Techdirt Podcast Episode 266: In Defense Of Section 230 & A Decentralized Internet
from the we're-back dept
The podcast went on pause over the holidays and amidst the deluge of… events — but now we’re back! And to kick things off, we’ve got a cross-post from Nick Gillespie’s Reason podcast. Mike recently joined Nick for an interview about Section 230 and why a decentralized internet is better than a heavily-restricted one, and you can listen to the whole thing on this week’s episode of the Techdirt Podcast.
Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.
Filed Under: content moderation, decentralization, internet, podcast, section 230
Comments on “Techdirt Podcast Episode 266: In Defense Of Section 230 & A Decentralized Internet”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You can tell a lot about a guy based on who they associate with. Mike heading over to Reason to be a guest on their podcast, hoo boy…
Reason is a pile of Koch-funded garbage. That’s the only way I can describe a site that has an article that gives their support to the anti-science horseshit-laden Great Barrington Declaration, also created by an organization funded by the Kochs. The site has numerous pro-corporate articles which treat Net Neutrality and any sort of reasonable regulation as if it’s government abusing its power. Its comments section is even worse and goes largely unmoderated, populated by alt-right Trumpers and spambots.
But then again, I guess much of Reason’s stances are in line with Mike "I have a Degree in Union Busti- I mean Labor Relations" Masnick.
Re: Re:
I’ll respond to a few things here.
a.k.a. the "guilty by association" logical fallacy.
People have other people with whom they don’t agree 100% on all the time. For instance, David Sirota (a speechwriter for Bernie Sanders and husband of Colorado state senator Emily Sirota) had the likes of Ken Buck (an archconservative US representaive from Colorado) over on his podcast. They talked about things they see eye-to-eye on. I don’t agree with Reason all the time (probably about half the time), but Mike’s move here seemed extremely logical.
Libertarian billionaires funding an openly libertarian web-site? drops monocle in champagne glass
Was Mike (or rather, Karl, since that’s his beat) invited over to their podcast to comment? If not, what’s your problem?
This site gets alt-right Trumpers and spambots as well. It’s more moderated, but at least you can see their comments. Also, why shouldn’t they moderate as they see fit?
I disagree with Mike on unions. That being said, you’re being extremely disingenuous if you think that him commenting on these issues on their podcast means that he agrees with them 100%, or even 95%.
If you can’t carry on a civil conversation with someone who disagrees with you, then you are part of the problem.
Granted, there are a lot of people who can’t carry on a civil conversation with you, and … it’s your responsibility to be part of the solution.
Re:
Yes, acting civil is the ideal. But unless I’m working a job in customer service, I’m not obliged to give anyone civility when they’re insulting my mother or calling me a f⸺t.
Much like Black people don’t need to dismantle White racism and gay people don’t need to dismantle homophobia, the one with the responsibility for fixing someone’s bullshit is not the target of said bullshit. That responsibility falls to the person saying, thinking, or doing that bullshit.
com e on now! untilpoliticians stop doing what they’re told by big business and start doing what is right for everyone, including getting some grey matter themselves, no amount of articles and speeches about the rights of and good of Section 230 is ever going to do any good! if those who keep wanting to remove it actually understand it, there cant be any excuse except they are working for industry and/or lining their own pockets. if they dont understand it, what the fuck are they so upset about anyway?