The arson and looting largely came after being assaulted by LEOs or were performed by outsiders looking to cause trouble. Outside of those two things, the protests were largely peaceful, yes. They were certainly more peaceful when LEOs intervened than the events of yesterday.
Re: Re: In the game of thrones you win or you die.
I have never seen or heard that claim, nor do I believe it is accurate.
Regardless, did any Democrats take legal steps or make any attempt to stop Trump from being sworn in? No. Did they ever storm the nation’s capital en masse to stop the constitutional process of recognizing Trump as President? No.
Dude, an angry mob, some members of which were
armed, broke into the nation’s capital, which contained the Vice President and all of Congress, ransacked and occupied the place, and threatened to execute certain high-ranking officials for adhering to the Constitution, all because they refuse to accept the reality that their guy lost. This is unprecedented.
Free speech has no issues with a private citizen (former First Lady) exercising her free speech by calling for private corporations to ban someone from their privately owned platforms. Had she still been a government official in any capacity, that would be different. Had she been calling for the government to ban her from any fora, that would be different. Now, I largely disagree with her, but she has every right to say it.
I SAY OPPRESSED ANGRY CITIZEN PATRIOTS WHO HAD THIER TOWNS AND CITIES DESTROYED AND BURNED TO THE GROUND BY YOUR FAVORITE TERRORIST GROUP BLM AND ANTIFA!
Setting aside the fact that BLM and antifa are absolutely not terrorist groups, I’ve seen nothing to suggest that any of the people who broke into the Capitol were victims of any destruction by anyone.
THESE PATRIOTS CONSISTED OF REGULAR AMERICANS CARRYING THE AMERICAN FLAG CHANTING USA! AND THEY WANTED THEIR VOICES HEARD AND IT KNOW THAT THEY DID NOT WANT JOE BIDEN ELECTED AS PRESIDENT AND THEY DID WHAT THEY SAW NECESSARY TO GET THEIR POINT ACCROSS.
No one disputes that they carried flags and chanted USA. That does not change anything.
There were plenty of ways they could have made it known that they didn’t approve of Biden. This was the wrong way to do it.
BUT YOU WHO WEREN'T THERE. THE ONES WHO ARE ANTI-AMERICAN, PRO BLM AND ANIFA, PAINT THEM AS ALL THESE TERRIBLE THINGS THAT THEY ARN''T.
It is undisputed by the people there that they were trying to and temporarily succeeded in disrupting the democratic process of counting electoral votes. They made that very clear when they spoke. They were also angry and clearly a mob. On top of that, they illegally forced their way into the Capitol, some of them armed, and fought back against LEOs who tried to get them to leave. That gives plenty of reason to believe that they were, in fact, “an angry mob of insurrectionists”.
YOU JUST WANT TO LABEL THEM AND PORTRAY THEIR ACTIONS AS UNAMERICAN WHEN THEY DID THE MOST AMERICAN THING THEY COULD DO, WHICH WAS WALK UP TO THE STEPS OF CONGRESS AND PUT THEIR FOOT IN AND SHOUT USA!
They went waaaaay beyond that. They broke into Congress, causing property damage, and threatened to shoot certain congresspeople. This is all clear from the videos available to everyone.
THEY WANTED THEIR VOICES HE[A]RD AND PUT A STOP TO BIDEN BEING ELECTED.AND YOU WANT TO SHAME THEM FOR IT AFTER THEY LOST EVERYTHING.
Biden was already elected. This was just a formality. If they just kept to peaceful, lawful protests, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. They did not.
AFTER HAVING BEEN SH*T ON BY THEIR STATE GOVERNMENT WITH LOCKDOWNS AND $600 WHILE THEIR TAX PAYER DOLLERS WENT TO SPECIAL INTERESTS GROUPS AND OVERSEAS.
The lockdowns were necessary. Everything else you said is immaterial.
YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE SAT DOWN AND TAKEN THE COCK COVID BILL SHOVED DOWN THEIR THROATS AND DONE NOTHING???
No. They should speak up about it. However, the way they did it was out of line. Also, again, I saw no evidence that the COVID bill had anything to do with this protest.
TRY TO PUT A STOP TO BIDEN BEING ANNOUNCED, PRESIDENT.
Again, it was way too late for that, and this was not the proper method to do so.
SHAME ON YOU FOR PAINTING THESE PEOPLE AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN BRAVE PATRIOTS!
