Declaring that social media platforms are common carries while explicitly exempting the ISPs providing the internet service that gets you to those sites really gives the game away and makes clear that these laws have nothing to do with protecting the general public's interests and everything to do with sticking it to the platforms and preventing them from showing assholes the door.
To run with a physical hypothetical it would be like declaring that individual privately owned stores aren't allowed to have or enforce rules for customer behavior while at the same time the privately owned road that connects to all of them is allowed to have all the rules they want. Losing access to one of those is going to have a much bigger impact than the other and yet how they are treated is entirely backwards if the goal really is to preserve access.
Looks like the highway patrol investigation found the guilty party after all, bet he's rather regretting setting them on the trail only to have it point right back to his office.
Still, this does nicely explain why he was so dedicated in blaming the reporters, with the blame right on his own IT team he must have figured that even the slightest amount of digging would lay the blame at his feet and so he tried to pre-emtpively shift it to someone else.
At this point 'conservative 'free speech' platform ends up being just as bad if not worse than the platforms they condemn when it comes to moderation' is so regular and guaranteed you could ditch setting your time from an atomic clock and move to setting it to that instead.
Ah yes, I clearly recall the sub-clause of the first amendment that states that if you let others use your property to host their speech it strips you of your first amendment rights, how ever could anyone forget?
Copyright law is already messed up enough as it is, it really shouldn't be treated as a way to bypass the ability to comment anonymously via nothing more than an accusation of infringement, with all the burden on the accused.
Poor wording on my part, I'm not wanting or eagerly waiting for that to happen but know that it will(and it did, like clockwork as I noted below) and as expected it was just as stupid as ever. If the Trump cult went silent overnight I'd be perfectly thrilled to have the world that little bit less stupid as nothing of value was lost.
When the pitch for your platform, the starting point is essentially 'If you're too toxic for any of the other platforms to want around head on over to ours' it's hardly a wonder that the user base ends up reflecting that.
Whatever lawyers are giving him advice need to be fired, from a cannon, into the sun, because that's not how anything works. You don't get to turn something you don't own into an NFT and then act as though that's the equivalent of owning the copyright on it, and if this ends up in court I don't see that going well for him in the slightest, sympathetic story or not.
Given the general support on TD for the cow account mocking Nunes I strongly suspect that when it said that sites need to do that it was talking more about moderation in general rather than that specific type, as no moderation and you quickly have a useless cesspit of a site filled with spam and worse.
'Hah, we finally got rid of the dastardly 230, now we shall- what do you mean we're being sued for all the money and thrown off every platform we don't own?! That's not how it was supposed to work at all!'
Just when you think the police literally could not find a way to sink even lower and show how vile they can be they somehow manage it...
How utterly monstrous do you have to be to have someone report being raped and have your first thought be 'I should run their DNA though the criminal database to see if I can arrest them while they're here'?
Forget 'looking into it' and 'committing to ending the practice' the scum involved need to be very publicly raked over the coals and fired because anything less is just going to reinforce the idea that the police are never to be trusted and leave victims out in the cold as they will rightly suspect that reporting anything to the police, even something as horrible as a rape, will just be exploited by the police for their own gain.
I look forward to a stunning lack of self-awareness and/or honesty as excuses are made that the people being banned are facing that penalty because they broke the rules and they aren't being told because it's clearly obvious why they were shown the door.
Should be worth a good chuckle or two at the least.
Ah yes the most heinous of speech, far worse than obscenity or it's ilk, making fun of the platform owner with a parody account, it's removal is truly a demonstration of how dedicated Trump Social is to protecting free speech unlike the platforms they so decry and condemn.
In his statement to The Post, Ton-That said: “Our principles reflect the current uses of our technology. If those uses change, the principles will be updated, as needed.”
If your principles change based upon what gets you the most money at any given time then I can safely say that you never had any to begin with other than 'money above all else'.
Eh, I might be more impressed if his cons didn't rely almost entirely on people being so gorram stupid. It's one thing to trick people because you're smarter than them or managed to find some tricky way to do it, another to just bank on spite and stupidity to get someone that you are actively urinating on to believe you when you say that it's nothing but a refreshing bit of rain and anyone who says otherwise is part of a grand conspiracy to keep the rain from you.
'We thought one of our cars was stolen, accused one of our customers of stealing it and couldn't be bothered to correct that when we found out it was merely our system not working correctly' does not a valid excuse make, no.
I'd love it if a system like that was in play, the self-owns would be popping up like mad for some people.
'Last week you argued that law X shouldn't exist/apply to someone in your situation when it was used by someone else, as such you don't get to use law X as a defense so for your sake hope you've got a backup plan that doesn't depend on it.'
In that case you should have no problem listing one or more specific examples, something that seems to be remarkably sparse when a [Citation Needed] is applied to that claim.
(untitled comment)
Declaring that social media platforms are common carries while explicitly exempting the ISPs providing the internet service that gets you to those sites really gives the game away and makes clear that these laws have nothing to do with protecting the general public's interests and everything to do with sticking it to the platforms and preventing them from showing assholes the door.
