In general I concur with your thoughts. However, I must take issue with this:
These are platforms and services handling SPEECH.
No, they're not in the business of handling speech, capitalized or otherwise. They are in the business of creating and providing tools to create communities of association, usually of like-minded individual private citizens. Speech is a by-product of participation in a community, it is not the main raison d'etre.
That's the problem with this whole discussion - no one wants to be forced to associate with non-like-minded people. 1A prevents the government from doing 5 things (6, but religion got 2 mentions), and it seems to me that the right "to peacefully assemble" is what's really in danger of facing the firing squad, not speech itself. Case in point: we all know that #45 can speak out in a wide array of methods he might wish, but he can't force Twitter to let him force an association with anyone - that's the difference here, and I wish more influencers would see it, and point it out for the red herring it really is. (Some TD readers have already taken up this mantle.)
If it were pointed out, politely, that anyone who wants to associate with you (i.e. peacefully assemble with you) can do so, I think we'd be on better footing to have this discussion. The corollary being, of course, that no one can be forced to assemble with you, peacefully or otherwise. But the way the grandstanders are acting, I don't think they'll see that second part for themselves, they're gonna need some "help" in getting all the way through the idea of what 1A was meant to convey. (And by that I mean, what 1A put in place as limits on government, all three branches of it.)
In re-reading your post, something else caught my eye;
Cancelling for any reason is a fig leaf for deceptive practices such as shadow banning or political censorship.
Holy Jeebus, man, what will it take to wake you up??? If you come into my home on the pretext of wanting a polite conversation, and you then proceed to drop trou and deposit smelly turds on my living room rug, you can be damned sure that my response is going to be to frog-march you right back out the door. And I'd expect that you'd respond in the same way, were I to pull that stunt on you.
How is this response any different that what social media sites do when they find someone (figuratively) shitting on their floors?? They are private, just like you and I, there's no difference whatsoever. Well, except that they have a helluva lot more private people come trooping through their front door, but other than that....
Bottom line - do you really want the government to allow me to come into your home and start hanging banners proclaiming that you are a child trafficing neo-Nazi? Or in other words, be damned careful what you ask for.... you just might get it!
You are obviously capable of rational , but you so often conflate ideas that simply don't go together, and that's what gets you into trouble here.
For example, we never mentioned 'state' in this context, so I have to assume you are implying Congress, yes? Well, the problem there is, no, states (and Congress) don't address contractual issues until the courts have seen a pretty good-sized number of contractual disputes, most often played out to the harm of the lay citizenry, and said citizens start demanding of their representatives that "something be done". Only then do we get contract laws that try to re-balance the system.
But your main sticking point is that you wish for states to disallow a "service cancellation without cause". Normally, in most other contexts, I'd say that's a valid and useful statement - services being those we recognize as utilities. And the rub is, utilities are semi-guaranteed to a user. Fail to meet just one condition, that of timely payment, and you're gone. (With lots of fallback protections, to be sure.) Make your payments, and you're golden - no "off with your head" without cause.
But what we call a social media site can in no wise be shown to have the same status as a utility - it is simply not a requirement for life to be lived, ala water, energy, etc. Thus it follows that regulation by government fiat is out of the question. Using a platform on the internet is an entertainment thing, and only an entertainment thing. If it were removed from society this minute, no one would die; no one would suddenly fall ill, or suffer a broken bone, nothing of the sort. We can live without it, period. (See All Of History Prior To The Third Millenium for examples.)
And all of that is before we even get to governments and laws and such. For that, I'll refer to James' response above , he covers it quite nicely. You'd do well to pay attention.... who knows, there might be a pop quiz in the near future.
What chaps my ass the most is this: No one sees that as soon as they (yes, the magic They) get something like this to stick, it won't stop with just killing off the internet, all other news media (which are social media in disguise (letters to the editor, anyone?)) will be the next on the chopping block. Next think you know, handbills on power/phone polls will be the only way politicians can beg for your vote.
Tell me, sir, where is the contract in dispute?? If I "sign up" and swear to obey a TOU and other agreements, there's going to have to be something in it for me, or the contract can be nullified, easily. Oh yeah, I "get to" use the product or service, within the boundaries so laid out.
So what do you suppose should happen when I start pissing in someone's Cheerios, eh? That's right, I've broken the contract, and importantly, I was the first to do so. That triggers the other side to enact whatever penalties were included in the contract. For our purposes here, that means ejection from the service.