Well, they were also violent and committed crimes. They were also fighting against the results of a fair and democratic election just because they didn’t like the results. There is nothing brave or patriotic about that.
The “Occupy” movement of 2012 were completely peaceful and lawful, didn’t involve the physical occupation of anything other than outdoor public property, didn’t involve forceful occupation of any building, let alone an occupied one, and didn’t involve guns. None of that was true for the occupation of the US Capitol building.
Also, this is an opinion blog. Of course he would speak differently about a movement he agrees with as opposed to one he does not.
Re: FAKE HEADLINE AND SLANDER OF PATRIOTS WANTING THEIR VOICES H
STARTING WITH, "Trump-supporting hooligans stormed the nation's Capitol building".
FALSE! THEY WERE PATRIOTS WHO WANTED THEIR VOICES HEARD CARRYING AMERICAN FLAGS AND CHANTING USA!
Those things aren’t mutually exclusive, you know. Patriots can be Trump-supporters and/or hooligans.
PATRIOTS, YOU KNOW, REAL AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO KNEW IF THEY DIDN'T SHOW UP IN OBJECTION TO YOUR CHOICE, CORRUPT BIDEN
He wasn’t just our choice but that of a majority of the nation’s voters and a majority of the electoral college. You can voice your protests inside or outside the US Capitol, but breaking in was unnecessary and (ultimately) pointless.
(WHICH IS WHY YOU ARE LABELING [T]HEM HOOLIGANS AND TRUMP SUPPORTERS),
Actually, they’re labeled “Trump supporters” because they support Trump, and they’re labeled “hooligans” because they resorted to violence, unlawfulness, and chaos to achieve their ends.
THEN THEY WOULD HAVE CONGRESS SHOVE AN UNWANTED PRESIDENT DOWN THEIR THROAT, WHICH IS WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING.
Again, a majority of voters and electors said they wanted Biden. That you didn’t want Biden is immaterial.
Congress’s role in this affair is largely ceremonial. There’s no point in blaming them for anything.
The fact that it ended up happening anyways shows how pointless the whole thing was to getting your way. That statement basically refutes your argument.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE SHUT OUT AND GAINED ACCESS TO THE CAPITOL BY FORCE BUT DID NOT USE VIOLENCE.
The difference between force and violence is immaterial. They broke in and caused a lot of damage.
Also, they weren’t going to be shut out. All they had to do was go through security and leave weapons behind. There was no need to break in and occupy the building.
By the way, you do realize that by taking the route that they did, their message was only weakened. People stopped listening to what was being said and paid more attention to how.
I WAS THERE, YOU WEREN'T. YOU DIDN"T INTERVIEW ANYONE, YOU WEREN'T EVEN THERE. YOUR REPORTING IS SHIT Timothy Geigner!
Nothing you said actually refuted any of the facts Tim reported.
THERE WAS NO VIOLENCE, [EXCEPT] POLICE ASSAULTING AND SHOOTING DEAD UNARMED PROTESTERS, UNLIKE YOUR FRIENDS WITH BLM AND ANTIFA.
The BLM protests were peaceful until Trump supporters or LEOs incited violence. Antifa wasn’t involved.
Also, there was violence. That’s how they got in. We have video footage refuting your claims here.
And, ultimately, the riot failed to accomplish the intended goals. While I condemn the legislators who insisted on going through with their opposition, and I hate giving Mitch McConnell any credit, I’m thankful that both Mitch and Nancy Pelosi handled the opposition votes quickly and efficiently.
I don’t care what side of the aisle you’re on. This was a national embarrassment. While terms like sedition tend to get thrown around where it’s not necessary, these people should be charged with sedition. And while “terrorism” is also overused, this is a clear case of terrorism.
Look, even if you thought that the election was rigged, this was a terrible response. Breaking into the nation’s capital, one which is already open to the public, and effectively taking it over is disproportionate to the extreme. It also makes you look worse.
I’m not a strong nationalist or anything, but many people around the world often look to the US as the epitome of democracy. Imagine how they must have felt to see armed (and some unarmed) civilians/protestors/terrorists take over the US Capitol building with minimal and delayed reaction from law enforcement. The fact that the DC National Guard was nowhere to be seen by the time that Maryland and Virginia’s National Guard finally showed up (not that I blame Maryland or Virginia for that) just shows how badly prepared we were for armed insurrection.
