I’m torn. On one hand, I seriously question the motives involved here. On the other hand, I am concerned about the issues at play here and think they should really be examined here. On the other other hand, I’m not sure how much the government will actually get involved here.
If there was an implanted chip for 5G, it probably wouldn’t work well given how terrible 5G is at penetration.
Going to the schematic, though, I have to imagine that the first person to make the claim was just trolling, and then a bunch of people took it seriously. Not because I think highly of humanity; I just can’t figure out how else someone would even draw a connection between the two to begin with.
Re: You're an academic full of advice without ever having DONE.
So tell me, Maz, what experience at "moderation" do you have which qualifies you to advise anyone?
Again, this article was written by the Copia Institute, and all it does is state facts and testimony; it doesn’t advise anyone to do anything in particular. Thus, your question is both misdirected and irrelevant.
You avoid responsibility for the censoring here so cannot count these 20 years!
Well, he actually does take responsibility for setting up the system used to hide flagged comments, the spam filter, and the removal of obvious commercial spam. That much of it is hands-off is irrelevant when most sites use some sort of automation for their moderation, too.
I conclude that the "hiding" is not done as you claim, but by someone with Administrator privileges soon as recognize my deliberately distinctive style (perhaps alerted by a "flag" click but not necessarily)
You have offered absolutely zero reasons to seriously entertain that as a possibility, let alone a reason to conclude that that’s actually the case. You’ve offered absolutely no reason to conclude that it’s anything other than the stated method of comments being hidden automatically after receiving a sufficient number of flags from users. You simply assert your conclusion without presenting any evidence or reasoning behind it whatsoever. As such, this claim and any derived from it can be dismissed as speculative wishful thinking without any basis in logic or fact.
also, my browser sessions are often blocked after one comment, and you won't dispute it a bit!
That your browser acts up isn’t disputed is because we simply don’t know. We only know that you are the only one who has claimed to have this problem at all, let alone consistently, which suggests that either your device, your browser, a plugin, or your internet connection is faulty somehow, especially since you’ve given us nothing else to work from. As such, that this website or the people running it are somehow blocking you has been disputed repeatedly, especially since nothing in the code suggests that that’s anywhere close to a plausible theory, especially compared to the other ones.
You won't of late even admit that Techdirt has an Administrator! (Though I do recall remarks you made long ago...)
That hasn’t even really come up. Also, literally every site has an admin, not just the ones that accept user-generated content. The one(s) on this site is/are pretty much completely hands-off outside of removing commercial spam, and—again—you’ve offered no reason to believe otherwise.
That's because any additional specific you give will reveal that the little you have previously stated is TOTAL BALONEY. -- Another fact or two admitted would reveal that you've lied directly and tacitly about it for years.
Actually, it’s entirely plausible that, like on many other sites that depend on user feedback to perform moderation, the number of flags and number of users are dependent on a number of variables that makes it too complicated to be worth explain it to some random guy on the internet already believed to be operating in bad faith, which is supported by your clearly stated assumptions about this site and the fact that you keep demanding answers already given to you while also claiming that you’ve received none despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Those are the only specifics that have not been given to you, and since there’s an entirely plausible innocent explanation behind that, there’s no reason to suspect anything else.
Really, your questions have been answered repeatedly; you just refuse to accept the answers for no apparent reason other than you don’t like them for some unknown reason.
There's an Administrator making decisions to "hide" my comments, therefore it's viewpoint discrimination. Period.
First, you still haven’t proven either of those is true, but even if your premise is true, your conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from that. It would also change nothing other than to help refute your original point (that doesn’t even matter) about Mike’s supposed experience (or lack thereof) in moderation.
Therefore any actual advice you have is unwanted by bigger sites because your own actions are illegal!
Again, no advice was actually given in the article, and this article wasn’t even written by anyone working at Techdirt, let alone Mike specifically. You also still haven’t proven anything.
More importantly, even if your allegations were true prior to this point, it is not illegal for privately owned websites or their owners to engage in viewpoint discrimination or do anything else you accused them of; in fact, doing so is protected by the 1A.
Once again, your premises wouldn’t support your conclusion even if they were true, and you haven’t done anything to prove your premises true to begin with.
Re: List all your work experience relevant to advising these pie
List all your work experience relevant to advising these pieces.
