Nobody’s whining. We’re just pointing out that Parler doesn’t confine itself to removing illegal, unlawful, or FCC condemned speech like it said it would. We have no problem with that; we’re just refuting one of the talking points and noting that Parler is doing the same thing Twitter does.
Why is the left so against free speech and a place where people can actually express everything they believe without censorship even if it doesn't fit the narrative.
No one’s against that. We do dispute the definitions of “free speech” and “censorship”, but even under your definitions, no one’s saying that they’re against such a platform from existing.
Those getting banned from parler are posting illegal content
You still cannot post porn, copyrighted material or make DIRECT threats which shows a full understanding of the 1st and again reasoning for the ban.
People are also banned on parler for spam I am sure.
Porn isn’t illegal, nor is spam. And yes, spam is still speech. Therefore, by your own admission, not all of those getting banned from Parler are getting banned solely for illegal content; some are getting banned for 1A-protected speech.
Articles like this are an attempt to defend the left as the party of free speech which has obviously been lost as a valid view point from everyone.
It has nothing to do with the left being or not being “the party of free speech”. The point is that 1) “free speech” doesn’t mean what you think it means, and 2) Parler is no more wedded to the 1A than Twitter. It’s all about a double standard that the right uses and the fact that Parler has to make the same sorts of decisions that Twitter does. I have no problem with Parler banning whoever it wants for whatever reason it wants in general. I am also perfectly fine with the existence of Parler. They just don’t have any moral high ground over Twitter.
You missed the word "Then" here. Dishonest quoting.
No, I did not. I explicitly included the word “then” in the original quote. The in-line partial quote with bracketed stuff later on did exclude it, but only because it wouldn’t have made sense grammatically otherwise.
The word “then” doesn’t really change the meaning of the quote. All it does is imply that they drew this conclusion based on some sort of premises (in this case, what the writers have said on §230 recently), which I proceeded to refute (by pointing out that they explicitly said otherwise). In other words, there’s no dishonesty involved here because the original meaning of the quote was preserved.
The exclusivity is off-topic stuff you introduce to avoid addressing the main topic. That the license is changed unilaterally.
Actually, it is important from a legal standpoint. My point was that a nonexclusive license can be changed unilaterally under certain conditions, but that an exclusive license can’t. It also makes a difference as far as §230 is concerned.
They didn't do it with a clickwrap contract. They just did it. Without the user having to agree. That's the main point.
Actually, they did. The contract they’re changing was one that you agreed to when you signed up. That contract, as I recall, includes a provision that says that it is subject to change. They also inform you of the changes when they happen, at which point you can choose to delete your account and discontinue your use of the platform, effectively terminating the agreement. You could also remove certain posts you made in the past, effectively removing the license as it would pertain to that content.
It wasn't about the legal issues here, just about the general attitude.
The attitude wasn’t part of the discussion we had been having up to that point; it was solely about the legal issues at play. That you have a problem with the attitude is irrelevant. It also still has no impact on how §230 applies.
Define “perverts”. I don’t see how transgender and intersex people are necessarily “sexual perverts”. Nor is homo-/bisexuality.
Also, my (lesser) point is that, for the most part, you can’t even tell a transgender person from a cisgender person. Most don’t broadcast their sex-assigned-at-birth. They aren’t forcing anything on you.
I dont care if a lie causes limited damage because it is not violent, or because it is not mainstream.
Perhaps YouTube does. Most platform holders prefer to leave most content to be debated freely rather than try to define “truth”. They only step in when they feel there is a strong impetus to do so.
I am saying that focusing the YouTube press release only on the count issue was one sided, and this attitude is corrosive[ ]in the long term.
When YouTube and other platform holders do a press release about moderation decisions, they tend to be focused and narrowly tailored. They aren’t going to discuss every moderation decision they made. It also takes something major for them to do a press release on such things. The “count issue” concerns a large amount of content, many with significant numbers of views, is quite dangerous, is obviously false, and is immediate and fairly novel. Thus, it gets a dedicated press release. Discussions of the 2016 election lack a number of those conditions, which means that it doesn’t require a press release right now.