To run with a physical hypothetical it would be like declaring that individual privately owned stores aren't allowed to have or enforce rules for customer behavior while at the same time the privately owned road that connects to all of them is allowed to have all the rules they want. Losing access to one of those is going to have a much bigger impact than the other and yet how they are treated is entirely backwards if the goal really is to preserve access.
Imagine that...
Looks like the highway patrol investigation found the guilty party after all, bet he's rather regretting setting them on the trail only to have it point right back to his office.
Still, this does nicely explain why he was so dedicated in blaming the reporters, with the blame right on his own IT team he must have figured that even the slightest amount of digging would lay the blame at his feet and so he tried to pre-emtpively shift it to someone else.
Another day ending in 'Y' Is it?
At this point 'conservative 'free speech' platform ends up being just as bad if not worse than the platforms they condemn when it comes to moderation' is so regular and guaranteed you could ditch setting your time from an atomic clock and move to setting it to that instead.
(untitled comment)
Ah yes, I clearly recall the sub-clause of the first amendment that states that if you let others use your property to host their speech it strips you of your first amendment rights, how ever could anyone forget?
Let's not make a bad law even worse shall we?
Copyright law is already messed up enough as it is, it really shouldn't be treated as a way to bypass the ability to comment anonymously via nothing more than an accusation of infringement, with all the burden on the accused.
Re: Re: Re:
Poor wording on my part, I'm not wanting or eagerly waiting for that to happen but know that it will(and it did, like clockwork as I noted below) and as expected it was just as stupid as ever. If the Trump cult went silent overnight I'd be perfectly thrilled to have the world that little bit less stupid as nothing of value was lost.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clearly
When the pitch for your platform, the starting point is essentially 'If you're too toxic for any of the other platforms to want around head on over to ours' it's hardly a wonder that the user base ends up reflecting that.
Not how any of that works
Whatever lawyers are giving him advice need to be fired, from a cannon, into the sun, because that's not how anything works. You don't get to turn something you don't own into an NFT and then act as though that's the equivalent of owning the copyright on it, and if this ends up in court I don't see that going well for him in the slightest, sympathetic story or not.
Re:
Given the general support on TD for the cow account mocking Nunes I strongly suspect that when it said that sites need to do that it was talking more about moderation in general rather than that specific type, as no moderation and you quickly have a useless cesspit of a site filled with spam and worse.
Re: Re:
'Hah, we finally got rid of the dastardly 230, now we shall- what do you mean we're being sued for all the money and thrown off every platform we don't own?! That's not how it was supposed to work at all!'
Somehow they keep finding new lows to reach
Just when you think the police literally could not find a way to sink even lower and show how vile they can be they somehow manage it...
How utterly monstrous do you have to be to have someone report being raped and have your first thought be 'I should run their DNA though the criminal database to see if I can arrest them while they're here'?
Forget 'looking into it' and 'committing to ending the practice' the scum involved need to be very publicly raked over the coals and fired because anything less is just going to reinforce the idea that the police are never to be trusted and leave victims out in the cold as they will rightly suspect that reporting anything to the police, even something as horrible as a rape, will just be exploited by the police for their own gain.
Like clockwork
Even when I explicitly pointed the trap out you still marched right into it, that is just priceless but thanks for the laugh.
Re:
I look forward to a stunning lack of self-awareness and/or honesty as excuses are made that the people being banned are facing that penalty because they broke the rules and they aren't being told because it's clearly obvious why they were shown the door.
Should be worth a good chuckle or two at the least.
'Rule 0: You are free to say anything that praises Dear Leader'
Ah yes the most heinous of speech, far worse than obscenity or it's ilk, making fun of the platform owner with a parody account, it's removal is truly a demonstration of how dedicated Trump Social is to protecting free speech unlike the platforms they so decry and condemn.
'Greed is good' is technically a principle I guess...
In his statement to The Post, Ton-That said: “Our principles reflect the current uses of our technology. If those uses change, the principles will be updated, as needed.”
If your principles change based upon what gets you the most money at any given time then I can safely say that you never had any to begin with other than 'money above all else'.
Re: Re: Ah gross hypocrisy, we meet again
Eh, I might be more impressed if his cons didn't rely almost entirely on people being so gorram stupid. It's one thing to trick people because you're smarter than them or managed to find some tricky way to do it, another to just bank on spite and stupidity to get someone that you are actively urinating on to believe you when you say that it's nothing but a refreshing bit of rain and anyone who says otherwise is part of a grand conspiracy to keep the rain from you.
Re:
'We thought one of our cars was stolen, accused one of our customers of stealing it and couldn't be bothered to correct that when we found out it was merely our system not working correctly' does not a valid excuse make, no.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm curios, who's being banned for their political opinions and what were those opinions exactly?
Re:
I'd love it if a system like that was in play, the self-owns would be popping up like mad for some people.
'Last week you argued that law X shouldn't exist/apply to someone in your situation when it was used by someone else, as such you don't get to use law X as a defense so for your sake hope you've got a backup plan that doesn't depend on it.'
Re:
In that case you should have no problem listing one or more specific examples, something that seems to be remarkably sparse when a [Citation Needed] is applied to that claim.
More comments from That One Guy >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by That One Guy.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt