you're okay with demonizing any attempt to present alternatives to abortion?
Anti-choice/pro–forced birthing lawmakers (who are largely conservative) seem content with demonetizing or banning comprehensive sex education and affordable birth control/contraception, both of which are proven to reduce abortion rates. What other alternatives do you believe will reduce abortion rates without legally forcing women to give up their bodily autonomy?
any information about it that isn't flattering to the practice?
How about we talk about information that isn’t flattering to the anti-choice crowd—like the fact that the so-called fetal heartbeat on which laws/bills like the Texas bullshit isn’t actually a heartbeat at all? How about you address the fact that, at the six-week cutoff period outlined in the Texas law, many women don’t even know they’re pregnant? Perhaps we can discuss Republican lawmakers have done everything possible to destroy the social safety net and depress wages such that a woman who isn’t wealthy could have serious problems making ends meet and thus raising a healthy child that she may not have wanted in the first place but was legally forced to carry to term. Maybe you’d like to explore the fact that the Texas law makes no exceptions for rape/incest, which literally means a rapist in Texas has a viable reproduction strategy for as long as he isn’t caught.
Let’s have those discussions first. Then we can get to any questions you might have.
Doesn’t matter if it hasn’t been used in more than a century. It was part of the Founding Fathers’ vision for the country when the Constitution was ratified. And since all the Founding Fathers were white men…
But all races are equal in the law today. So are both genders.
Two things.
Gender is a spectrum, not a binary.
Legal equality in re: race and biological sex may exist on paper, but that doesn’t mean they exist in practice—I mean, look at the new Texas abortion law.
An activity practically fazed out after civil rights reform.
Given the number of high-profile cases of blackface coming back to haunt someone famous/in the public spotlight, you’re not entirely correct.
And the entirety (or near) of the cast promoting it as such is because of white people?
No, that’s because of Black culture being its own thing.
Appropriate? Or adopt.
There’s a difference between appropriation and adoption. One is taking something from another culture and acting like it’s a brand new thing that the “superior” people invented. The other is working something from another culture into your own way of life while still giving credit to those who came up with it. Guess which is which and you get a No-Prize!
And why must the culture belong to a single race?
It doesn’t. But we don’t credit whatever white person made yoga famous in the U.S. for creating yoga. What’s not to understand about giving credit where credit is due, especially in terms of culture?
It’s not really worth discussing at all. It’s rare for the academy to recognise good films in the first place.
Not even remotely the point. You asked about the white gaze in American society/culture. I gave you an example of how that works. What made you so afraid to address my point on its actual merits that you had to sidestep it with “but all Oscar winners suck”?
Or, urban “ of or relating to cities and the people who live in them”~MRC
Then say “city”/“cities”.
The storm didn’t target on specific group.
No shit. But it still hurt a shitload of Black families—maybe more than it hurt white families—by virtue of poverty, the racial makeup of Louisiana, and where those two paths intersect with one another. (Oh, sorry, I should’ve asked this first: Is “intersectionality” a four-letter word for you?)
you intentionally ignore the whole of the comment
No, I didn’t. You intentionally ignored how poverty compounds upon itself so you can act like poor people don’t get poorer and they’re all just a few good days away from being part of the middle class. (Spoilers: They’re not.)
I’m not privileged, not upper class, not even middle class.
You have the privilege of apparently not worrying about whether you’re a few bad days away from living on the street. I don’t even have that luxury. But hey, talk some more about how a flat tax that barely affects rich people’s bottom lines but fucks over poor people by taking more of the money they need in an acute and direct way is a good idea. I’m sure that won’t make you sound like a heartless privileged asshole~.
Language evolves, and so does the language of both bigots and rules-lawyering trolls. When the bigots and trolls change their language to seem innocuous on the surface but still disparage queer people via subtext and coded messaging to other bigots/trolls, having the generalized “no anti-queer speech” rule works better. It allows you the freedom to punish the assholes without letting them squirm their way out of that punishment by going “but we didn’t say those exact slurs”. Hyper-specifying the rules will only let them argue—possibly successfully—that they didn’t break the rules, which leads to the war of attrition that I mentioned before.