If you make a press release about policing misinformation on such a delicate topic, make it bipartisan.
The topic is the 2020 election, not elections in general. There’s pretty much only one side disseminating misinformation on that topic.
Without some examples or statistics, I can’t say whether or not there is any need for more balance. I haven’t seen any explicitly and provably false information coming from the left regarding the 2016 election even in the same (metaphorical) country as the misinformation from the right regarding the 2020 election.
Plus, social media platforms tend to leave a lot of misinformation up and unflagged depending on the plausibility and potential danger from the allegations. If it is sufficiently implausible (flat-earth and conspiracy theories as well as antivaxxer stuff) or dangerous (allegations of election fraud), then it gets flagged or removed.
Really, social media companies generally prefer to leave all information up to be debated by users. They don’t really want to be arbiters of truth. They only step in when they believe the misinformation is bad enough to be a major problem. Considering the lack of any real problems with 2016 election allegations, there isn’t any real need for the platform holders to step in. They aren’t going to arbitrate every debate or topic. They only step in if they see a strong need to. You haven’t alleged any serious false accusations here.
Plus, a lot of leftists do get themselves or their content tagged or removed, so it’s not completely one-sided.
Assuming you mean “voter manipulation”, then yes. Most elections involve voter manipulation to a pretty substantial degree. Any time someone convinces a voter to take a certain stance on a given issue, that’s voter manipulation. It’s fairly mundane.
What made the voter manipulation in 2016 reprehensible was that the ones doing the manipulating were using clearly false or illegally hacked information to do so and did so on behalf of a foreign government. Basically, “who was doing it” and “how it was done” were the problems.
That said, it doesn’t discredit the fact that the election results reflected the will of the voters (that is, the input and output were strongly correlated) even if the voters were being manipulated. The election is still valid as long as there is no substantial voter fraud, election fraud, or uncaught counting errors. Thus, even the worst allegations of voter manipulation have less effect on the integrity of the election, perceived or actual.
The intelligence community and law enforcement have a consensus backed with a substantial amount of evidence that Russia had a large-scale operation to attempt to manipulate American voters. It’s unclear how successful it was or how much of a difference it actually made, if any, but it is irrefutable that the attempt was seriously made. By contrast, there is not only a severe lack of credible evidence supporting the allegations of voter and election fraud in 2020, there is actually a substantial amount of evidence suggesting there wasn’t.
Thus, allegations of voter manipulation by Russians in the 2016 election are not as wrong as the allegations of voter fraud and election fraud by Democrats and election officials in the 2020 election (even if some of the details are wrong), nor are they as corrosive.
As for the hypothetical with Trump claiming that voter manipulation rather than voter/election fraud led to his loss, how wrong and corrosive it would be would depend on the details. To some extent, it’s technically accurate and mundane: liberals, moderates, and the Lincoln Project all attempted to “manipulate” voters the same way that every politician and political organization does in every election. If he was saying that the manipulations were done by the media and/or used false information would be largely wrong and fairly corrosive, and he did allege both even if he didn’t say it had anything to do with his loss. If he alleged a foreign agent did so, that would be even more wrong and about as corrosive. However, it’s still not quite as wrong and especially not as corrosive as the allegations of voter/election fraud. It doesn’t allege that the system by which our democracy operates is a lie or being subverted from within. It’s also more plausible and not as definitively disproven. What Trump has alleged does and is all of those things.
That’s not to say that Trump falsely alleging that voter manipulation lost him the election would be okay. It’s just not as bad as him falsely alleging fraud.
Really, there’s a massive difference between allegations of voter manipulation and allegations of voter and/or election fraud. To say that they are equivalent is false.
I don’t know anything about Amazon banning Parler, but Apple and Google banning them from their stores is pretty recent, well after this article was written.
It is about unquestionable HIS SUPPORT for Donald Trump.
Because it’s provoked an angry mob to attack the capital.