Some people bring up the BLM protests, not realizing how bad it truly makes the rioters look in this case. BLM protestors generally remained outdoors and were largely peaceful when they were heavily tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, tasered, or shot at. Most of the riots in those cases were started after police attacked them or were began by outsiders trying to stir something up. Here, the riots began long before any real violence from LEOs or military officers occurred, many protestors were armed, LEOs were clearly incapable of maintaining peace or order, this occurred on federal property, and the rioters actually broke in and occupied a government building with government officials still inside, and casualties (thankfully) were kept to a minimum.
And there was the President, who instigated the whole mess and who took way too long to realize he had to say something to stop it. Even when he did speak up, what he said was weak. I don’t think he should be prosecuted for what he said, but he came dangerously close to what I would say is a case of instigating imminent violence.
Really, this has gone way too far. To anyone who said or thought, “What’s the harm in humoring the President for now?”, this is the harm. Enough is enough.
Re: January 6, 2021. It's not the 1950s when only in novels, kid
Every time police use "high-tech" surveillance, it's as though Techdirt just woke up from last century and is SHOCKED.
No. As noted, this is just another report that shows that law enforcement isn’t going dark like the Feds like to claim. It says so right in the article. The headline even says “‘Going Dark’ Is Bullshit, Says Yet Another Report Detailing All The Ways Law Enforcement Can Obtain Evidence” (emphasis added). Seriously, you couldn’t even read the headline?
The entire tone of the article is that this is just another piece of evidence that supports what we already knew.
Meanwhile, never a word of objection to GOOGLE and FACEBOOK gathering every bit of information that can, never a mention that they too provide "law enforcement" with it.
Seriously, are you new here? There’s been a lot of discussion about that on this site. It doesn’t get discussed as often only because little new really happens there. If there’s a new report/incident, they cover it.
Techdirt loves surveillance capitalism but foolishly, childishly, believes it has no drawbacks for them.
No, no you did not. There is absolutely nothing suspicious about a long-dormant account posting one comment. I’m not even sure how it’s allegedly astroturfing.
If they didn't start cracking down on legal speech in the past four years so hard, if they hadn't been doing high profile bans that only went ONE WAY politically...
[Presents allegations of facts without evidence]
Also, again, just go to Parler or something. You’re not entitled to use any specific platform. Plus, the 1A means you don’t have to host even legal speech.
But back to the lack of evidence. I’ve seen no evidence that there is a difference between how many conservatives get moderated as opposed to liberals that clearly favors liberals. But even if there was, context is important. The real question is, “Are conservatives being moderated more often or more harshly than liberals relative to their behavior?” If more conservatives engage in more hateful behavior online than liberals, you’d expect to see more conservatives being moderated even with perfectly even-handed, unbiased moderation.
Then there wouldn't be a push for "removing section 230".
False. For one thing, there’s a large number of people who believe that the problem with §230 isn’t that it allows platforms to moderate too much but that it allows platforms to moderate too little.
Because Twitter, Facebook and Google are acting like publishers not platforms.
False dichotomy and irrelevant. Also, unless you’re referring to YouTube, Google isn’t a platform but a search engine.
And before someone goes "hurr durr, Conservatives are beeeegoooots" like a moron, let me point out that there are TONS of crazy shit coming from Liberals and progressives that NEVER get punished in the same way.
Any evidence of that?
The Left in America has become so far left that they'd be considered left wing in Europe, which is insanely far left. The Right has actually moved slightly to the Left since 2008.
Demonstrably false. In fact, quite the opposite has occurred. By European standards, Bernie Sanders—one of the most left-wing politicians in the US—would be a moderate leftist at most in Europe, while Democrats like Obama or Biden would be considered moderate right-wing in Europe.
As for the Right in the US, it has continually moved right for quite some time. Its unwillingness to compromise on so many issues in the past 12 years is highly indicative of that. The only way it’s moved left is that they’ve largely given up on gay marriage. Ronald Reagan would be considered a liberal by today’s standards.
Also, the European left is only extremely far left by US standards of today. By global standards, it’s only moderately left.
Of course, there’s also the fact that Twitter’s moderation is no more provably biased than Parler’s, and neither of the pre-230 cases involved accusations of bias to begin with. On top of that, even biased moderation is protected by the 1A and private property rights. The main difference between having §230 and not having it is the cost of defending against even meritless lawsuits. Even if you think Parler would be more likely to prevail against lawsuits, the main effect of §230 was to ensure such lawsuits don’t cripple the company in aggregate. The presence—or lack thereof—of bias in moderation would be a question of fact, anyways, which could only be resolved after expensive discovery.