That's one word: ZERO!
If you’d bother to read the blurb at the top, you’d know that the contents of these “Case Study” articles are not written or edited by anyone who works for Techdirt but by the Copia Institute, a well-known think-tank that presumably has employees or connections with people who do have relevant work experience.
Though, again, a case study doesn’t advise; it merely presents the facts of a specific instance as they are. “Relevant work experience” isn’t usually necessary to do a decent job at writing a case study.
You have hinted at "coworkers", but that would first require "work". All you do visibly is a little writing, mostly re-writes, and you're not doing that for a "living", didn't care when Adsense dropped you, never do anything to increase readership, so it's just your hobby.
He writes articles, does research for said articles, runs the site, cleans out the filters, and gets paid through AdSense and through direct contributions from readers. Even if it’s only a part-time job or side job to his regular employment—and we have no evidence that it’s less than a full-time job—that’s still more than a hobby.
Most relevant, right here every day at Techdirt, I'M "moderated" by having my comments "hidden", adding an Editorial warning and requiring a click to see them.
Indeed you are. Note that people can still read them if they want to with little effort.
You allege that's not of your doing, but by "the community" with a "voting system" activated by an unstated number of "flag" clicks out of an unstated number of readers, but which a minion has admitted are no upvotes even possible, no appeal process, and are no commenting guidelines which I could follow!
All of which are true, except that there is sort of an upvote process through the “insightful”, “funny”, “first word”, and “last word” buttons; it just doesn’t counter the flag button at all. And of course there are no community guidelines since it’s the community that decides what to flag.
Dozens of questions like this over course of years trying to get one more word about your own alleged system have gone unanswered.
It sounds like you have most of your answers already: when enough people flag a comment, it gets hidden; there is no way to “appeal” such a thing, which doesn’t make much sense to me why it’d be necessary given the minimal effect hiding comments actually has. The community guidelines can best be summed up as “don’t be a jerk”. The rest is just minor details that don’t make much of a difference.
You’ve had your questions answered already; you just refuse to accept the answers or want details that, frankly, don’t matter unless you want to subvert the system.
Re: Re: Why do you not POINT UP that the manual review failed?
What protection does an ordinary user have from this mega-corporation, then?
Just go to another platform. There is no right to use someone else’s privately owned platform.
Have any advice on legislation that would force Facebook to […] tune their automatic system and do obvious corrections?
You’re asking for the impossible. Humans are bad enough at detecting satire and parody, and computers simply don’t understand context. No amount of tuning and/or corrections will fix that, no matter the legislation.
It’s also not the case that legislation is needed to persuade Facebook to try to improve. Facebook continually tries to adjust its algorithms to improve. The problem is that the success rate will never be close to 100% perfect, lacking in false positives or false negatives. Humans can’t do it that well, and we’re a lot better than computers at detecting such things. Given the sheer number of posts made every day on Facebook, it’s statistically inevitable that you’ll get some false positives every now and then even after manual review.
Or do you simply leave all users at whim of mega-corporations?
When you agree to the terms of service that all users of Facebook have to agree to in order to use it, you agreed to allow Facebook to do what it wants with that speech within the four corners of their platform. The only recourse is simple: use a different service. There are a number of them. You could also create your own. Again, you are not owed the right to use Facebook, specifically. The size of the corporation that owns the platform is irrelevant.
I ask because if you ever again get the attention of a legislator, they'll want something more than a sketch of events.
Your "Case Study" is useless without how to correct, mere filler for your tiny waning site.
You misunderstand how a case study works. When you present a case study, the presentation does not include recommendations for handling any issues. It merely presents the facts and data. It’s up to the readers to decide what to do with that information. A case study is not meant to persuade anyone of anything. It’s just data.
The big court cases that dealt with revenge porn found revenge porn laws to be unconstitutional. The issue wasn’t §230 but the 1A. So no, §230 is not responsible for revenge porn being a thing.
Also, distributor liability for defamation was never the law in the US outside of two cases that led to §230. That it exists in other western countries is immaterial. Bookstores aren’t liable for stocking defamatory books, you know.
Would he still support Section 230 in that scenario?
Yes, yes he would.
Look, I get that when someone feels wronged, they believe that someone should rectify that. However, attacking the messenger is not the way to go. Sometimes, the bad guy gets away. That doesn’t make it okay for you to punch out the guy who told you about it.
§230 just ensures that only the people actually responsible for writing the material get punished for it. It’s the same rule we apply outside of cyberspace.
A newspaper isn’t liable for third-party content, either (like letters to the editor), and yet they have full control over which content gets published on their newspaper.
A bookstore isn’t liable for the content of the books they stock, and yet they have full control over which books they stock.
A library isn’t liable for the content of the books they stock, and yet they have full control over which books they stock.
The same applies to websites. Whether or not they publish or have control over content on those websites is completely irrelevant.
Also, you didn’t sign onto Twitter or Facebook to get your own website; or rather, that was never what the deal was. If you want your own website, get your own website. Twitter and Facebook aren’t offering users their own websites. At best, it lends them webpages, but even that’s a stretch. I think you’re severely misunderstanding how platforms actually work. Twitter and Facebook allow users to publish their own content on Twitter/Facebook’s website. They are not giving users their own website. That you don’t understand that is not the fault of the platforms for misleading you. They never claimed to offer people their own websites.
Plus, you have cited no law supporting the contention that §230 is unconstitutional, and if you don’t like the way the courts have ruled, you’ll have to amend the Constitution. §230 isn’t your problem; the 1A is.
As for antitrust, that is completely unrelated. In fact, that would be a better solution than trying to change §230.
Re: Simple as possible: WHY do "platforms" get to control MY spe
Simple: they own the platforms being used, and they have the same rights as anyone else (according to the USSC). The number of people who use the platform is completely irrelevant.
Plus, when you signed up to use their platform, you agreed to certain terms and conditions that allow them to remove any speech from their platform for any reason and to ban repeat/serious offenders. It’s their territory, and you agreed to play by their rules.
Re: You are as usual speaking away from the contentious point.
Actually, many are. The far left and people who feel they were defamed online do want to hold platform holders responsible for others’ speech.
There are two broad categories of people who don’t like §230. Those who don’t like the immunity from being responsible for third-party content, and those who don’t like the express license to moderate platforms freely.
You are clearly in the latter camp, but many people are in the former. Some are even in both to some degree. That you are not one of them doesn’t make the position being dismantled here a strawman.
Also, the point you keep trying to bring up (about moderation) has been addressed multiple times. That they don’t address it when a different part of §230 is attacked is in no way unusual.
Re: You do not defend Public's right to Publish without interfer
We do defend the public’s right to publish without government interference. There is no inherent right to publish without corporate interference.
We’ve also explained to you time and again how the public benefits from these protections. It does so both directly and by encouraging various platforms to emerge that will, in total, host anyone’s speech. Without these protections, no site will be willing to host users’ speech at all.
Furthermore, we’ve also explained to you over and over again that platform holders only control what gets published on their platform(s) and nowhere else.
Whether or not platform holders are publishers, the fact is that it is unconstitutional to force a platform to host speech it doesn’t want to.
Well if it's private property then why the need for 230? Aren't there already laws that protect them? 230 allows platforms to remove speech they don't agree with and have no consequences for doing so. How is that giving people rights?
It’s not giving people rights; it’s helping protect existing rights. §230 makes it easier to get out of lawsuits that target the wrong party and such.
That just keeps the door open to convert platforms into echo-chambers and silence any descent or anything they don't agree with. Like they are now. Like this damn website is. That violates more rights than you say they protect.
Again, you’re asking for rights that never existed in the first place. Even without §230, you don’t have the right to force a privately owned platform to host your speech. The rights that you say these websites violate simply don’t exist. As such, they cannot be violated.
Also, TD doesn’t silence anyone. We can still read what you write.
"It's private property so they can do that!" So why the need for 230? By removing 230 that would keep platforms in check so they can't violate people's rights and if they do they can be punished.
§230 is basically a shortcut, and platforms cannot violate people’s rights the way you say they do by definition. What you are alleging is a violation of your rights doesn’t violate any rights that actually exist.
Twitter and Facebook should not be allowed to influence elections.
The 1A says that we can’t do anything about it.
They shouldn't be allowed to silence people if they have a differing opinion that they don't agree with.
And they can’t. That they refuse to host you or your speech does not silence you. You can take your speech elsewhere.
That's your proof it isn't open and free.