Author of this article should be ashamed, for being a cohort to Soviet doctrine "either you are with us or off to GULAG with you."
[Cites claims not in evidence]
To all haters: I'm from a former socialist/communist country, and therefore I know far better than all of you socialism-venerating capitalists.
(emphasis added) You realize that’s a contradiction, right? And how would you understand capitalism and the 1A better? Also, how are we venerating socialism?
As a side note, I’m not condoning, let alone praising, riots. At best, I think they’re largely counterproductive. That said, I don’t hold all riots to be equal, either.
First off, it was just one writer. It doesn’t appear to be a universally held position on Techdirt.
Second, present evidence of the politicians who praised the riots, specifically. Not by some vague implication; I mean directly.
Third, as I explicitly said, I’m talking about the actions of actual BLM protestors (as opposed to outsiders trying to instigate something) before police started assaulting them. Under those conditions, they were largely peaceful. Most of the violence and destruction was carried out by pro-Trumpers or after the protest was assaulted by police. They were also unarmed. This was not the case for the riot on Capitol Hill. That’s the difference.
Re: Correct. We're not disagreeing on your viewpoints.
Actually, the race of the woman killed was not the point, and the BLM protestors shot were, by-and-large, peaceful until after police started assaulting them. (That is, the cops weren’t trying to prevent white people from being killed.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A terrible embarrassment
They also placed pipe bombs, killed an officer, tried to go after Senators and Representatives, were more armed than you claimed, did so with the specific intent of stopping the process of recognizing Biden as President-elect, many fought back against police, were quite numerous, and came with the intent of holding hostages/executing people. While it was unlikely to succeed and didn’t have any long-term plans beyond keeping Trump President, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t at least an attempt at insurrection.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re:
Nobody’s whining. We’re just pointing out that Parler doesn’t confine itself to removing illegal, unlawful, or FCC condemned speech like it said it would. We have no problem with that; we’re just refuting one of the talking points and noting that Parler is doing the same thing Twitter does.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re:
No one’s against that. We do dispute the definitions of “free speech” and “censorship”, but even under your definitions, no one’s saying that they’re against such a platform from existing.
Porn isn’t illegal, nor is spam. And yes, spam is still speech. Therefore, by your own admission, not all of those getting banned from Parler are getting banned solely for illegal content; some are getting banned for 1A-protected speech.
It has nothing to do with the left being or not being “the party of free speech”. The point is that 1) “free speech” doesn’t mean what you think it means, and 2) Parler is no more wedded to the 1A than Twitter. It’s all about a double standard that the right uses and the fact that Parler has to make the same sorts of decisions that Twitter does. I have no problem with Parler banning whoever it wants for whatever reason it wants in general. I am also perfectly fine with the existence of Parler. They just don’t have any moral high ground over Twitter.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I did not. I explicitly included the word “then” in the original quote. The in-line partial quote with bracketed stuff later on did exclude it, but only because it wouldn’t have made sense grammatically otherwise.
Actually, it is important from a legal standpoint. My point was that a nonexclusive license can be changed unilaterally under certain conditions, but that an exclusive license can’t. It also makes a difference as far as §230 is concerned.
Actually, they did. The contract they’re changing was one that you agreed to when you signed up. That contract, as I recall, includes a provision that says that it is subject to change. They also inform you of the changes when they happen, at which point you can choose to delete your account and discontinue your use of the platform, effectively terminating the agreement. You could also remove certain posts you made in the past, effectively removing the license as it would pertain to that content.
The attitude wasn’t part of the discussion we had been having up to that point; it was solely about the legal issues at play. That you have a problem with the attitude is irrelevant. It also still has no impact on how §230 applies.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Define “perverts”. I don’t see how transgender and intersex people are necessarily “sexual perverts”. Nor is homo-/bisexuality.
Also, my (lesser) point is that, for the most part, you can’t even tell a transgender person from a cisgender person. Most don’t broadcast their sex-assigned-at-birth. They aren’t forcing anything on you.