However, “your post, #12345, violated rule N subsection L, A ban on Negativ[el]y commenting on sexual preferences.” Is perfect.
No, it isn’t. It opens the door for someone to say “but I didn’t comment on sexual preferences”—especially if your rules don’t specifically outline what you mean by “sexual preferences”. Rules-lawyering trolls love that kind of shit; they will outwonk you all day every day to get around it. Generalized rules against kinds of behaviors/language give you the freedom to adapt and punish trolls without punishing non-trolls by proxy.
The problem there is that if you keep hyper-specifying your rules, trolls will keep finding ways of getting around those rules. Example: If you ban only specific anti-queer slurs, the trolls will find ways to disparage queer people without relying on those slurs. Then you’ll have to ban that language—and ban it in all contexts, lest the trolls cry foul that you banned the language for them but not for everyone else using a new anti-queer slur.
Contrast that approach with a more generalized “no using anti-queer slurs such as [x]” rule: You can ban the troublemakers who skirt the rules with innocuous language without having to ban that language in all contexts.
Again: Hyper-specifying the rules only invites trouble. And as for this bullshit…
If you can’t keep up hire more moderators.
Or stop moderation all together.
Or shut off commenting.
…not everyone can do the first option, few people want to do the second option, and the third option would kill any site that relies on third-party submissions. Your “solutions” aren’t all that good, so maybe reconsider your hardline stance against generalized moderation rules (among other moderation decisions you think are stupid and dumb and make people censorious Nazi authoritarian genocidists or whatever).
Most of what I’ve seen is the culturally relevant teaching.
Then you can fuck right the hell off with trying to say CRT—and that’s Critical Race Theory, you nosehair-splitting asshole—is being taught in any school outside of higher education.
Other than nobody really has any way of showing how that is?
You really are a fucking idiot. And I don’t like using that word. But sometimes it’s all I’ve got.
The people who founded this country were all white and wrote laws to enshrine whiteness as the dominant racial culture. (Three-Fifths Compromise, ring a fucking bell?) The country split in two and warred with itself over the right to own Black people as if they were a rake or a car instead of treating them like human goddamn beings. Hell, even after the slaves were freed, it took almost another fucking century for Black people to achieve on-paper legal equality.
Popular American culture has always reflected whiteness back at all other cultures—you can call it the “white gaze”, because those who study this phenomenon have done the same. To wit: Blackface was used to put Black characters in all-white stage shows and such, and those Black characters would often be one-dimensional stereotypes and used primarily for jokes at the expense of Black people.
In all aspects of American culture except sports—and even then there are still some sports that would qualify—whiteness is the “default” lens through which culture is presented. When a movie with a cast made up near-entirely of white people is released, it’s merely a movie; when a movie with a cast made up near-entirely of Black people is released, it’s a Black movie. White people take Black culture and appropriate it for their own ends—music, dancing, fashion, slang, you name it.
And before you go “well what the fuck does any of that matter?” (and I know you will): It matters because how we see people who aren’t (and are) like us in media and pop culture helps shape our idea of people in general. For the longest time, queer people were generally presented in largely negative stereotypes. It took Ellen DeGeneres sacrificing her sitcom on the altar of Coming Out Publicly to help change the perception that gay people were normal people like everyone else (save for the difference of who they dated/slept with) and didn’t deserve to be treated as jokes and bad stereotypes.
American culture centers on whiteness far more often than not. And if you don’t think that’s true, ask yourself exactly how many people of color have won an Academy Award for Best Actor/Actress/Director or how many “Black movies” have won an Academy Award for Best Picture—then compare those numbers to the numbers attributable to white people/movies with largely white casts.
If racial issues exist at all it’s only part of a much larger problem in how urban systems are set up.
