According to the lefftards not all the Muslim are bad but all the Trumpers are Terorrist !
No one is saying that all Trump supporters are terrorists. Just that an alarmingly large number of them appear to at least want to be terrorists and that the people who stormed inside the capital last week were Trump-supporting terrorists.
Who,s side is burning and looting , wreck the national flag all this years?
The alt-right and some dissatisfied blacks, generally after being assaulted in the latter case. Well, actually, I don’t know of anyone wrecking the national flag, not that it matters as that is protected speech so I don’t care.
You haven't seen the unpacked boxes stacked up. I think I just located the box with the CD-ROMs. That whole box would be better off going straight to the dump, unopened — if I open it, I'm afraid there's stuff in there that requires physical destruction before discarding.
Okay, I’m a bit lost on this. Are you a former government employee or something? Or do those CDs require destruction because they contain private information? Either way, if you’re worried that you might have to physically destroy the CDs if you unbox them, you should destroy them before tossing them anyways. You do not want to risk someone else opening the box to find sensitive information.
Regardless, a simple internet search will still solve the problem of finding the text of CDA §230 and it’s “shortform” name (which is a bit of a misnomer).
Speaking as someone who’s tried, it’s rarely successful.
On a related note, it would appear to be the case that alt-rightists and Trump supporters think the left look down on them because we think they’re stupid. The problem is that leftists calling them stupid (or ignorant and stubborn, which a lot of conservatives seem to thing is equivalent to being called stupid, which it isn’t) is, to liberals, a charitable way of looking at it because the alternatives would be far worse, like “evil”, “fascist”, “liar”, etc.
I actually learned about this from a friend who has the same condition (vitiligo). It really changed how I saw MJ.
Plus, most people look at who is and who isn’t “black” based at least in part on ancestry, which you simply cannot change at all and never will be able to change at all even with hypothetical treatments that change one’s natural skin color, along with the natural skin color. Also, I’m pretty sure there’s a stigma against people who change their skin color, too.
“Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?”
With caveats: yes, absolutely. I am not a libertarian. Far from it.
I am far from a libertarian, too, but I would answer, “With caveats: no, absolutely not.” I’m just going from the Constitution. Also, you should probably explain what at least one of those caveats is.
I think constitutional rights should only apply directly to US citizens acting as such.
The Constitution places no such limitations on constitutional rights. The only exceptions are the right to vote and the right to run for or hold public office. In fact, with regards to free speech in particular, the text of the constitution not only doesn’t limit it to citizens, it doesn’t even limit that right to persons. An AI program or an orangutan (theoretically) would have the right to free speech and, with it, a protection from government-compelled speech.
By that logic, the government should be able to freely regulate the speech of legal immigrants who are not US citizens.
Define “acting as [US citizens]”.
What do you mean by “apply directly”?
Restricting the free speech and free association rights of corporations necessarily restricts the free speech and free association rights of the US citizens in that corporation or people working in that corporation.
“Please note that “privately owned” applies to both corporations and people alike.”
Since we're operating in the realm of should, I'm going to cheerfully ignore your stipulation and say that corporations' rights should generally be whatever the government deigns to permit.
That’s not how it works. That means you’re ignoring the stipulation of the question. The question defines “privately owned” as being owned by one or more private individuals, private corporations, or private organizations and not the government or a government agency/organization. You cannot simply decide that that’s not what the question means. Furthermore, legally speaking, there is no difference between a private corporation and a private individual.
At any rate, the government has “deign[ed] to permit” corporations to have free speech and free association. The judicial branch is part of the government, and it has explicitly ruled that corporations have these rights.
So let me repeat the question with this point in mind:
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any interactive web service owned by a private individual, private corporation, or private nongovernmental organization into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
Keep in mind that, legally speaking, there is no real distinction between an individual, a corporation, or an NGO.
Maybe he has a physical copy of the entire Federal code and is trying to search that? That’s the only thing I can think of where he might have some difficulty. It is also stupid.
If all it takes is a few noun replacements to make your justification against others racist, your justification could use some reexamination.
As I mentioned before, being African-American is an intrinsic property that exists from birth that cannot be chosen or changed. Being a user is nothing like that. You also changed the scope from “a single internet platform” to “an entire nation” and went from “a private entity” to “the government”. Each of these things make your point invalid.
Michael Jackson didn’t choose to be white. He had a skin condition that caused his skin to become paler as he grew older. He was also still considered black even when his skin got pale.
Maybe because we’ve actually never lied about someone we were arguing with online in an attempt to win an argument we were losing. Maybe we actually rely on true facts, logic, and reasonable opinions to make our case and admit to mistakes when we make them. Maybe we don’t rely on “censorship” to silence the opposition, nor on deceit to win arguments we were losing. Has that thought never occurred to you? Why does that surprise you?