On the post: Identifying Insurrectionists Is Going To Be Easy -- Thanks To Social Media And All The Other Online Trails People Leave
Re: The stupidest terrorists
The issue is that they expected to be treated as heroes and to be welcomed by the LEOs inside.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re:
Perhaps YouTube does. Most platform holders prefer to leave most content to be debated freely rather than try to define “truth”. They only step in when they feel there is a strong impetus to do so.
When YouTube and other platform holders do a press release about moderation decisions, they tend to be focused and narrowly tailored. They aren’t going to discuss every moderation decision they made. It also takes something major for them to do a press release on such things. The “count issue” concerns a large amount of content, many with significant numbers of views, is quite dangerous, is obviously false, and is immediate and fairly novel. Thus, it gets a dedicated press release. Discussions of the 2016 election lack a number of those conditions, which means that it doesn’t require a press release right now.
The topic is the 2020 election, not elections in general. There’s pretty much only one side disseminating misinformation on that topic.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Without some examples or statistics, I can’t say whether or not there is any need for more balance. I haven’t seen any explicitly and provably false information coming from the left regarding the 2016 election even in the same (metaphorical) country as the misinformation from the right regarding the 2020 election.
Plus, social media platforms tend to leave a lot of misinformation up and unflagged depending on the plausibility and potential danger from the allegations. If it is sufficiently implausible (flat-earth and conspiracy theories as well as antivaxxer stuff) or dangerous (allegations of election fraud), then it gets flagged or removed.
Really, social media companies generally prefer to leave all information up to be debated by users. They don’t really want to be arbiters of truth. They only step in when they believe the misinformation is bad enough to be a major problem. Considering the lack of any real problems with 2016 election allegations, there isn’t any real need for the platform holders to step in. They aren’t going to arbitrate every debate or topic. They only step in if they see a strong need to. You haven’t alleged any serious false accusations here.
Plus, a lot of leftists do get themselves or their content tagged or removed, so it’s not completely one-sided.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Assuming you mean “voter manipulation”, then yes. Most elections involve voter manipulation to a pretty substantial degree. Any time someone convinces a voter to take a certain stance on a given issue, that’s voter manipulation. It’s fairly mundane.
What made the voter manipulation in 2016 reprehensible was that the ones doing the manipulating were using clearly false or illegally hacked information to do so and did so on behalf of a foreign government. Basically, “who was doing it” and “how it was done” were the problems.
That said, it doesn’t discredit the fact that the election results reflected the will of the voters (that is, the input and output were strongly correlated) even if the voters were being manipulated. The election is still valid as long as there is no substantial voter fraud, election fraud, or uncaught counting errors. Thus, even the worst allegations of voter manipulation have less effect on the integrity of the election, perceived or actual.
The intelligence community and law enforcement have a consensus backed with a substantial amount of evidence that Russia had a large-scale operation to attempt to manipulate American voters. It’s unclear how successful it was or how much of a difference it actually made, if any, but it is irrefutable that the attempt was seriously made. By contrast, there is not only a severe lack of credible evidence supporting the allegations of voter and election fraud in 2020, there is actually a substantial amount of evidence suggesting there wasn’t.
Thus, allegations of voter manipulation by Russians in the 2016 election are not as wrong as the allegations of voter fraud and election fraud by Democrats and election officials in the 2020 election (even if some of the details are wrong), nor are they as corrosive.
As for the hypothetical with Trump claiming that voter manipulation rather than voter/election fraud led to his loss, how wrong and corrosive it would be would depend on the details. To some extent, it’s technically accurate and mundane: liberals, moderates, and the Lincoln Project all attempted to “manipulate” voters the same way that every politician and political organization does in every election. If he was saying that the manipulations were done by the media and/or used false information would be largely wrong and fairly corrosive, and he did allege both even if he didn’t say it had anything to do with his loss. If he alleged a foreign agent did so, that would be even more wrong and about as corrosive. However, it’s still not quite as wrong and especially not as corrosive as the allegations of voter/election fraud. It doesn’t allege that the system by which our democracy operates is a lie or being subverted from within. It’s also more plausible and not as definitively disproven. What Trump has alleged does and is all of those things.
