, then. I’ve seen it happen multiple times over the years.
On the post: Small Nebraska Town Pays $16,000 To Resident It Attempted To Sue Into Silence
I’d love to have your optimism.
On the post: Small Nebraska Town Pays $16,000 To Resident It Attempted To Sue Into Silence
Any court that believes a lawsuit filed against an actual First Amendment violation is “a waste of its time”, especially in a context such as the one in this case, is a court that needs reminding that the First Amendment protects everyone—including people that the courts don’t like.
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
I can all but guarantee that a simple majority of Americans don’t even know what Section 230 is. If they had the proper and correct information about what Section 230 is (something you or your anti-230 brethren would never give out), they’d likely have a positive opinion of it.
They would be wrong. Social media companies currently moderate based on a form of community standards—i.e., standards they believe will net them the largest possible community. Remove 230 and they’ll moderate based on politics—specifically, they’ll moderate to make sure nothing beyond milquetoast, lukewarm, overwhelmingly centrist bullshit will ever be on their servers so they can avoid any and all legal liability for any third-party speech. To wit: Without 230, Twitter would’ve banned Donald Trump long before January 2021.
Funny, then, that alternatives to Twitter and Facebook exist—and that neither Twitter nor Facebook can stop those alternatives from existing.
Remember: 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—legally, morally, or ethically—to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else.
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
To wit: Facebook could survive the consequences of a 230 repeal, but the average Mastodon instance could not.
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
Any lawmaker who wants to cause intentional suffering as a pretext to writing “good” legislation doesn’t deserve to hold any office at any level of government.
On the post: Criss Angel Sends Ridiculous Legal Threat After Comedian Creates Parody Menu Of His Restaurant
Criss Angel would do well to spend less time with his magic tricks and more time trying to conjure up a sense of humor.
On the post: Josh Hawley Was The Democrats' Partner In Trying To Regulate Big Tech; Then The Public Realized He Was A Fascist
Look at all the book bans and anti-CRT bills/laws across the country: Not only are they led primarily (if not entirely) by Republicans/conservatives, they’re primarily targeting books by people of color.
On the post: Monster Energy Buys A Brewery; Trademark Lawsuits Are Almost Sure To Follow
Only in your dreams, pal.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
The only U that matters is the U in U-S-A!
(this is a joke, I don't actually think like this, the U.S. is a capitalist hellscape)
On the post: The Future Of Sports Can Be Changed By NFTs, Virtual Reality, And DAOs
My bad on misremembering how many articles on NFTs were posted here. I have a bit of a blind spot in re: NFTs, in that I tend to be extra-wary (and extra-weary) of pro-NFT shit, which might cloud my perception of how pro-NFT a certain source/site truly is when a pro-NFT piece pops up. Apologies for being a bit overboard there.
That said: I’m still not convinced that NFTs are/can be a good thing in any capacity—especially given how much environmental damage NFTs/blockchains can do.
On the post: The Future Of Sports Can Be Changed By NFTs, Virtual Reality, And DAOs
Yeah, as much as I like reading (and commenting on) this site, these recent pro-NFT articles showing up is…concerning, to say the least. Especially when everyone who isn’t a head-up-their-ass fart-smelling techbro douchecanoe with an ounce of sense can see what a fucking scam NFTs are.
I’m sure that on some planet, NFTs are actually a good thing. The problem here? This is Earth.
Next >>