One such example was demonstrated in Cubby v. Compuserve, which took place before section 230 even existed.
This would also mean spam, trolling, and most illegal speech would be left up.
Without 230, there would be a lot of opportunity for hands-off models, such as user-defined moderation, or algorithm only moderation.
Those same models have equal or better opportunity with §230. I’m also not sure if that’s necessarily true, as the Compuserve case involved no moderation whatsoever. Besides, both of those models have many well-known issues that make them, at best, no better than the mixed moderation used nowadays.
The primary models that would be injured would be the ones that desire to be a platform, as well as a publisher at the same time through the direct manipulation of their content feeds.
Or those who have mixed moderation, where a combination of algorithm and user-defined moderation is used with manual checks in place. Which is what Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube use.
Parler will no doubt be fine, since they don't engage in that kind of biased behavior.
Parler does the exact same things that Twitter does except for adding speech to certain posts and which posts they target. The methodology is the same. As such, it would be just as vulnerable as Twitter, if not more so given the difference in size.
On the post: Wednesday, January 6th: The Day The Game Of Politics Turned Into Insurrection
Re: Re: A terrible embarrassment
I was taking the most charitable view for the sake of discussion. My point was that Trump simply does not come out of this looking good.
On the post: Wednesday, January 6th: The Day The Game Of Politics Turned Into Insurrection
Re: Re: A terrible embarrassment
The arson and looting largely came after being assaulted by LEOs or were performed by outsiders looking to cause trouble. Outside of those two things, the protests were largely peaceful, yes. They were certainly more peaceful when LEOs intervened than the events of yesterday.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: GIve me a minute, I'm sure it'll come to me
There’s video evidence proving otherwise.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: In the game of thrones you win or you die.
I have never seen or heard that claim, nor do I believe it is accurate.
Regardless, did any Democrats take legal steps or make any attempt to stop Trump from being sworn in? No. Did they ever storm the nation’s capital en masse to stop the constitutional process of recognizing Trump as President? No.
Do you see the difference?
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Re: THEY WERE OPPRESSED AMERICANSS PATRIOTS!
Boo-hoo.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Hysterical Blatherings
Dude, an angry mob, some members of which were
armed, broke into the nation’s capital, which contained the Vice President and all of Congress, ransacked and occupied the place, and threatened to execute certain high-ranking officials for adhering to the Constitution, all because they refuse to accept the reality that their guy lost. This is unprecedented.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Hysterical Blatherings
Free speech has no issues with a private citizen (former First Lady) exercising her free speech by calling for private corporations to ban someone from their privately owned platforms. Had she still been a government official in any capacity, that would be different. Had she been calling for the government to ban her from any fora, that would be different. Now, I largely disagree with her, but she has every right to say it.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: THEY WERE OPPRESSED AMERICANSS PATRIOTS!
Setting aside the fact that BLM and antifa are absolutely not terrorist groups, I’ve seen nothing to suggest that any of the people who broke into the Capitol were victims of any destruction by anyone.
No one disputes that they carried flags and chanted USA. That does not change anything.
It is undisputed by the people there that they were trying to and temporarily succeeded in disrupting the democratic process of counting electoral votes. They made that very clear when they spoke. They were also angry and clearly a mob. On top of that, they illegally forced their way into the Capitol, some of them armed, and fought back against LEOs who tried to get them to leave. That gives plenty of reason to believe that they were, in fact, “an angry mob of insurrectionists”.
They went waaaaay beyond that. They broke into Congress, causing property damage, and threatened to shoot certain congresspeople. This is all clear from the videos available to everyone.
Biden was already elected. This was just a formality. If they just kept to peaceful, lawful protests, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. They did not.
The lockdowns were necessary. Everything else you said is immaterial.
No. They should speak up about it. However, the way they did it was out of line. Also, again, I saw no evidence that the COVID bill had anything to do with this protest.
Again, it was way too late for that, and this was not the proper method to do so.
Well, they were also violent and committed crimes. They were also fighting against the results of a fair and democratic election just because they didn’t like the results. There is nothing brave or patriotic about that.
On the post: Wednesday, January 6th: The Day The Game Of Politics Turned Into Insurrection
Re: Can't Take The Heat
The “Occupy” movement of 2012 were completely peaceful and lawful, didn’t involve the physical occupation of anything other than outdoor public property, didn’t involve forceful occupation of any building, let alone an occupied one, and didn’t involve guns. None of that was true for the occupation of the US Capitol building.
Also, this is an opinion blog. Of course he would speak differently about a movement he agrees with as opposed to one he does not.
On the post: Wednesday, January 6th: The Day The Game Of Politics Turned Into Insurrection
Re: FAKE HEADLINE AND SLANDER OF PATRIOTS WANTING THEIR VOICES H
Those things aren’t mutually exclusive, you know. Patriots can be Trump-supporters and/or hooligans.
He wasn’t just our choice but that of a majority of the nation’s voters and a majority of the electoral college. You can voice your protests inside or outside the US Capitol, but breaking in was unnecessary and (ultimately) pointless.
Actually, they’re labeled “Trump supporters” because they support Trump, and they’re labeled “hooligans” because they resorted to violence, unlawfulness, and chaos to achieve their ends.
Again, a majority of voters and electors said they wanted Biden. That you didn’t want Biden is immaterial.
Congress’s role in this affair is largely ceremonial. There’s no point in blaming them for anything.
The difference between force and violence is immaterial. They broke in and caused a lot of damage.
Also, they weren’t going to be shut out. All they had to do was go through security and leave weapons behind. There was no need to break in and occupy the building.
By the way, you do realize that by taking the route that they did, their message was only weakened. People stopped listening to what was being said and paid more attention to how.
Nothing you said actually refuted any of the facts Tim reported.
The BLM protests were peaceful until Trump supporters or LEOs incited violence. Antifa wasn’t involved.
Also, there was violence. That’s how they got in. We have video footage refuting your claims here.
On the post: Wednesday, January 6th: The Day The Game Of Politics Turned Into Insurrection
Re: A terrible embarrassment
And, ultimately, the riot failed to accomplish the intended goals. While I condemn the legislators who insisted on going through with their opposition, and I hate giving Mitch McConnell any credit, I’m thankful that both Mitch and Nancy Pelosi handled the opposition votes quickly and efficiently.
On the post: Wednesday, January 6th: The Day The Game Of Politics Turned Into Insurrection
A terrible embarrassment
I don’t care what side of the aisle you’re on. This was a national embarrassment. While terms like sedition tend to get thrown around where it’s not necessary, these people should be charged with sedition. And while “terrorism” is also overused, this is a clear case of terrorism.
Look, even if you thought that the election was rigged, this was a terrible response. Breaking into the nation’s capital, one which is already open to the public, and effectively taking it over is disproportionate to the extreme. It also makes you look worse.
I’m not a strong nationalist or anything, but many people around the world often look to the US as the epitome of democracy. Imagine how they must have felt to see armed (and some unarmed) civilians/protestors/terrorists take over the US Capitol building with minimal and delayed reaction from law enforcement. The fact that the DC National Guard was nowhere to be seen by the time that Maryland and Virginia’s National Guard finally showed up (not that I blame Maryland or Virginia for that) just shows how badly prepared we were for armed insurrection.
Some people bring up the BLM protests, not realizing how bad it truly makes the rioters look in this case. BLM protestors generally remained outdoors and were largely peaceful when they were heavily tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, tasered, or shot at. Most of the riots in those cases were started after police attacked them or were began by outsiders trying to stir something up. Here, the riots began long before any real violence from LEOs or military officers occurred, many protestors were armed, LEOs were clearly incapable of maintaining peace or order, this occurred on federal property, and the rioters actually broke in and occupied a government building with government officials still inside, and casualties (thankfully) were kept to a minimum.
And there was the President, who instigated the whole mess and who took way too long to realize he had to say something to stop it. Even when he did speak up, what he said was weak. I don’t think he should be prosecuted for what he said, but he came dangerously close to what I would say is a case of instigating imminent violence.
Really, this has gone way too far. To anyone who said or thought, “What’s the harm in humoring the President for now?”, this is the harm. Enough is enough.
On the post: UK Music Rights Group Demands Payment From A Pub That Isn't Playing Any Music Because It's Closed Due To COVID
Re: Re: 20 years of YOU at Techdirt hasn't stopped it!
This is an opinion blog.
On the post: UK Music Rights Group Demands Payment From A Pub That Isn't Playing Any Music Because It's Closed Due To COVID
Re: 20 years of YOU at Techdirt hasn't stopped it!
Then they need to find a better way to find out because what they’re doing is illegal. Charging for services not rendered is unlawful.
On the post: Parler, Desperate For Attention, Pretends It Doesn't Need Section 230
Re: FFS
Free speech doesn’t apply to how private persons treat other private persons.
On the post: 'Going Dark' Is Bullshit, Says Yet Another Report Detailing All The Ways Law Enforcement Can Obtain Evidence
Re: January 6, 2021. It's not the 1950s when only in novels, kid
No. As noted, this is just another report that shows that law enforcement isn’t going dark like the Feds like to claim. It says so right in the article. The headline even says “‘Going Dark’ Is Bullshit, Says Yet Another Report Detailing All The Ways Law Enforcement Can Obtain Evidence” (emphasis added). Seriously, you couldn’t even read the headline?
The entire tone of the article is that this is just another piece of evidence that supports what we already knew.
Seriously, are you new here? There’s been a lot of discussion about that on this site. It doesn’t get discussed as often only because little new really happens there. If there’s a new report/incident, they cover it.
Again, they have expressly said otherwise.
On the post: 'Going Dark' Is Bullshit, Says Yet Another Report Detailing All The Ways Law Enforcement Can Obtain Evidence
Re: FIRST ZOMBIE OF THE YEAR!
No, no you did not. There is absolutely nothing suspicious about a long-dormant account posting one comment. I’m not even sure how it’s allegedly astroturfing.
On the post: Parler, Desperate For Attention, Pretends It Doesn't Need Section 230
Re: This is all Twitter/Facebook/Google's fault
[Presents allegations of facts without evidence]
Also, again, just go to Parler or something. You’re not entitled to use any specific platform. Plus, the 1A means you don’t have to host even legal speech.
But back to the lack of evidence. I’ve seen no evidence that there is a difference between how many conservatives get moderated as opposed to liberals that clearly favors liberals. But even if there was, context is important. The real question is, “Are conservatives being moderated more often or more harshly than liberals relative to their behavior?” If more conservatives engage in more hateful behavior online than liberals, you’d expect to see more conservatives being moderated even with perfectly even-handed, unbiased moderation.
False. For one thing, there’s a large number of people who believe that the problem with §230 isn’t that it allows platforms to moderate too much but that it allows platforms to moderate too little.
False dichotomy and irrelevant. Also, unless you’re referring to YouTube, Google isn’t a platform but a search engine.
Any evidence of that?
Demonstrably false. In fact, quite the opposite has occurred. By European standards, Bernie Sanders—one of the most left-wing politicians in the US—would be a moderate leftist at most in Europe, while Democrats like Obama or Biden would be considered moderate right-wing in Europe.
As for the Right in the US, it has continually moved right for quite some time. Its unwillingness to compromise on so many issues in the past 12 years is highly indicative of that. The only way it’s moved left is that they’ve largely given up on gay marriage. Ronald Reagan would be considered a liberal by today’s standards.
Also, the European left is only extremely far left by US standards of today. By global standards, it’s only moderately left.
On the post: Parler, Desperate For Attention, Pretends It Doesn't Need Section 230
Re: No Bias, No Liability
Of course, there’s also the fact that Twitter’s moderation is no more provably biased than Parler’s, and neither of the pre-230 cases involved accusations of bias to begin with. On top of that, even biased moderation is protected by the 1A and private property rights. The main difference between having §230 and not having it is the cost of defending against even meritless lawsuits. Even if you think Parler would be more likely to prevail against lawsuits, the main effect of §230 was to ensure such lawsuits don’t cripple the company in aggregate. The presence—or lack thereof—of bias in moderation would be a question of fact, anyways, which could only be resolved after expensive discovery.
On the post: Parler, Desperate For Attention, Pretends It Doesn't Need Section 230
Re: No Bias, No Liability
This would also mean spam, trolling, and most illegal speech would be left up.
Those same models have equal or better opportunity with §230. I’m also not sure if that’s necessarily true, as the Compuserve case involved no moderation whatsoever. Besides, both of those models have many well-known issues that make them, at best, no better than the mixed moderation used nowadays.
Or those who have mixed moderation, where a combination of algorithm and user-defined moderation is used with manual checks in place. Which is what Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube use.
Parler does the exact same things that Twitter does except for adding speech to certain posts and which posts they target. The methodology is the same. As such, it would be just as vulnerable as Twitter, if not more so given the difference in size.
Next >>