No, that’s proof that certain websites aren’t 100% open and free. Facebook and Twitter are not the internet. Again, you can take your speech elsewhere on the internet. You would have to prove that people are being blocked from speaking on the internet at all to prove your point.
"Personal property durrdurr".
You make fun of it, but you haven’t actually alleged any problems with that argument. Their property, their rules. That’s how it is, and that’s how it always has been in the history of this country. That you don’t like it doesn’t change anything.
Also you seem totally ok with having other people's rights stripped if you don't agree with them right?
No, I’m okay with stripping rights that never existed. It’s the same way I’m okay with the mass killing of unicorns.
If a private platform did the same thing to me, I wouldn’t call it a violation of my rights. I might question the decision or even be outraged by it, but I won’t argue that they don’t or shouldn’t have the legal right to do so.
"It hasn't happened to me so it doesn't happen at all."
That’s not what I said. I said that people being blocked from certain internet platforms for their speech on those platforms by the private owners of those platforms doesn’t violate or remove anyone’s rights. In fact, private individuals/corporations/organizations, by definition, cannot infringe on your 1A rights no matter what they do.
I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that platforms remove speech they don’t like from their platforms and block people they disagree with. I am not assuming that it doesn’t happen at all because I haven’t experienced it. I’m just saying that that doesn’t constitute a violation of anyone’s rights, it’s not censorship, and it’s not silencing people.
Basically, no matter what it is you think private websites are doing, it’s not violating anyone’s rights at all (unless you mean privacy rights, but that has absolutely nothing to do with §230).
And no one has proven that the internet is actually free and open. Being allowed to use it, at a cost, doesn't mean it's free and open.
That’s not what “free and open” means in this context. Price has nothing to do with it. Also, you have the burden of proof wrong.
I’m not okay with having my rights removed. The issue is that neither §230 nor any private companies can or have removed any of my rights that ever actually existed in the first place, and your proposed “solution” would actually remove or violate rights that actually exist.
You want to have unlimited, unqualified access to someone else’s private property to say whatever you want on that property and have that communication preserved by the owners of that property. You have never had that right.
And you have not demonstrated that the internet is not open or free.
It seems to me that if people want to repeal a law for exactly opposite and contradictory reasons, that suggests that the law is a decent compromise between the two opposing positions.
On the post: Part Of Apple's Abuse Of The DMCA Against Corellium Thrown Out... But Part Of It Lives On
Re:
A tool against free speech, too. Which is why 1201 should also be subject to fair use to balance 1A concerns.
On the post: ViaSat Asks FCC To Investigate Space X For Space Pollution
I’m torn. On one hand, I seriously question the motives involved here. On the other hand, I am concerned about the issues at play here and think they should really be examined here. On the other other hand, I’m not sure how much the government will actually get involved here.
On the post: Philadelphia Residents On The Hook For $9.8 Million For Putting The Wrong Man In Prison For 28 Years
I think someone should look into all cases that those investigators worked on. It could be a coincidence, but I’m not holding my breath on that.
On the post: Pudding-Brained 5G Conspiracies Somehow Get Even Dumber
If there was an implanted chip for 5G, it probably wouldn’t work well given how terrible 5G is at penetration.
Going to the schematic, though, I have to imagine that the first person to make the claim was just trolling, and then a bunch of people took it seriously. Not because I think highly of humanity; I just can’t figure out how else someone would even draw a connection between the two to begin with.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Understanding Cultural Context To Detect Satire (2020)
Re: You're an academic full of advice without ever having DONE.
Again, this article was written by the Copia Institute, and all it does is state facts and testimony; it doesn’t advise anyone to do anything in particular. Thus, your question is both misdirected and irrelevant.
Well, he actually does take responsibility for setting up the system used to hide flagged comments, the spam filter, and the removal of obvious commercial spam. That much of it is hands-off is irrelevant when most sites use some sort of automation for their moderation, too.
You have offered absolutely zero reasons to seriously entertain that as a possibility, let alone a reason to conclude that that’s actually the case. You’ve offered absolutely no reason to conclude that it’s anything other than the stated method of comments being hidden automatically after receiving a sufficient number of flags from users. You simply assert your conclusion without presenting any evidence or reasoning behind it whatsoever. As such, this claim and any derived from it can be dismissed as speculative wishful thinking without any basis in logic or fact.
