This is just terrible police work. They could’ve kept the drug charges. They could’ve applied for a warrant for sex-related evidence based on the women’s panties and sex toys in conjunction with the ecstasy. But no, they had to overreach.
I’d be willing to accept “terroristic intent” as an aggravating factor/sentence enhancer when it comes to sentencing people for a crime committed (as long as it’s well defined and a significant number of criminal acts would be convictable without proving terroristic intent), but I don’t see why we need “terrorist actions” or “terroristic intent” to be a crime in itself.
If you post without a name or ID this fucked up website called you a “anonymous coward”.
You know, you could just, like, change the posted name to whatever the duck you want!
The whole “Anonymous Coward” thing is a tongue-in-cheek reference to something not worth getting into here, and it’s not meant to be seriously taken as an insult. We even have (or at least had) a user here whose username is/was “Anonymous Anonymous Coward”.
But anyways, it’s just the default name for someone who isn’t signed in. You could put “Anonymous”, “Random Dude”, or “Henchman #2358”, or “butthurt crybaby” if you want. We don’t have a real-names policy here. Don’t be so offended.
This is the delusional Left crying in their sand box like little bitches.
How? Seriously, how is making a dumb joke about people unwilling to sign up, log in, or type something in the “name” box leftist or delusional?
Change your site to gaytechDaily.
Considering how easily offended you are, it’s funny how easily you resort to offensive language. And, again, how is this “gay”?
I would address this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this article, so I’ll just assume it’s spam.
In case you were wondering, this is about Parler’s claimed and actual moderation policies. I’m more than willing to go beyond that and go for closely related topics like social media, moderation, Twitter, Reddit, §230, allegations of conservative bias, etc. However, the pandemic, while an important issue to discuss, has no relevance to the article.
Reasonable people can disagree on what people should be banned for, which is exactly why I don’t think the government should have any role in deciding that at all (with the possible exceptions of protected classes of persons (i.e. race) and anticompetitive behavior). If you just want to discuss what you think certain companies ought or ought not to do, that’s fine. The problem is the government stepping in.
At any rate, from what I can gather, the banned users seem to run the gamut from admitted or obvious trolls and spammers trying to push the limits to the relatively innocuous. (I have heard claims that some of those banned were harassing and/or threatening, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that, though I believe that it’s statistically likely.) Just like on Twitter and Reddit. That was actually the point, as Parler claimed that they would only ban illegal speech or speech that goes against FCC guidance, and even some of the trolls who got banned did nothing outside these stated boundaries. They had also condemned Twitter for banning trolls and said that they wouldn’t do the same. The point was not to condemn Parler’s moderation policies at all; it was to demonstrate their hypocrisy and inability to stick to their advertised claims about their service.
I don’t see any evidence that the Twitter moderators don’t at least have the subjective belief that all the people they ban have violated community guidelines outside of the ones they unban. As such, I have no reason to believe Twitter is being dishonest in their stated reasons for banning someone.
If you have clear evidence to the contrary, please present it, because I haven’t seen it. Without it, I have no reason to think that Twitter isn’t being 100% honest here.
(Note: a subjective belief can be mistaken.)
Also, Parler hasn’t been claiming they ban people simply because they disagree with/dislike them, meaning that there is no such distinction.
I dunno the details, but I will say that at least some people believe rubbing onion in your eyes can reduce the harmful effects of pepper spray, so even if she’s rubbing onion into her eyes, it might not be to provoke tears but to recover from the pepper spray.
We fundamentally disagree on the free speech rights guaranteed by the 1A. The fact is that the 1A cannot be used to force anyone to host speech they don’t want to. One’s 1A rights cannot be restricted by any private persons (including corporations) outside of lawsuits. Not that it’s illegal to do so; it’s impossible to do so. As such, I don’t recognize (a) as a problem at all, nor can I agree with points 3, 4, or 6. Your freedom of speech is not lessened one iota by a private corporation’s decision not to host/publish your speech.