Sure, I’ve lied, but not in an online argument to try to “win”.
If a company is honest and even, I don't think you would see such an outpouring of anger.
I mean jeez, why so much anger over the fact a bunch of extremists invaded the US Capitol with the intent of overturning a free and fair election? /s
AWS choosing to work with twitter and booting parlor because of hateful comments seems hypocritical.
PARLOR could be another stormfront level of trash while Twitter has many of the same hate filled/hurtful/angry posts.
I don't think as many people would care about Parlor being booted if they believed twitter would get the same treatment.
AWS does not work and has never worked with Twitter at all. It can’t boot Twitter off of its services because Twitter has never used them.
Furthermore, as you noted was a plausible argument, Twitter is more active in curbing these problematic posts:
If the argument is that twitter is more active at curbing posts, maybe? They also make more money and have had years to clean up their platform. Even with that, to this day, there are still issues on twitter.
To address your counterpoint, they have more resources, but they have even more users/content to moderate. Some things are bound to make their way through.
However, I strongly doubt you accept freedom-of-association as a basic principle of society (e.g., you fully accept the use of government force to compel private restaurant owners to serve black customers even though some owners do not want to associate with black people at all).
I don’t recall Mike’s actual position on that, but most people would point out that:
Being black is determined at birth regardless of decisions made.
It is literally impossible to choose to be black or not to be black.
There is nothing about blacks that inherently gives a good reason to discriminate against them.
Outside of skin color, there does not appear to be any statistically significant differences between black people and non-black people.
Serving black people is no different from serving white people.
The only difference in reputation that might stem from someone choosing to serve black people vs. refusing to would be that the latter would be seen as a racist.
And some other points that I may have forgotten.
Basically, a place of public accommodation refusing to serve someone based on race is an exception to the freedom of association, just like how speech meant to and actually inciting imminent lawless action is an exception to freedom of speech. It is also a limited exception that has limited extensions (adding in sex, gender, sexuality, disability, and religion as factors and adding in employment decisions) rather than being particularly broad.
Besides, why is Facebook and Twitter allowed when there is quite alot of hate spewing from all stripes of people on those platforms. Why are those platforms exempt? Seems to me, it was a move to get rid of a potential competitor.
AWS does not compete and never has competed with Parler, and Facebook and Twitter are not hosted by AWS at all.
(Also, neither Apple nor Google compete with Parler, either.)
Besides, according to Amazon, Parler barely even tried to do something about the hate-spewing on their platform, while Facebook and Twitter clearly have tried.
Also, doesn't the Government have AWS as one of their providers? Seems like some money can flow from there if someone does the "right" thing.
I don’t know. That would require some investigation. It also wouldn’t mean that AWS did anything wrong.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: BANNED?
I think we’re in agreement on that. No one appears to be disputing that.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Mainstream media
You do realize he said multiple sources, right. So “just CNN’s website” is clearly not the correct answer.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one is saying that all Trump supporters are terrorists. Just that an alarmingly large number of them appear to at least want to be terrorists and that the people who stormed inside the capital last week were Trump-supporting terrorists.
The alt-right and some dissatisfied blacks, generally after being assaulted in the latter case. Well, actually, I don’t know of anyone wrecking the national flag, not that it matters as that is protected speech so I don’t care.
On the post: Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You forgot OANN, NewsMax, and Breitbart.
On the post: Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, I’m a bit lost on this. Are you a former government employee or something? Or do those CDs require destruction because they contain private information? Either way, if you’re worried that you might have to physically destroy the CDs if you unbox them, you should destroy them before tossing them anyways. You do not want to risk someone else opening the box to find sensitive information.
Regardless, a simple internet search will still solve the problem of finding the text of CDA §230 and it’s “shortform” name (which is a bit of a misnomer).
On the post: Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was joking.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speaking as someone who’s tried, it’s rarely successful.
On a related note, it would appear to be the case that alt-rightists and Trump supporters think the left look down on them because we think they’re stupid. The problem is that leftists calling them stupid (or ignorant and stubborn, which a lot of conservatives seem to thing is equivalent to being called stupid, which it isn’t) is, to liberals, a charitable way of looking at it because the alternatives would be far worse, like “evil”, “fascist”, “liar”, etc.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Point of order
Yes, thank you. That’s exactly what I meant.
I actually learned about this from a friend who has the same condition (vitiligo). It really changed how I saw MJ.
Plus, most people look at who is and who isn’t “black” based at least in part on ancestry, which you simply cannot change at all and never will be able to change at all even with hypothetical treatments that change one’s natural skin color, along with the natural skin color. Also, I’m pretty sure there’s a stigma against people who change their skin color, too.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re:
I am far from a libertarian, too, but I would answer, “With caveats: no, absolutely not.” I’m just going from the Constitution. Also, you should probably explain what at least one of those caveats is.