That your browser acts up isn’t disputed is because we simply don’t know. We only know that you are the only one who has claimed to have this problem at all, let alone consistently, which suggests that either your device, your browser, a plugin, or your internet connection is faulty somehow, especially since you’ve given us nothing else to work from. As such, that this website or the people running it are somehow blocking you has been disputed repeatedly, especially since nothing in the code suggests that that’s anywhere close to a plausible theory, especially compared to the other ones.
That hasn’t even really come up. Also, literally every site has an admin, not just the ones that accept user-generated content. The one(s) on this site is/are pretty much completely hands-off outside of removing commercial spam, and—again—you’ve offered no reason to believe otherwise.
Actually, it’s entirely plausible that, like on many other sites that depend on user feedback to perform moderation, the number of flags and number of users are dependent on a number of variables that makes it too complicated to be worth explain it to some random guy on the internet already believed to be operating in bad faith, which is supported by your clearly stated assumptions about this site and the fact that you keep demanding answers already given to you while also claiming that you’ve received none despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Those are the only specifics that have not been given to you, and since there’s an entirely plausible innocent explanation behind that, there’s no reason to suspect anything else.
Really, your questions have been answered repeatedly; you just refuse to accept the answers for no apparent reason other than you don’t like them for some unknown reason.
First, you still haven’t proven either of those is true, but even if your premise is true, your conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from that. It would also change nothing other than to help refute your original point (that doesn’t even matter) about Mike’s supposed experience (or lack thereof) in moderation.
Again, no advice was actually given in the article, and this article wasn’t even written by anyone working at Techdirt, let alone Mike specifically. You also still haven’t proven anything.
More importantly, even if your allegations were true prior to this point, it is not illegal for privately owned websites or their owners to engage in viewpoint discrimination or do anything else you accused them of; in fact, doing so is protected by the 1A.
Once again, your premises wouldn’t support your conclusion even if they were true, and you haven’t done anything to prove your premises true to begin with.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Understanding Cultural Context To Detect Satire (2020)
Re: List all your work experience relevant to advising these pie
If you’d bother to read the blurb at the top, you’d know that the contents of these “Case Study” articles are not written or edited by anyone who works for Techdirt but by the Copia Institute, a well-known think-tank that presumably has employees or connections with people who do have relevant work experience.
Though, again, a case study doesn’t advise; it merely presents the facts of a specific instance as they are. “Relevant work experience” isn’t usually necessary to do a decent job at writing a case study.
He writes articles, does research for said articles, runs the site, cleans out the filters, and gets paid through AdSense and through direct contributions from readers. Even if it’s only a part-time job or side job to his regular employment—and we have no evidence that it’s less than a full-time job—that’s still more than a hobby.
Indeed you are. Note that people can still read them if they want to with little effort.
All of which are true, except that there is sort of an upvote process through the “insightful”, “funny”, “first word”, and “last word” buttons; it just doesn’t counter the flag button at all. And of course there are no community guidelines since it’s the community that decides what to flag.
It sounds like you have most of your answers already: when enough people flag a comment, it gets hidden; there is no way to “appeal” such a thing, which doesn’t make much sense to me why it’d be necessary given the minimal effect hiding comments actually has. The community guidelines can best be summed up as “don’t be a jerk”. The rest is just minor details that don’t make much of a difference.
You’ve had your questions answered already; you just refuse to accept the answers or want details that, frankly, don’t matter unless you want to subvert the system.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Understanding Cultural Context To Detect Satire (2020)
Re: Re: Why do you not POINT UP that the manual review failed?
Just go to another platform. There is no right to use someone else’s privately owned platform.
You’re asking for the impossible. Humans are bad enough at detecting satire and parody, and computers simply don’t understand context. No amount of tuning and/or corrections will fix that, no matter the legislation.
It’s also not the case that legislation is needed to persuade Facebook to try to improve. Facebook continually tries to adjust its algorithms to improve. The problem is that the success rate will never be close to 100% perfect, lacking in false positives or false negatives. Humans can’t do it that well, and we’re a lot better than computers at detecting such things. Given the sheer number of posts made every day on Facebook, it’s statistically inevitable that you’ll get some false positives every now and then even after manual review.