We have explored other possibilities, but we don’t believe that they strike a better balance than anything else.
That the competition is not as large as Facebook or Twitter is immaterial. The existence of a number of competitors shows that there’s lots of competition in itself. The reason that platforms like Gab, 4chan, and 8kun that don’t moderate much, if at all, aren’t as large as Twitter or Facebook could very well be because consumers prefer the heavier moderation of Twitter and Facebook. The idea is to let the market decide.
I don’t see how Facebook and Twitter have “near-omnipotence” considering the fact that their reach simply does not extend one picometer beyond their respective platforms, and there are a number of other options available.
I am not the least bit alarmed by Trump’s deplatforming. I am surprised it happened while he was in office, but the fact is that he still has other options available, and it happened because of his own actions that he had full control over. I don’t see it as remotely comparable to the situation with blacks during the Jim Crow era as those restrictions were based on factors 100% outside the control of those people and 100% impossible to change.
There are other points, but those are the big ones.
And Democrats founded the KKK, Jim Crow laws, were for slavery...
Look up “the Southern Strategy”. You may learn something.
Psst! Know what's funny? It's not the Right who's calling for porn to be taken down or to shut down shows for not following their dogma. It's the Social Justice Left that's doing it.
I don’t know of any leftist politicians in the US going after porn outside of revenge porn and child porn (which generally are generally bipartisan issues), while I do know of rightwing politicians who have relatively recently, including Lindsay Graham and politicians in Utah.
Meanwhile the ENTIRETY of Cancel Culture is coming from the Social Justice Left these days.
I haven’t seen sufficient evidence of cancel culture at all.
So, you should stop looking at the past,
Says the guy who talked about the origins of the KKK and Jim Crow laws.
because there are PLENTY of things that I can point to that happened in the past that the Left did that they accuse the Right of doing as well.
Democrats weren’t “the left” back then, so you haven’t done so.
Parler doesn't need to pretend it doesn't need 230 protections.
Then why did it?
the author knows that nobody is talking about "Getting rid of section 230.. what is being discussed is taking 230 protections away from platforms that are pretending they are simply neutral platforms.
False. A number of liberals, conservatives, and the President have explicitly said that they want §230 repealed outright. Not all of them hold federal political office, but some are, and you explicitly said that nobody was saying that.
That said, forcing platforms to be neutral violates the 1A.
It's not about moderation at all, but it's about partisan censorship.
That’s not censorship; it’s still moderation even if it’s partisan.
You and everyone else have failed to demonstrate that the moderation is necessarily partisan in motivation.
Twitter, FB, IG etc, can be as biased as they like. they are private firms.. their employees, being mainly from large metro areas are naturally going to skew left. and nobody has a right to expect anything else from them.. they have a right of free association.
Which is exactly what we’ve been saying.
The Tech overlords want to have their cake and eat it too, they want 230 protections from liability, claiming to be neutral platforms who cannot be held accountable for content, yet they moderate (censor)content almost exclusively from the point of view they are diametrically apposed to. in essence, they are acting as PUBLISHERS in fact and in deed.. so they should not have protections under 230..
They don’t claim to be neutral platforms. And you still haven’t proven that their political views (as opposed to those of users and regulators) played a substantial role in a significant number of moderation decisions against conservatives and for liberals.
The platform/publisher dichotomy is also false, and we don’t hold anyone else to the standards you claim.
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Our goals are opposite but we want the same thi
Actually, the authorship was directly relevant to your claim about what each side wanted. It’s also worth noting that §230 got enough bipartisan votes to win in the House completely on its own. You’re completely misrepresenting what the legislative history actually was.
But they do have the moral high ground over Twitter. Twitter bans conservatives for posting pro trump topics that they they inaccurately decide is false.... AKA doesn't fit their narrative.
No, they are accurately described as false. And people weren’t being banned at the time for posting misinformation; they were banned for other reasons similar to what Parler does (at least at the time this article was written).