That’s not to say that Trump falsely alleging that voter manipulation lost him the election would be okay. It’s just not as bad as him falsely alleging fraud.
Really, there’s a massive difference between allegations of voter manipulation and allegations of voter and/or election fraud. To say that they are equivalent is false.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re:
I don’t know anything about Amazon banning Parler, but Apple and Google banning them from their stores is pretty recent, well after this article was written.
On the post: Identifying Insurrectionists Is Going To Be Easy -- Thanks To Social Media And All The Other Online Trails People Leave
Re: 6-hour Insurrectionists?
95% of BLM protests were completely nonviolent, and those that got violent did so after police attacked them.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is not at all what I said.
On the post: Snowflake Josh Hawley Seems To Think The 1st Amendment Means Simon & Schuster Has To Give Him A Book Contract
Re: This cancellation is not about 1st Ammendment
Hawley said it was about the 1A.
Because it’s provoked an angry mob to attack the capital.
[Cites claims not in evidence]
(emphasis added) You realize that’s a contradiction, right? And how would you understand capitalism and the 1A better? Also, how are we venerating socialism?
On the post: Snowflake Josh Hawley Seems To Think The 1st Amendment Means Simon & Schuster Has To Give Him A Book Contract
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BLUE HAIR
Actually, paragraph 3 is completely false, and paragraph 2 is overly simplified.
On the post: Snowflake Josh Hawley Seems To Think The 1st Amendment Means Simon & Schuster Has To Give Him A Book Contract
Re: BLUE HAIR
As a general rule, I flag comments that are in all caps regardless of content because they’re obnoxious and annoying and harder to read.
On the post: Wednesday, January 6th: The Day The Game Of Politics Turned Into Insurrection
Re: Re: Re: Re: A terrible embarrassment
As a side note, I’m not condoning, let alone praising, riots. At best, I think they’re largely counterproductive. That said, I don’t hold all riots to be equal, either.
On the post: Wednesday, January 6th: The Day The Game Of Politics Turned Into Insurrection
Re: Re: Re: A terrible embarrassment
First off, it was just one writer. It doesn’t appear to be a universally held position on Techdirt.
Second, present evidence of the politicians who praised the riots, specifically. Not by some vague implication; I mean directly.
Third, as I explicitly said, I’m talking about the actions of actual BLM protestors (as opposed to outsiders trying to instigate something) before police started assaulting them. Under those conditions, they were largely peaceful. Most of the violence and destruction was carried out by pro-Trumpers or after the protest was assaulted by police. They were also unarmed. This was not the case for the riot on Capitol Hill. That’s the difference.
On the post: Wednesday, January 6th: The Day The Game Of Politics Turned Into Insurrection
Re: Correct. We're not disagreeing on your viewpoints.
Actually, the race of the woman killed was not the point, and the BLM protestors shot were, by-and-large, peaceful until after police started assaulting them. (That is, the cops weren’t trying to prevent white people from being killed.)
On the post: Wednesday, January 6th: The Day The Game Of Politics Turned Into Insurrection
Re: Re: Can't Take The Heat
Evidence, please?
On the post: Wednesday, January 6th: The Day The Game Of Politics Turned Into Insurrection
Re: Re: Re: Re: A terrible embarrassment
I was going for understatement.
On the post: Wednesday, January 6th: The Day The Game Of Politics Turned Into Insurrection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A terrible embarrassment
They also placed pipe bombs, killed an officer, tried to go after Senators and Representatives, were more armed than you claimed, did so with the specific intent of stopping the process of recognizing Biden as President-elect, many fought back against police, were quite numerous, and came with the intent of holding hostages/executing people. While it was unlikely to succeed and didn’t have any long-term plans beyond keeping Trump President, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t at least an attempt at insurrection.
Next >>