You and Lodos seem to agree that the definition of “censorship” should be expansive enough to include moderation.
No. I am not promoting any particular definition of censorship. I am just trying to get you to understand that there are other definitions than the one you use, and content moderation fits some of those definitions. I did not expect that to be such a difficult task, but here we are.
Your argument expects me to side with the belief of “moderation is censorship”, and since censorship is bad, we must therefore stop censorship by Twitter.
So now you've gone from cherry picking to straw man. If you want to have a conversation based on what I've actually written let me know.
I can't believe that the court is even buying such an argument.
I ain't no lawyer, but I believe at this stage it's not saying it buys the argument, only that the argument isn't precluded by section 230, and it should go back to the lower court to be decided.
I'm sure you have some examples of this actually happening in real life for those who would like to better understand this serious and widespread issue. Right? You wouldn't just make stuff up and put it in a comment would you?
Except this doesn't really sound like a dating app to me. Is that its intent? I could see straight women filtering to only women to reduce the chance of getting a gross dude on the other end.
the interpretation of that definition is far too permissive in what qualifies as censorship.
What do you mean, interpretation of that definition? Do you interpret it in some way that makes Twitter deleting a tweet not fit the definition? If so, how? It's only six words, after all, there doesn't seem all that much room for interpretation unless you have an unusual definition for "suppress", "delete", or "objectionable".
But for someone not in government to censor another person, they must employ either government resources (e.g., the courts) or use threats/acts of violence.
By some definitions, perhaps, but not all. "to suppress or delete as objectionable." Twitter finds a tweet objectionable and deletes it. By that definition, that is censorship. No government, no threats, and no violence.
By watering down the definition of the term to include acts that don’t violate any civil rights, you cheapen the term
Except he's not the one doing that. You saw the definitions he quoted, right? The idea that censorship can be performed by someone other than government is a mainstream one, no matter how much you may disagree with it.
It wasn't, though. People had been discussing it for months.
Are signs that the country needs a platform for politicians to speak to the masses.
Politicians are already free to post whatever they want on their web sites. They each have their own page on house.gov or senate.gov, and they're free to set up campaign web sites as well. So the problem you're trying to address has already been solved.
I don’t understand how anyone could consider the words of politicians being recorded permanently could be a cause to fight against.
That's because that isn't what anyone is fighting against.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re:
I know you don't, but you do see that there are dictionaries that have such definitions in them, right?
Thanks.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re:
No. I am not promoting any particular definition of censorship. I am just trying to get you to understand that there are other definitions than the one you use, and content moderation fits some of those definitions. I did not expect that to be such a difficult task, but here we are.
On the post: New Jersey State Legislators Think They Can Get Trump Back On Facebook By Passing A Stupid Social Media Moderation Bill
Re:
You're not showing your age, that was only 10 years ago.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re:
See if you can find where I argued that.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re: Re:
It's not only acceptable, it's absolutely necessary if the space is to be a civilized one.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re:
So now you've gone from cherry picking to straw man. If you want to have a conversation based on what I've actually written let me know.
On the post: New Jersey State Legislators Think They Can Get Trump Back On Facebook By Passing A Stupid Social Media Moderation Bill
Definition
I have no desire to read the bill, but I'm curious if they even bothered to define "social media web site".
On the post: Appeals Court Says Families Of Car Crash Victims Can Continue To Sue Snapchat Over Its 'Speed Filter'
Re:
I ain't no lawyer, but I believe at this stage it's not saying it buys the argument, only that the argument isn't precluded by section 230, and it should go back to the lower court to be decided.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re:
Suppress OR DELETE. My example was of Twitter removing - one might even say deleting - a tweet.
At the risk of a broken record impression, that is true by your definition, and not true by others.
On the post: Biden Revokes Trump's Silly Executive Order On Section 230; But It Already Did Its Damage
Re:
I'm sure you have some examples of this actually happening in real life for those who would like to better understand this serious and widespread issue. Right? You wouldn't just make stuff up and put it in a comment would you?
On the post: South Korean Real-Time Video 'Social Discovery' App Might Be The New ChatRoulette -- If It Can Keep Out The Lettuce Fornicators
Re:
Except this doesn't really sound like a dating app to me. Is that its intent? I could see straight women filtering to only women to reduce the chance of getting a gross dude on the other end.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re:
Yes, I know what YOUR definition of censorship is. My question is why you continue to deny the existence or validity of other definitions.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re:
What do you mean, interpretation of that definition? Do you interpret it in some way that makes Twitter deleting a tweet not fit the definition? If so, how? It's only six words, after all, there doesn't seem all that much room for interpretation unless you have an unusual definition for "suppress", "delete", or "objectionable".
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re:
What part of the definition does it fail to meet?
"to suppress or delete as objectionable."
So for that action to not qualify, it must:
OR
Which are you claiming?
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re:
By some definitions, perhaps, but not all. "to suppress or delete as objectionable." Twitter finds a tweet objectionable and deletes it. By that definition, that is censorship. No government, no threats, and no violence.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re:
Except he's not the one doing that. You saw the definitions he quoted, right? The idea that censorship can be performed by someone other than government is a mainstream one, no matter how much you may disagree with it.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re: New platform
It wasn't, though. People had been discussing it for months.
Politicians are already free to post whatever they want on their web sites. They each have their own page on house.gov or senate.gov, and they're free to set up campaign web sites as well. So the problem you're trying to address has already been solved.
That's because that isn't what anyone is fighting against.
On the post: South Dakota Court Says Government Doesn't Need To Pay For Home Cops Destroyed To Find A Fugitive Who Wasn't There
Re: Virtually no blacks in South Dakota
Definitely.
There aren't that many, but they're probably disproportionately feared.
About as welcome as you would imagine.
Plenty of cat owners but as everyone knows dogs are more manly. And SD is a very manly state.
On the post: Angry Joe Tears Into Twitch Over Its One-Sided Approach To DMCA Takedowns
Re: Re:
That's other people hosting that content on AWS. Amazon for the most part has no idea what people are uploading to their services.
On the post: South Dakota Court Says Government Doesn't Need To Pay For Home Cops Destroyed To Find A Fugitive Who Wasn't There
Re:
I'm just gonna stop you right there, because there are virtually no black people in South Dakota.
Next >>