Notice that no fraud was involved, by either side. The dispute was about adherence to a mutually agreed-upon contract, and nothing else. If anything, there was deception on the part of contract breaker, by whipping it out and ruining the stock in trade for everyone, not just the service provider. In fact, the provider signed a contract with everyone else to provide an homogenous community that would be conducive to peaceful discourse. By NOT taking out the offender, the provider would be guilty of misfeasance towards everyone else.
Simple as that, pal.
By the way, your elementary Reading and Comprehension teacher called, she wants your certificate of completion back. For very obvious reasons.
If I'm elected for only so long (term limits), why should I seek your "campaign donations" if I can't use them?? Why shouldn't I just do what my constituents ask of me, and be able to hold my head high when I return to the fold?s
And keep in mind that the bureaucrats that you speak of are already getting their money, regardless of who's in "elected" power. As for the rest of the staff, they are replaced with people that the newly elected bring with them, so that's not much help either.
Together, term limits and public funding of political advertising are likely the only way that we might get out of the current jam. I don't claim it will be a sinecure, but it'll go a long ways toward sanity in our leadership.
Thanks for that link, I was unaware of that particular conversation. And sadly, I have to admit that I know at two of those participants, from other sites.
But the fact remains - a person or a team that writes a language has the ability to include or exclude whatever they wish. Users, such as Mike and TD, don't have any more "say" in the matter than what a 'suggestion box' might permit... all of that is true. But in the end, ease of implementation is not at issue - that's simply a programming design goal, subject to the same compromises as any other goal.
My argument would be (and since that particular discussion took place nearly 9 years ago!), the basic "CommonMark Standard" really should've been decided by now. Overwhelmingly, stating that the strikethrough is a crutch for those who are lexicologically challenged is an insult, nothing more. If even a modest segment of users request a "feature", then serious thought should be given to the idea, and not flippantly dismissed with "let's get the basics settled first". That was stated in a civil manner, but it wasn't actually civil... at least not in my mind.
Mike (or other responsible parties) might wish to discuss and investigate use a different Markdown implementation, one that includes my requested feature, or they might not, either way is cool with me. But if I don't ask, it's a sure bet that the feature will never show up. At least not in my remaining lifetime, if that 9-year-old conversation is any indication of how fast things happen. ;)
Let me close with another thanks for that link and site, I'll be habituating that domain more often, trust me.
You really think that you're correct about that potential lawsuit, don't you.
I wonder what'll happen when you grow up enough to realize that private property rights don't disappear just because one allows members of the public to come onto said property. There is nothing illegal about refusing to associate with someone else, regardless of one's status as the owner of a private property, or as a member of the public, or somewhere in between.
Notwithstanding the above, unlawful discrimination is a horse of a different color than the more general examples herein. But do note, the burden of proof is still incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that the property owner committed an unlawful act.
Chances of winning a lawsuit for discrimination: difficult, but not impossible.
Same for being on the receiving end of "because I said so": don't bet the farm on it.
.... but it's not sure their concerns will be heard over the din of the daily ration of coins hitting the wallet, due to "campaign donations."
T, FTFY
*Note to whoever's in charge: We need the strikethrough codes to work, as called for in the standard Markdown langauge - double tilde marks (~~) before and after, just like the asterisk for italics. I wanted to write the word "graft" before "campaign donations", with an obvious strikethrough.
The fundamental difference is who is unlocking it. Your file cabinet analogy fails because the government can open the file cabinet [in some manner] without the defendant doing it for them.
No, the locked file cabinet still has the same protections - it needs a warrant of compulsion, too. Even if most folks don't keep their personal lives in the filing cabinet (they more often used a Rolodex... look it up), there is still the bit about privacy that's pretty much set in stone, aka 4A and 5A.
They made the same exact argument in FTC v. Facebook 2019....
No, that fine was for privacy violations and not for "consumer-merchant" relationship idiocy. Instead of relying on your memory, you should operate on the principle that DuckDuckGo is your friend.
I'd be fine with this, given one proviso: no paywalls, period. If you're getting money for linking, then you don't get to double-dip for the same operation, that of actually using the link. The law should read: "You are permitted to earn revenue from one source or the other, but not from both at the same time.".
I also use it when driving into Mexico or Canada....
What I wanna know is, do you honestly travel 1,380 miles to cross the border into other countries, only for the pleasure of pissing off the border patrol??? Weird sense of humor there, Jack. Expensive one, too.
(Interstate 5 is alleged to be 1,379.4 miles between the two end points, San Ysidro, CA and Blaine, WA.)