Parler is banning trolls who are threatening other members.
If they’re just trolls, it’s not a “true threat” and is therefore protected by the 1A.
So what is free speech in your mind?
Free speech is the right to say or refuse to say pretty much anything without fear of government intervention. There are some exceptions, like defamation, copyright infringement, and true threats, but that’s the extent of it. It also extends no further than that. A private corporation cannot infringe on your free speech outside of a lawsuit or something like that.
I can tell you for certain that free speech doesn't give you the right to threaten people.
Actually, it kinda does. As long as it’s not a true/credible threat of imminent lawless action, it’s free speech.
However, it does give you the right to say your opinion on a political topic if you want. Which is what Twitter is banning people for.
I have seen no evidence of Twitter doing so against conservatives disproportionately.
Twitter is not constrained by free speech and has the right to do whatever it wants with speech on its platform. Your right to free speech doesn’t mean speech free from consequences.
Have those companies ever claimed that they wouldn’t ban people for posting legal, 1A-protected speech consistent with FCC rules and the DMCA? Are any of those companies criticizing other companies for their bans? Are any of them new companies?
If not, then the reasons for posting this story don’t match with the reasons for posting about that.
Also, there is a link below that you can use to suggest an idea for an article. Don’t use the comment section of an old article to do so.
Privately owned, but exempt from libel law with its 230. Once you start censoring posts and deciding what content is or is not newsworthy or valid, you cease being an open platform and then become a publisher. That is the debate.
Tell me, if a bar kicks people out for their speech, do you believe that you should be able to sue the bar for defamatory speech said in the bar by customers who weren’t kicked out?
Also, §230 makes no distinction between open platform and publisher, and the authors and supporters explicitly wanted platform holders to be able to moderate freely without fear of being sued for defamatory content put on their platform by third parties just because they failed to remove it.
Spamming and flaming are generally expected to get you banned anywhere, as well as death threats,
And, without §230, that would potentially open you up to liability under the same regime you propose.
but not allowing someone to share a New York Post article because it involves Hunter Biden is content censorship, and conspicuously right before the election.
It wasn’t just because it involved Hunter Biden. The story was very sketchy to begin with. The fact that it was right before an election was never alleged to be coincidental and only amplifies the need to quickly remove disinformation. Had a similar article been shared that involved Donald Jr. instead of Hunter Biden, one of Biden’s lawyers instead of Rudy Giuliani, and a very liberal crackpot of a computer-store owner instead of a Trump-supporting one, I have no doubt that it would’ve been removed as well.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Tosses Child Porn Conviction Predicated On Unconstitutional Searches Of Three Cellphones
This is just terrible police work. They could’ve kept the drug charges. They could’ve applied for a warrant for sex-related evidence based on the women’s panties and sex toys in conjunction with the ecstasy. But no, they had to overreach.
On the post: Wednesday, January 6th: The Day The Game Of Politics Turned Into Insurrection
Re: pretending people are not terrorists
I’d be willing to accept “terroristic intent” as an aggravating factor/sentence enhancer when it comes to sentencing people for a crime committed (as long as it’s well defined and a significant number of criminal acts would be convictable without proving terroristic intent), but I don’t see why we need “terrorist actions” or “terroristic intent” to be a crime in itself.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re:
You know, you could just, like, change the posted name to whatever the duck you want!
The whole “Anonymous Coward” thing is a tongue-in-cheek reference to something not worth getting into here, and it’s not meant to be seriously taken as an insult. We even have (or at least had) a user here whose username is/was “Anonymous Anonymous Coward”.
But anyways, it’s just the default name for someone who isn’t signed in. You could put “Anonymous”, “Random Dude”, or “Henchman #2358”, or “butthurt crybaby” if you want. We don’t have a real-names policy here. Don’t be so offended.
How? Seriously, how is making a dumb joke about people unwilling to sign up, log in, or type something in the “name” box leftist or delusional?
Considering how easily offended you are, it’s funny how easily you resort to offensive language. And, again, how is this “gay”?
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would address this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this article, so I’ll just assume it’s spam.
In case you were wondering, this is about Parler’s claimed and actual moderation policies. I’m more than willing to go beyond that and go for closely related topics like social media, moderation, Twitter, Reddit, §230, allegations of conservative bias, etc. However, the pandemic, while an important issue to discuss, has no relevance to the article.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Why the bans?
Reasonable people can disagree on what people should be banned for, which is exactly why I don’t think the government should have any role in deciding that at all (with the possible exceptions of protected classes of persons (i.e. race) and anticompetitive behavior). If you just want to discuss what you think certain companies ought or ought not to do, that’s fine. The problem is the government stepping in.
At any rate, from what I can gather, the banned users seem to run the gamut from admitted or obvious trolls and spammers trying to push the limits to the relatively innocuous. (I have heard claims that some of those banned were harassing and/or threatening, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that, though I believe that it’s statistically likely.) Just like on Twitter and Reddit. That was actually the point, as Parler claimed that they would only ban illegal speech or speech that goes against FCC guidance, and even some of the trolls who got banned did nothing outside these stated boundaries. They had also condemned Twitter for banning trolls and said that they wouldn’t do the same. The point was not to condemn Parler’s moderation policies at all; it was to demonstrate their hypocrisy and inability to stick to their advertised claims about their service.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Parler banning people
I don’t see any evidence that the Twitter moderators don’t at least have the subjective belief that all the people they ban have violated community guidelines outside of the ones they unban. As such, I have no reason to believe Twitter is being dishonest in their stated reasons for banning someone.
If you have clear evidence to the contrary, please present it, because I haven’t seen it. Without it, I have no reason to think that Twitter isn’t being 100% honest here.
(Note: a subjective belief can be mistaken.)
Also, Parler hasn’t been claiming they ban people simply because they disagree with/dislike them, meaning that there is no such distinction.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re:
Congratulations. You just missed the point.
On the post: Identifying Insurrectionists Is Going To Be Easy -- Thanks To Social Media And All The Other Online Trails People Leave
Re: Re: Onion
I dunno the details, but I will say that at least some people believe rubbing onion in your eyes can reduce the harmful effects of pepper spray, so even if she’s rubbing onion into her eyes, it might not be to provoke tears but to recover from the pepper spray.
On the post: Dear Section 230 Critics: When Senators Hawley And Cruz Are Your Biggest Allies, It's Time To Rethink
Re: Re:
I’d just like to say the following points:
We fundamentally disagree on the free speech rights guaranteed by the 1A. The fact is that the 1A cannot be used to force anyone to host speech they don’t want to. One’s 1A rights cannot be restricted by any private persons (including corporations) outside of lawsuits. Not that it’s illegal to do so; it’s impossible to do so. As such, I don’t recognize (a) as a problem at all, nor can I agree with points 3, 4, or 6. Your freedom of speech is not lessened one iota by a private corporation’s decision not to host/publish your speech.
We have explored other possibilities, but we don’t believe that they strike a better balance than anything else.
That the competition is not as large as Facebook or Twitter is immaterial. The existence of a number of competitors shows that there’s lots of competition in itself. The reason that platforms like Gab, 4chan, and 8kun that don’t moderate much, if at all, aren’t as large as Twitter or Facebook could very well be because consumers prefer the heavier moderation of Twitter and Facebook. The idea is to let the market decide.
I don’t see how Facebook and Twitter have “near-omnipotence” considering the fact that their reach simply does not extend one picometer beyond their respective platforms, and there are a number of other options available.
There are other points, but those are the big ones.
On the post: The Slope Gets More Slippery As You Expect Content Moderation To Happen At The Infrastructure Layer
Re: Re:
Look up “the Southern Strategy”. You may learn something.