Two things.
“Urban” is often racially coded language for “majority Black”, so maybe cool it with that shit and use a different word for what you mean.
Generational wealth is still largely unavailable to Black Americans because of—wait for it—institutional racism, and it was rich white motherfuckers who made that possible.
The rich definitely get richer. But the poor don’t get poorer.
Ask poor people in Louisiana if they feel any richer after Hurricane Ida passed through. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
In a system that punishes any level of success by dragging you back down, it’s difficult to escape that cycle.
In a system that punishes you for failure by deepening your punishment based on that single failure, it’s damn near impossible to escape. And that’s poverty in America—because someone working two full-time jobs just to make ends meet can lose their jobs, their homes, and eventually their lives if the beat-up used car they’re driving breaks down somewhere and they can’t afford repairs. Poverty, like wealth, compounds exponentially.
How do you want to fix that problem, you privileged asshole? Because unless you’re a billionaire right now, you’ll never be a few good days away from living in Beverly Hills…but you’ll always be a few bad days away from living on the street.
And you can believe that all you want. You’re absolutely wrong about that—systemic/institutional racism does exist independently from interpersonal racism—but you’re free to believe your absolute wrongness.
It teaches … something for post-Ed level contemplation, not a 10 year old.
If you would please point to a single evidence-backed instance of any elementary, middle, or high school teaching Critical Race Theory—and I don’t mean “history” or “current events”; the evidence must confirm that the curriculum contains Critical Race Theory as it is taught in higher education—that would be wonderful. Until then: Critical Race Theory, as you (mis)understand it, is only taught in higher education.
Ultimately telling kids whites are racists against all others is a good way to make anti white racists!
Critical Race Theory teaches nothing of the sort. It doesn’t even try to lay the blame for systemic racism on white people; hell, people of color can uphold racist institutions without even meaning to do that. Look at every Black person who stood on the side of Donald Trump.
for the vast majority, colour blind is exactly what we all want
The criticism of “I don’t see color” boils down to extending the sentence in a way that affirms its underlying meaning: “I don’t see color, so I don’t see the experiences that people of color have to go through in a society dominated by and crafted to reflect whiteness.” A fucking pro wrestler gets that idea. Why can’t you?
For what, an imaginary lolsuit you filed in SovCit court?
Lets see which Tech companies are paying you for you opinion.
Let’s see who’s paying you to spout their opinions first.
you are running around on your blog saying that Tech TOS and the TOS enforcement shouldn't be specific because specificity can be abused by bad actors. At the same time you also brag about your influence within BigTech.
And? He’s right about TOS enforcement: hyper-specific rules will only lead to a cycle of rules lawyering and enacting even more hyper-specific rules. Keeping some rules vague, and purposefully enacting a “we can figuratively bop you on the head for basically any reason that isn’t prohibited by anti-discrimination law” clause, is the best way to guard against excessive rules lawyering.
Your big mouth, and the big mouth of other Wonks for contract like yourself, is at the very least providing the evidence needed move to discovery.
Again: For what?
After discovery
Once more with feeling: For what?
More and more judges are denying motions to change venue to California, and allowing the process to move forward.
Name at least five cases within the past five years where this has happened and the cases weren’t eventually tossed out for lacking on the merits. I’ll wait.
the legal tides are changing and I know you feel it
Plaintiff argues that “the legal tides are changing” in regards to defamation cases against “Big Tech” in relation to moderation decisions. But Plaintiff offers no facts in their Complaint to support this proposition. The Complaint is summarily dismissed.
lets open the books Mike. Lets see how much influence you have and how much BigTech listens to you.
Okay, so…I guess I gotta be the one to ask: Why the actual godforsaken donkey-fucking hell do you care so much about Mike Masnick? Did he insult your father’s brother’s cousin’s nephew’s former roommate one time twenty years ago or some shit? You’re coming off as an obsessed troll in need of some serious treatment for mental health issues, and frankly, your schtick is less “ha ha, oh wow” and more “please get some help” now.