Jeez, I don't even understand how that happened! I even checked it with Preview, like I always do.... no sign of doubling up like that. Hope that doesn't start happening any too often.....
The way I see it, if the government declares it to be 'authorized', then it is so, and that puts the matter to rest. However, if a judge states otherwise, then indeed the insurance company may be on the hook, and you can be sure that they have enough high-caliber lawyers on call that they can and will rake the government over the coals until well and truly done to a crisp.
Here's a dichotomy for you: suppose a victim actually gets a day in court. I can see an insurance lawyer filing an amicus curiae brief arguing that the government did no wrong. Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too....
The way I see if, if the government declares it to be 'authorized', then it is so, and that puts the matter to rest. However, if a judge states otherwise, then indeed the insurance commpany may be on the hook, and you can be sure that
they have enough high-caliber lawyers on call that they can and will rake the government over the coals until well and truly done to a crisp.
Here's a dichotomy for you: suppose a victim actually gets a day in court. I can see an insurance lawyer filing an amicus curiae brief arguing that the government did no wrong. Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too....
Yeah, caught that error right afterwards, sorry 'bout that.
Yes in fact, that was the whole point of my treatise, that things are changing for Nintendo's economical outlook when they feel the need to pull a stunt like this. Prior to just now, I would've agreed with you that a decent budget would not attempt to take "free publicity" into account, but when things are tight you start looking into every corner for relief.
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
Ms. Gellis,
In general I concur with your thoughts. However, I must take issue with this:
No, they're not in the business of handling speech, capitalized or otherwise. They are in the business of creating and providing tools to create communities of association, usually of like-minded individual private citizens. Speech is a by-product of participation in a community, it is not the main raison d'etre.
That's the problem with this whole discussion - no one wants to be forced to associate with non-like-minded people. 1A prevents the government from doing 5 things (6, but religion got 2 mentions), and it seems to me that the right "to peacefully assemble" is what's really in danger of facing the firing squad, not speech itself. Case in point: we all know that #45 can speak out in a wide array of methods he might wish, but he can't force Twitter to let him force an association with anyone - that's the difference here, and I wish more influencers would see it, and point it out for the red herring it really is. (Some TD readers have already taken up this mantle.)
If it were pointed out, politely, that anyone who wants to associate with you (i.e. peacefully assemble with you) can do so, I think we'd be on better footing to have this discussion. The corollary being, of course, that no one can be forced to assemble with you, peacefully or otherwise. But the way the grandstanders are acting, I don't think they'll see that second part for themselves, they're gonna need some "help" in getting all the way through the idea of what 1A was meant to convey. (And by that I mean, what 1A put in place as limits on government, all three branches of it.)
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st
In re-reading your post, something else caught my eye;
Holy Jeebus, man, what will it take to wake you up??? If you come into my home on the pretext of wanting a polite conversation, and you then proceed to drop trou and deposit smelly turds on my living room rug, you can be damned sure that my response is going to be to frog-march you right back out the door. And I'd expect that you'd respond in the same way, were I to pull that stunt on you.
How is this response any different that what social media sites do when they find someone (figuratively) shitting on their floors?? They are private, just like you and I, there's no difference whatsoever. Well, except that they have a helluva lot more private people come trooping through their front door, but other than that....
Bottom line - do you really want the government to allow me to come into your home and start hanging banners proclaiming that you are a child trafficing neo-Nazi? Or in other words, be damned careful what you ask for.... you just might get it!
Deceptive practices, my ass!
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st
Koby,
You are obviously capable of rational , but you so often conflate ideas that simply don't go together, and that's what gets you into trouble here.
For example, we never mentioned 'state' in this context, so I have to assume you are implying Congress, yes? Well, the problem there is, no, states (and Congress) don't address contractual issues until the courts have seen a pretty good-sized number of contractual disputes, most often played out to the harm of the lay citizenry, and said citizens start demanding of their representatives that "something be done". Only then do we get contract laws that try to re-balance the system.
But your main sticking point is that you wish for states to disallow a "service cancellation without cause". Normally, in most other contexts, I'd say that's a valid and useful statement - services being those we recognize as utilities. And the rub is, utilities are semi-guaranteed to a user. Fail to meet just one condition, that of timely payment, and you're gone. (With lots of fallback protections, to be sure.) Make your payments, and you're golden - no "off with your head" without cause.
But what we call a social media site can in no wise be shown to have the same status as a utility - it is simply not a requirement for life to be lived, ala water, energy, etc. Thus it follows that regulation by government fiat is out of the question. Using a platform on the internet is an entertainment thing, and only an entertainment thing. If it were removed from society this minute, no one would die; no one would suddenly fall ill, or suffer a broken bone, nothing of the sort. We can live without it, period. (See All Of History Prior To The Third Millenium for examples.)
