everyone who is on the receiving end of a moderation decision they disagree with, insists that they are being treated unfairly compared to some other "similarly situated" user, even if the reality (and context) suggest otherwise.
Gonna recycle a previous comment because it's relevant again here:
There was this shithead troll on Ars who edited his own posts into false accusations against Ars's moderation.
It's almost as pathetically transparent as Woody thinking that typing others' names onto his comments would fool anybody.
Ot trolls there and here on Techdirt hallucinating conspiracies against them for being identified as trolls by the community.
Some Ars commenters show that these kinds of trolls show child-level intellects:
50me12 wrote:
I used to moderate a popular gaming forum. It was astonishing / maybe a little horrifying how often people's reaction to any action by the mods was something to the effect of "out to get them".
The user always felt that they clearly had reasons for their actions / were justified, and they were unable to believe / understand that the moderator might also have reasons for their actions, aside from 'bias' or whatever random verb they selected.
99.99% of situations where someone went off about how the mods were out to get them, they were just full of it.
Human nature can be a pain.
Starke replied:
I moderate chat for a twitch stream. There's a bot that posts a warning every 15 minutes not to backseat game. It's the same message every time.
We had a kid in chat who went off on the bot, telling it to shut up and leave him alone. The streamer ran out of patience for it and banned them after the third time.
I read the ban appeal where this kid's defense was basically, "Nightbot started it," and, "was saying mean things about me."
And here we have Woody keeps ranting about how the automated spam filter is doing its job correctly.
Considering the fact that not all "opinions" are of equal worth, that explains why you advocate for putting your thumb on thhe scale to boost the trash ones.
I'd ask if you have reading comprehension issues, but you've provided enough evidence of that in this thread alone that such a question would be rhetorical at this point.
Yes. 230 was enacted to offer a guarantee of protection for activity monitoring content and removing it.
The First Amendment and free speech rights gave that power; all Section 230 does it make it financially affordable to do so.
It added protection against the claim that if they actively monitor they should be responsible for what they miss.
That's how things always were before the flawed prodigy ruling; Congress saw how Prpdigy was completely wrong and contrary to how things were supposed to be, and so made the law to make clear how secondary liability online should remain.
On the post: If David Cicilline Gets His Way; It Would Destroy Content Moderation
Gonna recycle a previous comment because it's relevant again here:
There was this shithead troll on Ars who edited his own posts into false accusations against Ars's moderation.
https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=39571969#p39571969
It's almost as pathetically transparent as Woody thinking that typing others' names onto his comments would fool anybody.
Ot trolls there and here on Techdirt hallucinating conspiracies against them for being identified as trolls by the community.
Some Ars commenters show that these kinds of trolls show child-level intellects:
50me12 wrote:
I used to moderate a popular gaming forum. It was astonishing / maybe a little horrifying how often people's reaction to any action by the mods was something to the effect of "out to get them". The user always felt that they clearly had reasons for their actions / were justified, and they were unable to believe / understand that the moderator might also have reasons for their actions, aside from 'bias' or whatever random verb they selected. 99.99% of situations where someone went off about how the mods were out to get them, they were just full of it. Human nature can be a pain.Starke replied:
I moderate chat for a twitch stream. There's a bot that posts a warning every 15 minutes not to backseat game. It's the same message every time. We had a kid in chat who went off on the bot, telling it to shut up and leave him alone. The streamer ran out of patience for it and banned them after the third time. I read the ban appeal where this kid's defense was basically, "Nightbot started it," and, "was saying mean things about me."And here we have Woody keeps ranting about how the automated spam filter is doing its job correctly.
On the post: Chinese Government Now Using National Security Law To Censor Art Being Displayed In Hong Kong
Re: Re: Re:
Spoiler alert: your drug-induced hallucinations aren't evidence.
On the post: Does Taking Down Content Lead Ignorant People To Believe It's More Likely To Be True?
Re: Re: Re:
Considering the fact that not all "opinions" are of equal worth, that explains why you advocate for putting your thumb on thhe scale to boost the trash ones.
On the post: Arizona County's Voting Machines Rendered Unusable By OAN-Financed Vote Auditors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd ask if you have reading comprehension issues, but you've provided enough evidence of that in this thread alone that such a question would be rhetorical at this point.
On the post: Hypocrisy: Rupert Murdoch Has Always Hated Antitrust; But Now He Wants It Used Against Internet Companies Who Out Innovated Him
"Liberal censorship" was the lie that Ailes made FOX to address.
On the post: Chinese Government Now Using National Security Law To Censor Art Being Displayed In Hong Kong
Re:
For that to hapoen, big tech censorship would have to start first, and there's no sign of that even being possible any time in the near future.
On the post: Chinese Government Now Using National Security Law To Censor Art Being Displayed In Hong Kong
Re: Re:
If you don't end every comment of yours with "Excelsior!" from here on out, you're "suppressing" my speech as much as moderation does.
On the post: Chinese Government Now Using National Security Law To Censor Art Being Displayed In Hong Kong
Re: No Dissent Is Allowed
The Republican plan.
On the post: Why The Ninth Circuit's Decision In Lemmon V. Snap Is Wrong On Section 230 And Bad For Online Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Re:
If you're against the free speech of moderation, you're for censorship.
On the post: Fact Check: Yes, Fact Checking Is Totally Protected By The 1st Amendment
Re:
Spoiler alert: Free speech doesn't magically become illegal because some random shithead on the internet hallucinates it should be.
On the post: Why The Ninth Circuit's Decision In Lemmon V. Snap Is Wrong On Section 230 And Bad For Online Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190714/18000542585/section-230-is-not-exceptional-it-is-not-uniq ue-it-is-not-gift-codification-common-law-liability-principles.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articl es/20200625/11032444780/author-section-230-chris-cox-says-all-critics-are-wrong-about-history-intent -230.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200805/07260045045/revisiting-common-law-liability-on line-intermediaries-before-section-230.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200921/00260045345/ authors-cda-230-do-some-serious-230-mythbusting-response-to-comments-submitted-to-fcc.shtml
On the post: Why The Ninth Circuit's Decision In Lemmon V. Snap Is Wrong On Section 230 And Bad For Online Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The First Amendment and free speech rights gave that power; all Section 230 does it make it financially affordable to do so.
That's how things always were before the flawed prodigy ruling; Congress saw how Prpdigy was completely wrong and contrary to how things were supposed to be, and so made the law to make clear how secondary liability online should remain.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Re:
The internet is not a country.
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
Re: Re: Re:
[Jhon Smith hallucinates facts not in reality]
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
Re: Re:
[Assertions not bacled by law]
On the post: Data Analysis Shows That Trump's Messages Still Received Tons Of Attention; Though His Disinformation Doesn't Travel As Far
Re: Re: Re: Disinfo
Inside*
On the post: Music Publishers Sue Roblox In Full Frontal Assault On The DMCA
Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
On the post: Data Analysis Shows That Trump's Messages Still Received Tons Of Attention; Though His Disinformation Doesn't Travel As Far
Re: Re: Disinfo
"I side of a racist's asshole" is a "point of view" nobody needs to see.
Next >>