I know this is rich coming from me, but seriously: Log off the Internet and go touch grass for a few hours, then go get some professional help.
The rationale for making some rules vague lies in two words: “rules lawyering”. Vague enough rules can help prevent this by providing a general rationale for moderation without giving the offending party a specific enough loophole through which they can jump and escape punishment unscathed—and without bogging down the rules in such specificity that people can find new loopholes.
by using one class of offensive words, you give up the high moral ground for criticizing people who use another class
The word “fuck” lacks the same level of offensiveness than the N-word, even when discussing the two in a context such as this. You seeming to genuinely believe they’re in the same “class” of offensiveness makes you sound like a delusional jackass.
I’m not typically prone to ragging on people specifically for their spelling. That said: For someone who likes to act like they’re smarter and stronger and just plain better than everyone…
Mansick
subesquent
prima facscia
honer
Scholl
…I have to wonder if you wrote this post while having a mild stroke.
It's a nice little piece of evidence to go into a much larger file.
Evidence of what? A larger file for what purpose? I mean, do you think you’re gonna send him to jail or Hell or fuckin’ Siberia with your obsessive documenting of things he says?
You probably think you sound like a bona fide badass. You actually come off as a limp-dicked pissant.
Why must the industry play a zero-sum game by making more room only for people from one hyper-specific marginalized group (queer Black women) at the expense of people from a broader marginalized group (women in general)?
I’m not here to argue that queer Black women don’t deserve a spot in the industry. I’m here to argue that women who don’t fit that mold (e.g., queer white women, straight/cishet women of any race) can be equally as deserving of a spot. Locking them out because of a hyper-focused zero-sum version of diversity hiring says to do that is bullshit.
Someone saying queer people are abominations who don’t deserve a place in society isn’t a “difference of opinion”—it’s dehumanizing homophobia. Expressing that hatred in words could damn well inspire anti-queer violence. (If you think it can’t, you’re being willfully ignorant.) But under your logic, unless it crosses the line into illegal/unlawful speech or includes profanity or is part of commercial spam, that homophobic speech must be left up by any given platform—even a decidedly pro-queer platform!—because it isn’t “illegal speech”.
And all that leads me to once again ask you: What “conservative opinions” do you believe are being censored from social media, Koby? Be specific.
On the post: GoDaddy Reignites Debate Over Infrastructure Layer Moderation By Banning Texas Anti-Abortion Snitch Site
Two questions.
Do you believe all life is sacred regardless of the circumstances of conception?
On the post: GoDaddy Reignites Debate Over Infrastructure Layer Moderation By Banning Texas Anti-Abortion Snitch Site
Anti-choice/pro–forced birthing lawmakers (who are largely conservative) seem content with demonetizing or banning comprehensive sex education and affordable birth control/contraception, both of which are proven to reduce abortion rates. What other alternatives do you believe will reduce abortion rates without legally forcing women to give up their bodily autonomy?
How about we talk about information that isn’t flattering to the anti-choice crowd—like the fact that the so-called fetal heartbeat on which laws/bills like the Texas bullshit isn’t actually a heartbeat at all? How about you address the fact that, at the six-week cutoff period outlined in the Texas law, many women don’t even know they’re pregnant? Perhaps we can discuss Republican lawmakers have done everything possible to destroy the social safety net and depress wages such that a woman who isn’t wealthy could have serious problems making ends meet and thus raising a healthy child that she may not have wanted in the first place but was legally forced to carry to term. Maybe you’d like to explore the fact that the Texas law makes no exceptions for rape/incest, which literally means a rapist in Texas has a viable reproduction strategy for as long as he isn’t caught.
Let’s have those discussions first. Then we can get to any questions you might have.