And all of that is before we even get to governments and laws and such. For that, I'll refer to James' response above , he covers it quite nicely. You'd do well to pay attention.... who knows, there might be a pop quiz in the near future.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
What chaps my ass the most is this: No one sees that as soon as they (yes, the magic They) get something like this to stick, it won't stop with just killing off the internet, all other news media (which are social media in disguise (letters to the editor, anyone?)) will be the next on the chopping block. Next think you know, handbills on power/phone polls will be the only way politicians can beg for your vote.
And that will be just fine with them, trust me.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st
Well, Koby, you finally nailed it:
Tell me, sir, where is the contract in dispute?? If I "sign up" and swear to obey a TOU and other agreements, there's going to have to be something in it for me, or the contract can be nullified, easily. Oh yeah, I "get to" use the product or service, within the boundaries so laid out.
So what do you suppose should happen when I start pissing in someone's Cheerios, eh? That's right, I've broken the contract, and importantly, I was the first to do so. That triggers the other side to enact whatever penalties were included in the contract. For our purposes here, that means ejection from the service.
Notice that no fraud was involved, by either side. The dispute was about adherence to a mutually agreed-upon contract, and nothing else. If anything, there was deception on the part of contract breaker, by whipping it out and ruining the stock in trade for everyone, not just the service provider. In fact, the provider signed a contract with everyone else to provide an homogenous community that would be conducive to peaceful discourse. By NOT taking out the offender, the provider would be guilty of misfeasance towards everyone else.
Simple as that, pal.
By the way, your elementary Reading and Comprehension teacher called, she wants your certificate of completion back. For very obvious reasons.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Re: just to correct the record
It's called a meme, for a reason. Market familiarity and all that.
But the real, and sad, story is that the word "Aid" certainly didn't. Aid anyone, that is. (Some Monday morning Zen, if you please.)
On the post: Streamer Raptors Continue To Test Twitch's Appropriate Content Guideline Fencing
You expected otherwise from a company named Twitch? I mean, these guys are the epitome of "appropriately named" company behavior.
On the post: Ohio Republicans Are Using State Budget Battle To Kill Community Broadband
Re:
That was pretty negative.
If I'm elected for only so long (term limits), why should I seek your "campaign donations" if I can't use them?? Why shouldn't I just do what my constituents ask of me, and be able to hold my head high when I return to the fold?s
And keep in mind that the bureaucrats that you speak of are already getting their money, regardless of who's in "elected" power. As for the rest of the staff, they are replaced with people that the newly elected bring with them, so that's not much help either.
Together, term limits and public funding of political advertising are likely the only way that we might get out of the current jam. I don't claim it will be a sinecure, but it'll go a long ways toward sanity in our leadership.
On the post: Ohio Republicans Are Using State Budget Battle To Kill Community Broadband
Re: Re:
R.H.
Thanks for that link, I was unaware of that particular conversation. And sadly, I have to admit that I know at two of those participants, from other sites.
But the fact remains - a person or a team that writes a language has the ability to include or exclude whatever they wish. Users, such as Mike and TD, don't have any more "say" in the matter than what a 'suggestion box' might permit... all of that is true. But in the end, ease of implementation is not at issue - that's simply a programming design goal, subject to the same compromises as any other goal.
My argument would be (and since that particular discussion took place nearly 9 years ago!), the basic "CommonMark Standard" really should've been decided by now. Overwhelmingly, stating that the strikethrough is a crutch for those who are lexicologically challenged is an insult, nothing more. If even a modest segment of users request a "feature", then serious thought should be given to the idea, and not flippantly dismissed with "let's get the basics settled first". That was stated in a civil manner, but it wasn't actually civil... at least not in my mind.
Mike (or other responsible parties) might wish to discuss and investigate use a different Markdown implementation, one that includes my requested feature, or they might not, either way is cool with me. But if I don't ask, it's a sure bet that the feature will never show up. At least not in my remaining lifetime, if that 9-year-old conversation is any indication of how fast things happen. ;)
Let me close with another thanks for that link and site, I'll be habituating that domain more often, trust me.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moderation is not speech?
You really think that you're correct about that potential lawsuit, don't you.
I wonder what'll happen when you grow up enough to realize that private property rights don't disappear just because one allows members of the public to come onto said property. There is nothing illegal about refusing to associate with someone else, regardless of one's status as the owner of a private property, or as a member of the public, or somewhere in between.