The Constitution places no such limitations on constitutional rights. The only exceptions are the right to vote and the right to run for or hold public office. In fact, with regards to free speech in particular, the text of the constitution not only doesn’t limit it to citizens, it doesn’t even limit that right to persons. An AI program or an orangutan (theoretically) would have the right to free speech and, with it, a protection from government-compelled speech.
By that logic, the government should be able to freely regulate the speech of legal immigrants who are not US citizens.
Define “acting as [US citizens]”.
What do you mean by “apply directly”?
That’s not how it works. That means you’re ignoring the stipulation of the question. The question defines “privately owned” as being owned by one or more private individuals, private corporations, or private organizations and not the government or a government agency/organization. You cannot simply decide that that’s not what the question means. Furthermore, legally speaking, there is no difference between a private corporation and a private individual.
At any rate, the government has “deign[ed] to permit” corporations to have free speech and free association. The judicial branch is part of the government, and it has explicitly ruled that corporations have these rights.
So let me repeat the question with this point in mind:
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any interactive web service owned by a private individual, private corporation, or private nongovernmental organization into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
Keep in mind that, legally speaking, there is no real distinction between an individual, a corporation, or an NGO.
On the post: Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe he has a physical copy of the entire Federal code and is trying to search that? That’s the only thing I can think of where he might have some difficulty. It is also stupid.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re:
As I mentioned before, being African-American is an intrinsic property that exists from birth that cannot be chosen or changed. Being a user is nothing like that. You also changed the scope from “a single internet platform” to “an entire nation” and went from “a private entity” to “the government”. Each of these things make your point invalid.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Point of order
Michael Jackson didn’t choose to be white. He had a skin condition that caused his skin to become paler as he grew older. He was also still considered black even when his skin got pale.
On the post: Jack Dorsey Explains The Difficult Decision To Ban Donald Trump; Reiterates Support For Turning Twitter Into A Decentralized Protocol
Re: not easy, but catastrophic
There is no evidence that it was in any way coordinated. Just a bunch of private actors independently coming to the same conclusion.
On the post: Dominion Voting Systems Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Former Trump Lawyer, Sidney Powell
Re:
Maybe because we’ve actually never lied about someone we were arguing with online in an attempt to win an argument we were losing. Maybe we actually rely on true facts, logic, and reasonable opinions to make our case and admit to mistakes when we make them. Maybe we don’t rely on “censorship” to silence the opposition, nor on deceit to win arguments we were losing. Has that thought never occurred to you? Why does that surprise you?
Sure, I’ve lied, but not in an online argument to try to “win”.
On the post: Judge Not Impressed By Parler's Attempt To Force Amazon To Put It Back Online
Re: Real content-moderation strategy
Parler essentially has no content-moderation strategy except against liberals. It wouldn’t take much to have an improvement on that.
On the post: Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation
Re: He knows
Evidence?
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re:
I mean jeez, why so much anger over the fact a bunch of extremists invaded the US Capitol with the intent of overturning a free and fair election? /s
AWS does not work and has never worked with Twitter at all. It can’t boot Twitter off of its services because Twitter has never used them.
Furthermore, as you noted was a plausible argument, Twitter is more active in curbing these problematic posts:
To address your counterpoint, they have more resources, but they have even more users/content to moderate. Some things are bound to make their way through.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: First Principles ?
I don’t recall Mike’s actual position on that, but most people would point out that:
Being black is determined at birth regardless of decisions made.
It is literally impossible to choose to be black or not to be black.
There is nothing about blacks that inherently gives a good reason to discriminate against them.
Outside of skin color, there does not appear to be any statistically significant differences between black people and non-black people.
Serving black people is no different from serving white people.
And some other points that I may have forgotten.
Basically, a place of public accommodation refusing to serve someone based on race is an exception to the freedom of association, just like how speech meant to and actually inciting imminent lawless action is an exception to freedom of speech. It is also a limited exception that has limited extensions (adding in sex, gender, sexuality, disability, and religion as factors and adding in employment decisions) rather than being particularly broad.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AWS does not compete and never has competed with Parler, and Facebook and Twitter are not hosted by AWS at all.
(Also, neither Apple nor Google compete with Parler, either.)
Besides, according to Amazon, Parler barely even tried to do something about the hate-spewing on their platform, while Facebook and Twitter clearly have tried.
I don’t know. That would require some investigation. It also wouldn’t mean that AWS did anything wrong.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re:
True, but irrelevant. The 1A only stops the government from intruding on speech, not private persons like Twitter.
Next >>