On the post: Lessons Learned From Creating Good Faith Debate In A Sea Of Garbage Disinformation
Hey, Koby: What “conservative opinions” do you believe are being censored from social media? Be specific.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Doesn’t matter if it hasn’t been used in more than a century. It was part of the Founding Fathers’ vision for the country when the Constitution was ratified. And since all the Founding Fathers were white men…
Two things.
Gender is a spectrum, not a binary.
Given the number of high-profile cases of blackface coming back to haunt someone famous/in the public spotlight, you’re not entirely correct.
No, that’s because of Black culture being its own thing.
There’s a difference between appropriation and adoption. One is taking something from another culture and acting like it’s a brand new thing that the “superior” people invented. The other is working something from another culture into your own way of life while still giving credit to those who came up with it. Guess which is which and you get a No-Prize!
It doesn’t. But we don’t credit whatever white person made yoga famous in the U.S. for creating yoga. What’s not to understand about giving credit where credit is due, especially in terms of culture?
Not even remotely the point. You asked about the white gaze in American society/culture. I gave you an example of how that works. What made you so afraid to address my point on its actual merits that you had to sidestep it with “but all Oscar winners suck”?
Then say “city”/“cities”.
No shit. But it still hurt a shitload of Black families—maybe more than it hurt white families—by virtue of poverty, the racial makeup of Louisiana, and where those two paths intersect with one another. (Oh, sorry, I should’ve asked this first: Is “intersectionality” a four-letter word for you?)
No, I didn’t. You intentionally ignored how poverty compounds upon itself so you can act like poor people don’t get poorer and they’re all just a few good days away from being part of the middle class. (Spoilers: They’re not.)
You have the privilege of apparently not worrying about whether you’re a few bad days away from living on the street. I don’t even have that luxury. But hey, talk some more about how a flat tax that barely affects rich people’s bottom lines but fucks over poor people by taking more of the money they need in an acute and direct way is a good idea. I’m sure that won’t make you sound like a heartless privileged asshole~.
On the post: The Challenge In Content Moderation And Politics: How Do You Deal With Bad Faith Actors?
Again: That’s the point.
Language evolves, and so does the language of both bigots and rules-lawyering trolls. When the bigots and trolls change their language to seem innocuous on the surface but still disparage queer people via subtext and coded messaging to other bigots/trolls, having the generalized “no anti-queer speech” rule works better. It allows you the freedom to punish the assholes without letting them squirm their way out of that punishment by going “but we didn’t say those exact slurs”. Hyper-specifying the rules will only let them argue—possibly successfully—that they didn’t break the rules, which leads to the war of attrition that I mentioned before.
No, it isn’t. It opens the door for someone to say “but I didn’t comment on sexual preferences”—especially if your rules don’t specifically outline what you mean by “sexual preferences”. Rules-lawyering trolls love that kind of shit; they will outwonk you all day every day to get around it. Generalized rules against kinds of behaviors/language give you the freedom to adapt and punish trolls without punishing non-trolls by proxy.
On the post: The Challenge In Content Moderation And Politics: How Do You Deal With Bad Faith Actors?
The problem there is that if you keep hyper-specifying your rules, trolls will keep finding ways of getting around those rules. Example: If you ban only specific anti-queer slurs, the trolls will find ways to disparage queer people without relying on those slurs. Then you’ll have to ban that language—and ban it in all contexts, lest the trolls cry foul that you banned the language for them but not for everyone else using a new anti-queer slur.
Contrast that approach with a more generalized “no using anti-queer slurs such as [x]” rule: You can ban the troublemakers who skirt the rules with innocuous language without having to ban that language in all contexts.
Again: Hyper-specifying the rules only invites trouble. And as for this bullshit…
…not everyone can do the first option, few people want to do the second option, and the third option would kill any site that relies on third-party submissions. Your “solutions” aren’t all that good, so maybe reconsider your hardline stance against generalized moderation rules (among other moderation decisions you think are stupid and dumb and make people censorious Nazi authoritarian genocidists or whatever).
