An idiot that can't determine the difference between censorship of a specific place and widespread default censorship will only make mistakes when talking about free speech.
As with most anti-section 230 types, he'd have a better argument if he could supply actual examples of people who have been "censored" with no supplied reasoning.
All his "I can't read things where I want to read them" claim proved is that he disingenuously operates off of a false definition of censorship.
On the post: Angry Joe Tears Into Twitch Over Its One-Sided Approach To DMCA Takedowns
No one hates content creators more than copyrignt maximalists.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Knitting Community Ravelry Bans All Talk Supporting President Trump (2019)
Re:
It's not because of "cancelling" that Republicans are uncultured.
On the post: Michigan Legislator With No Understanding Of The 1st Amendment Wants To Fine Fact Checkers For Pointing Out His Lies
Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Knitting Community Ravelry Bans All Talk Supporting President Trump (2019)
Re: "content moderation"
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
On the post: Michigan Legislator With No Understanding Of The 1st Amendment Wants To Fine Fact Checkers For Pointing Out His Lies
I rather doubt Mr. Maddock will be willing to hold The Daily Caller accountable.
On the post: Michigan Legislator With No Understanding Of The 1st Amendment Wants To Fine Fact Checkers For Pointing Out His Lies
Rethignicans: "Don't 'censor' our disinformation, use more speech!"
Normal people: "Okay." *provides the more-speech of fact-checking."
Repugnicans' "Not like that! Uh... fact checks are also censorship!"
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: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Reputations harmed due to Section 230: 0
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:
If that were, as you lie, their intent, then they sure did a shit job if achieving it, as they're 0% of the way there.
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:
As your idiotic drivel keeps proving.
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: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
You're free to stop trying to police platforms' free speech any time, asshole.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Why Is Wired So Focused On Misrepresenting Section 230?
Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts contradicted by the Constitution]
On the post: Why Is Wired So Focused On Misrepresenting Section 230?
Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly.
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All his "I can't read things where I want to read them" claim proved is that he disingenuously operates off of a false definition of censorship.
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except for the part where no censorship exists, and there's no part of Section 230 that has any influence on that.
Your revisionist history runs contrary to its authors' own statements.
[Asserts facts contradicted by evidence]
The government is prohibited from denying freedom of speech and expression. Period.
Including your censorious demands here that sites be denied their rights to freely express their own speech.
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, as it stands now the only thing here "with no supplied reasoning" is your claim that Section 230 allows censorship.
On the post: Why Is Wired So Focused On Misrepresenting Section 230?
How do you debate Section 230 when Citron keeps lying about it?
On the post: New York Police Union Tells NYPD End Of Qualified Immunity Will Force Officers To... Act Lawfully
Re: Most Likely
Luckily for the rest of us, these hallucinations of yours have never reflected any part of reality.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Families Of Car Crash Victims Can Continue To Sue Snapchat Over Its 'Speed Filter'
Re: Re:
Arguing the law doesn't matter because these scammers think they found an end-run around it isn't as strong an argument as you think it is.
Next >>