I don’t know of any leftist politicians in the US going after porn outside of revenge porn and child porn (which generally are generally bipartisan issues), while I do know of rightwing politicians who have relatively recently, including Lindsay Graham and politicians in Utah.
I haven’t seen sufficient evidence of cancel culture at all.
Says the guy who talked about the origins of the KKK and Jim Crow laws.
Democrats weren’t “the left” back then, so you haven’t done so.
On the post: Parler, Desperate For Attention, Pretends It Doesn't Need Section 230
Re: 230
Then why did it?
False. A number of liberals, conservatives, and the President have explicitly said that they want §230 repealed outright. Not all of them hold federal political office, but some are, and you explicitly said that nobody was saying that.
That said, forcing platforms to be neutral violates the 1A.
That’s not censorship; it’s still moderation even if it’s partisan.
Which is exactly what we’ve been saying.
They don’t claim to be neutral platforms. And you still haven’t proven that their political views (as opposed to those of users and regulators) played a substantial role in a significant number of moderation decisions against conservatives and for liberals.
The platform/publisher dichotomy is also false, and we don’t hold anyone else to the standards you claim.
On the post: Everything Pundits Are Getting Wrong About This Current Moment In Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re:
They were saying Parler did nothing to actively incite the riot.
On the post: Dear Section 230 Critics: When Senators Hawley And Cruz Are Your Biggest Allies, It's Time To Rethink
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Our goals are opposite but we want the same thi
Actually, the authorship was directly relevant to your claim about what each side wanted. It’s also worth noting that §230 got enough bipartisan votes to win in the House completely on its own. You’re completely misrepresenting what the legislative history actually was.
On the post: Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely
Re: Sounds familiar
Yeah, that’s a load of BS. Try again, troll.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re:
No, they are accurately described as false. And people weren’t being banned at the time for posting misinformation; they were banned for other reasons similar to what Parler does (at least at the time this article was written).
If they’re just trolls, it’s not a “true threat” and is therefore protected by the 1A.
Free speech is the right to say or refuse to say pretty much anything without fear of government intervention. There are some exceptions, like defamation, copyright infringement, and true threats, but that’s the extent of it. It also extends no further than that. A private corporation cannot infringe on your free speech outside of a lawsuit or something like that.
Actually, it kinda does. As long as it’s not a true/credible threat of imminent lawless action, it’s free speech.
I have seen no evidence of Twitter doing so against conservatives disproportionately.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re:
Any evidence?
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: An idea for an article
Have those companies ever claimed that they wouldn’t ban people for posting legal, 1A-protected speech consistent with FCC rules and the DMCA? Are any of those companies criticizing other companies for their bans? Are any of them new companies?
If not, then the reasons for posting this story don’t match with the reasons for posting about that.
Also, there is a link below that you can use to suggest an idea for an article. Don’t use the comment section of an old article to do so.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: "Conservatives" apparently banned too
Tell me, if a bar kicks people out for their speech, do you believe that you should be able to sue the bar for defamatory speech said in the bar by customers who weren’t kicked out?
Also, §230 makes no distinction between open platform and publisher, and the authors and supporters explicitly wanted platform holders to be able to moderate freely without fear of being sued for defamatory content put on their platform by third parties just because they failed to remove it.
And, without §230, that would potentially open you up to liability under the same regime you propose.
It wasn’t just because it involved Hunter Biden. The story was very sketchy to begin with. The fact that it was right before an election was never alleged to be coincidental and only amplifies the need to quickly remove disinformation. Had a similar article been shared that involved Donald Jr. instead of Hunter Biden, one of Biden’s lawyers instead of Rudy Giuliani, and a very liberal crackpot of a computer-store owner instead of a Trump-supporting one, I have no doubt that it would’ve been removed as well.
[citation needed]
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Your blog, column whatever
I’ve seen no evidence of conservatives being banned for being conservative.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is this sarcasm?
Next >>