Notwithstanding the above, unlawful discrimination is a horse of a different color than the more general examples herein. But do note, the burden of proof is still incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that the property owner committed an unlawful act.
Chances of winning a lawsuit for discrimination: difficult, but not impossible.
Same for being on the receiving end of "because I said so": don't bet the farm on it.
On the post: Ohio Republicans Are Using State Budget Battle To Kill Community Broadband
T, FTFY
*Note to whoever's in charge: We need the strikethrough codes to work, as called for in the standard Markdown langauge - double tilde marks (~~) before and after, just like the asterisk for italics. I wanted to write the word "graft" before "campaign donations", with an obvious strikethrough.
On the post: DOJ Asks DC Court To Compel Decryption Of Device Seized In A Capitol Raid Case
Re: Re: Re:
No, the locked file cabinet still has the same protections - it needs a warrant of compulsion, too. Even if most folks don't keep their personal lives in the filing cabinet (they more often used a Rolodex... look it up), there is still the bit about privacy that's pretty much set in stone, aka 4A and 5A.
On the post: DOJ Asks DC Court To Compel Decryption Of Device Seized In A Capitol Raid Case
Re: Re:t
I'd imagine it to be something on the order of 256 bits versus 5 bits (tumbler pins). Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal!
On the post: No, Facebook's Argument In Response To Muslim Advocates' Lawsuit Is Not 'Awkward'; Facebook Caving On 230 Is What's Awkward
Re:
I call Bojer.
No, that fine was for privacy violations and not for "consumer-merchant" relationship idiocy. Instead of relying on your memory, you should operate on the principle that DuckDuckGo is your friend.
On the post: No, 'Big Tech' Should Not Give 'Big Telecom' Billions Of Dollars For No Reason
Re:
Errr, implement term limits? You get only so many years to suck at the public teat, and then you receive a free ride to go home.
And stay home, you've done your civic duty, TYVM.
On the post: Letting Newspapers Band Together To Demand Payments From Internet Companies Is Bad For The Internet And Bad For Journalism
I'd be fine with this, given one proviso: no paywalls, period. If you're getting money for linking, then you don't get to double-dip for the same operation, that of actually using the link. The law should read: "You are permitted to earn revenue from one source or the other, but not from both at the same time.".
On the post: House Transportation Committee Looking To Restart Federal Funding Of Red Light Cameras
Re:
What I wanna know is, do you honestly travel 1,380 miles to cross the border into other countries, only for the pleasure of pissing off the border patrol??? Weird sense of humor there, Jack. Expensive one, too.
(Interstate 5 is alleged to be 1,379.4 miles between the two end points, San Ysidro, CA and Blaine, WA.)
On the post: FBI Ignored Its Own Warrant And Search Policies To Seize Millions From People's Safety Deposit Boxes
Re: Re: Re:
Jeez, I don't even understand how that happened! I even checked it with Preview, like I always do.... no sign of doubling up like that. Hope that doesn't start happening any too often.....
On the post: FBI Ignored Its Own Warrant And Search Policies To Seize Millions From People's Safety Deposit Boxes
Re: Re:
The way I see it, if the government declares it to be 'authorized', then it is so, and that puts the matter to rest. However, if a judge states otherwise, then indeed the insurance company may be on the hook, and you can be sure that they have enough high-caliber lawyers on call that they can and will rake the government over the coals until well and truly done to a crisp.
Here's a dichotomy for you: suppose a victim actually gets a day in court. I can see an insurance lawyer filing an amicus curiae brief arguing that the government did no wrong. Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too....
The way I see if, if the government declares it to be 'authorized', then it is so, and that puts the matter to rest. However, if a judge states otherwise, then indeed the insurance commpany may be on the hook, and you can be sure that
they have enough high-caliber lawyers on call that they can and will rake the government over the coals until well and truly done to a crisp.
Here's a dichotomy for you: suppose a victim actually gets a day in court. I can see an insurance lawyer filing an amicus curiae brief arguing that the government did no wrong. Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too....
On the post: Nintendo Hates You And The Company Most Certainly Does Not Want You To Co-Stream 'Nintendo Direct'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, caught that error right afterwards, sorry 'bout that.
Yes in fact, that was the whole point of my treatise, that things are changing for Nintendo's economical outlook when they feel the need to pull a stunt like this. Prior to just now, I would've agreed with you that a decent budget would not attempt to take "free publicity" into account, but when things are tight you start looking into every corner for relief.
Next >>