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Then you can fuck right the hell off with trying to say CRT—and that’s Critical Race Theory, you nosehair-splitting asshole—is being taught in any school outside of higher education.
You really are a fucking idiot. And I don’t like using that word. But sometimes it’s all I’ve got.
The people who founded this country were all white and wrote laws to enshrine whiteness as the dominant racial culture. (Three-Fifths Compromise, ring a fucking bell?) The country split in two and warred with itself over the right to own Black people as if they were a rake or a car instead of treating them like human goddamn beings. Hell, even after the slaves were freed, it took almost another fucking century for Black people to achieve on-paper legal equality.
Popular American culture has always reflected whiteness back at all other cultures—you can call it the “white gaze”, because those who study this phenomenon have done the same. To wit: Blackface was used to put Black characters in all-white stage shows and such, and those Black characters would often be one-dimensional stereotypes and used primarily for jokes at the expense of Black people.
In all aspects of American culture except sports—and even then there are still some sports that would qualify—whiteness is the “default” lens through which culture is presented. When a movie with a cast made up near-entirely of white people is released, it’s merely a movie; when a movie with a cast made up near-entirely of Black people is released, it’s a Black movie. White people take Black culture and appropriate it for their own ends—music, dancing, fashion, slang, you name it.
And before you go “well what the fuck does any of that matter?” (and I know you will): It matters because how we see people who aren’t (and are) like us in media and pop culture helps shape our idea of people in general. For the longest time, queer people were generally presented in largely negative stereotypes. It took Ellen DeGeneres sacrificing her sitcom on the altar of Coming Out Publicly to help change the perception that gay people were normal people like everyone else (save for the difference of who they dated/slept with) and didn’t deserve to be treated as jokes and bad stereotypes.
American culture centers on whiteness far more often than not. And if you don’t think that’s true, ask yourself exactly how many people of color have won an Academy Award for Best Actor/Actress/Director or how many “Black movies” have won an Academy Award for Best Picture—then compare those numbers to the numbers attributable to white people/movies with largely white casts.
Two things.
“Urban” is often racially coded language for “majority Black”, so maybe cool it with that shit and use a different word for what you mean.
Ask poor people in Louisiana if they feel any richer after Hurricane Ida passed through. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
In a system that punishes you for failure by deepening your punishment based on that single failure, it’s damn near impossible to escape. And that’s poverty in America—because someone working two full-time jobs just to make ends meet can lose their jobs, their homes, and eventually their lives if the beat-up used car they’re driving breaks down somewhere and they can’t afford repairs. Poverty, like wealth, compounds exponentially.
How do you want to fix that problem, you privileged asshole? Because unless you’re a billionaire right now, you’ll never be a few good days away from living in Beverly Hills…but you’ll always be a few bad days away from living on the street.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
And you can believe that all you want. You’re absolutely wrong about that—systemic/institutional racism does exist independently from interpersonal racism—but you’re free to believe your absolute wrongness.
If you would please point to a single evidence-backed instance of any elementary, middle, or high school teaching Critical Race Theory—and I don’t mean “history” or “current events”; the evidence must confirm that the curriculum contains Critical Race Theory as it is taught in higher education—that would be wonderful. Until then: Critical Race Theory, as you (mis)understand it, is only taught in higher education.
Critical Race Theory teaches nothing of the sort. It doesn’t even try to lay the blame for systemic racism on white people; hell, people of color can uphold racist institutions without even meaning to do that. Look at every Black person who stood on the side of Donald Trump.
The criticism of “I don’t see color” boils down to extending the sentence in a way that affirms its underlying meaning: “I don’t see color, so I don’t see the experiences that people of color have to go through in a society dominated by and crafted to reflect whiteness.” A fucking pro wrestler gets that idea. Why can’t you?
On the post: The Challenge In Content Moderation And Politics: How Do You Deal With Bad Faith Actors?
NARRATOR: But he didn’t mean “eternal farewell”.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
[citation needed]
On the post: Nintendo Shuts Down Another 'Smash' Tournament Due To Mod Use, With No Piracy As A Concern
Don’t worry, tp knows all about that. 😁
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
For what, an imaginary lolsuit you filed in SovCit court?
Let’s see who’s paying you to spout their opinions first.
And? He’s right about TOS enforcement: hyper-specific rules will only lead to a cycle of rules lawyering and enacting even more hyper-specific rules. Keeping some rules vague, and purposefully enacting a “we can figuratively bop you on the head for basically any reason that isn’t prohibited by anti-discrimination law” clause, is the best way to guard against excessive rules lawyering.
Again: For what?
Once more with feeling: For what?
Name at least five cases within the past five years where this has happened and the cases weren’t eventually tossed out for lacking on the merits. I’ll wait.
Plaintiff argues that “the legal tides are changing” in regards to defamation cases against “Big Tech” in relation to moderation decisions. But Plaintiff offers no facts in their Complaint to support this proposition. The Complaint is summarily dismissed.
Okay, so…I guess I gotta be the one to ask: Why the actual godforsaken donkey-fucking hell do you care so much about Mike Masnick? Did he insult your father’s brother’s cousin’s nephew’s former roommate one time twenty years ago or some shit? You’re coming off as an obsessed troll in need of some serious treatment for mental health issues, and frankly, your schtick is less “ha ha, oh wow” and more “please get some help” now.
I know this is rich coming from me, but seriously: Log off the Internet and go touch grass for a few hours, then go get some professional help.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
How many of those have gotten past an initial motion to dismiss, if even that far?
On the post: The Challenge In Content Moderation And Politics: How Do You Deal With Bad Faith Actors?
The rationale for making some rules vague lies in two words: “rules lawyering”. Vague enough rules can help prevent this by providing a general rationale for moderation without giving the offending party a specific enough loophole through which they can jump and escape punishment unscathed—and without bogging down the rules in such specificity that people can find new loopholes.
On the post: The Challenge In Content Moderation And Politics: How Do You Deal With Bad Faith Actors?
The word “fuck” lacks the same level of offensiveness than the N-word, even when discussing the two in a context such as this. You seeming to genuinely believe they’re in the same “class” of offensiveness makes you sound like a delusional jackass.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
I’m not typically prone to ragging on people specifically for their spelling. That said: For someone who likes to act like they’re smarter and stronger and just plain better than everyone…
…I have to wonder if you wrote this post while having a mild stroke.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Evidence of what? A larger file for what purpose? I mean, do you think you’re gonna send him to jail or Hell or fuckin’ Siberia with your obsessive documenting of things he says?
You probably think you sound like a bona fide badass. You actually come off as a limp-dicked pissant.
On the post: A Guy Walks Into A Bra
Why must the industry play a zero-sum game by making more room only for people from one hyper-specific marginalized group (queer Black women) at the expense of people from a broader marginalized group (women in general)?
I’m not here to argue that queer Black women don’t deserve a spot in the industry. I’m here to argue that women who don’t fit that mold (e.g., queer white women, straight/cishet women of any race) can be equally as deserving of a spot. Locking them out because of a hyper-focused zero-sum version of diversity hiring says to do that is bullshit.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
are you on drugs
On the post: Where Texas' Social Media Law & Abortion Law Collide: Facebook Must Keep Up AND Take Down Info On Abortion
Someone saying queer people are abominations who don’t deserve a place in society isn’t a “difference of opinion”—it’s dehumanizing homophobia. Expressing that hatred in words could damn well inspire anti-queer violence. (If you think it can’t, you’re being willfully ignorant.) But under your logic, unless it crosses the line into illegal/unlawful speech or includes profanity or is part of commercial spam, that homophobic speech must be left up by any given platform—even a decidedly pro-queer platform!—because it isn’t “illegal speech”.
And all that leads me to once again ask you: What “conservative opinions” do you believe are being censored from social media, Koby? Be specific.
Next >>