When you agree to the terms of service that all users of Facebook have to agree to in order to use it, you agreed to allow Facebook to do what it wants with that speech within the four corners of their platform. The only recourse is simple: use a different service. There are a number of them. You could also create your own. Again, you are not owed the right to use Facebook, specifically. The size of the corporation that owns the platform is irrelevant.
You misunderstand how a case study works. When you present a case study, the presentation does not include recommendations for handling any issues. It merely presents the facts and data. It’s up to the readers to decide what to do with that information. A case study is not meant to persuade anyone of anything. It’s just data.
On the post: Mitch McConnell Using Section 230 Repeal As A Poison Pill To Avoid $2k Stimulus Checks
Re: Re: Re:
The big court cases that dealt with revenge porn found revenge porn laws to be unconstitutional. The issue wasn’t §230 but the 1A. So no, §230 is not responsible for revenge porn being a thing.
Also, distributor liability for defamation was never the law in the US outside of two cases that led to §230. That it exists in other western countries is immaterial. Bookstores aren’t liable for stocking defamatory books, you know.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Understanding Cultural Context To Detect Satire (2020)
Re: Re: You're an academic full of advice without ever having DO
Also, every assumption they make about the law is wrong.
On the post: Senators Tell The USPTO To Remove The Arbitrary Obstacles Preventing Inventors (Especially Women Inventors) From Getting Patents
Re:
I do that (unintentionally) to people of both genders more or less equally. Is that still mansplaining?
On the post: Mitch McConnell Using Section 230 Repeal As A Poison Pill To Avoid $2k Stimulus Checks
Re:
Yes, yes he would.
Look, I get that when someone feels wronged, they believe that someone should rectify that. However, attacking the messenger is not the way to go. Sometimes, the bad guy gets away. That doesn’t make it okay for you to punch out the guy who told you about it.
§230 just ensures that only the people actually responsible for writing the material get punished for it. It’s the same rule we apply outside of cyberspace.
On the post: Mitch McConnell Using Section 230 Repeal As A Poison Pill To Avoid $2k Stimulus Checks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no problem with 1 million people being vaccinated in one day.
On the post: Mitch McConnell Using Section 230 Repeal As A Poison Pill To Avoid $2k Stimulus Checks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anti-Trump? Yes. Pro-Biden? No. The two are not equivalent.
On the post: Section 230 Isn't A Subsidy; It's A Rule Of Civil Procedure
Re: CONTROL means "platforms" are PUBLISHERS.
A newspaper isn’t liable for third-party content, either (like letters to the editor), and yet they have full control over which content gets published on their newspaper.
A bookstore isn’t liable for the content of the books they stock, and yet they have full control over which books they stock.
A library isn’t liable for the content of the books they stock, and yet they have full control over which books they stock.
The same applies to websites. Whether or not they publish or have control over content on those websites is completely irrelevant.
Also, you didn’t sign onto Twitter or Facebook to get your own website; or rather, that was never what the deal was. If you want your own website, get your own website. Twitter and Facebook aren’t offering users their own websites. At best, it lends them webpages, but even that’s a stretch. I think you’re severely misunderstanding how platforms actually work. Twitter and Facebook allow users to publish their own content on Twitter/Facebook’s website. They are not giving users their own website. That you don’t understand that is not the fault of the platforms for misleading you. They never claimed to offer people their own websites.
Plus, you have cited no law supporting the contention that §230 is unconstitutional, and if you don’t like the way the courts have ruled, you’ll have to amend the Constitution. §230 isn’t your problem; the 1A is.
As for antitrust, that is completely unrelated. In fact, that would be a better solution than trying to change §230.
On the post: Section 230 Isn't A Subsidy; It's A Rule Of Civil Procedure
Re: Simple as possible: WHY do "platforms" get to control MY spe
Simple: they own the platforms being used, and they have the same rights as anyone else (according to the USSC). The number of people who use the platform is completely irrelevant.
Plus, when you signed up to use their platform, you agreed to certain terms and conditions that allow them to remove any speech from their platform for any reason and to ban repeat/serious offenders. It’s their territory, and you agreed to play by their rules.
On the post: Section 230 Isn't A Subsidy; It's A Rule Of Civil Procedure
Re: You are as usual speaking away from the contentious point.
Actually, many are. The far left and people who feel they were defamed online do want to hold platform holders responsible for others’ speech.
There are two broad categories of people who don’t like §230. Those who don’t like the immunity from being responsible for third-party content, and those who don’t like the express license to moderate platforms freely.
You are clearly in the latter camp, but many people are in the former. Some are even in both to some degree. That you are not one of them doesn’t make the position being dismantled here a strawman.
Also, the point you keep trying to bring up (about moderation) has been addressed multiple times. That they don’t address it when a different part of §230 is attacked is in no way unusual.
On the post: Section 230 Isn't A Subsidy; It's A Rule Of Civil Procedure
Re: You do not defend Public's right to Publish without interfer
We do defend the public’s right to publish without government interference. There is no inherent right to publish without corporate interference.
We’ve also explained to you time and again how the public benefits from these protections. It does so both directly and by encouraging various platforms to emerge that will, in total, host anyone’s speech. Without these protections, no site will be willing to host users’ speech at all.
Furthermore, we’ve also explained to you over and over again that platform holders only control what gets published on their platform(s) and nowhere else.
Whether or not platform holders are publishers, the fact is that it is unconstitutional to force a platform to host speech it doesn’t want to.
On the post: Apparently Trump Refuses To Allow The Government To Do Anything At All Until The Open Internet Is Destroyed
Re: Re: Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
It’s not giving people rights; it’s helping protect existing rights. §230 makes it easier to get out of lawsuits that target the wrong party and such.
Again, you’re asking for rights that never existed in the first place. Even without §230, you don’t have the right to force a privately owned platform to host your speech. The rights that you say these websites violate simply don’t exist. As such, they cannot be violated.
Also, TD doesn’t silence anyone. We can still read what you write.
§230 is basically a shortcut, and platforms cannot violate people’s rights the way you say they do by definition. What you are alleging is a violation of your rights doesn’t violate any rights that actually exist.
The 1A says that we can’t do anything about it.
And they can’t. That they refuse to host you or your speech does not silence you. You can take your speech elsewhere.
No, that’s proof that certain websites aren’t 100% open and free. Facebook and Twitter are not the internet. Again, you can take your speech elsewhere on the internet. You would have to prove that people are being blocked from speaking on the internet at all to prove your point.
You make fun of it, but you haven’t actually alleged any problems with that argument. Their property, their rules. That’s how it is, and that’s how it always has been in the history of this country. That you don’t like it doesn’t change anything.
No, I’m okay with stripping rights that never existed. It’s the same way I’m okay with the mass killing of unicorns.
If a private platform did the same thing to me, I wouldn’t call it a violation of my rights. I might question the decision or even be outraged by it, but I won’t argue that they don’t or shouldn’t have the legal right to do so.
That’s not what I said. I said that people being blocked from certain internet platforms for their speech on those platforms by the private owners of those platforms doesn’t violate or remove anyone’s rights. In fact, private individuals/corporations/organizations, by definition, cannot infringe on your 1A rights no matter what they do.
I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that platforms remove speech they don’t like from their platforms and block people they disagree with. I am not assuming that it doesn’t happen at all because I haven’t experienced it. I’m just saying that that doesn’t constitute a violation of anyone’s rights, it’s not censorship, and it’s not silencing people.
Basically, no matter what it is you think private websites are doing, it’s not violating anyone’s rights at all (unless you mean privacy rights, but that has absolutely nothing to do with §230).
That’s not what “free and open” means in this context. Price has nothing to do with it. Also, you have the burden of proof wrong.
On the post: Apparently Trump Refuses To Allow The Government To Do Anything At All Until The Open Internet Is Destroyed
Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
I’m not okay with having my rights removed. The issue is that neither §230 nor any private companies can or have removed any of my rights that ever actually existed in the first place, and your proposed “solution” would actually remove or violate rights that actually exist.
You want to have unlimited, unqualified access to someone else’s private property to say whatever you want on that property and have that communication preserved by the owners of that property. You have never had that right.
And you have not demonstrated that the internet is not open or free.
On the post: Coalition Of Internet Companies Who Are Decidedly Not 'Big Tech' Raise Their Voices About The Importance Of Section 230
Re: Re: False premise
It seems to me that if people want to repeal a law for exactly opposite and contradictory reasons, that suggests that the law is a decent compromise between the two opposing positions.
Next >>