Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine

from the discredited-nonsense-cited dept

About a month ago, the governor of Florida signed a showboating bill into law — one that made it illegal to deplatform people running for office. Well, mostly. It exempted “theme park-associated” websites from the bill to appease the state’s Disney overlords, but subjected every other site accessible in Florida to First Amendment violations in the form of compelled speech.

The absurdly unconstitutional bill was immediately challenged. NetChoice and CCIA beat everyone else to the courthouse, suing the state to block the law from being enforced. The plaintiffs pointed out the obvious flaws in the bill, as well as its hypocritical exemption of Disney sites from enforcement. It also pointed out this new law was nothing more than performance art that used both the First Amendment and Section 230 as expendable foot soldiers in Governor Ron DeSantis’ war on imagined anti-conservative bias. The following is from NetChoice/CCIA’s request for an injunction:

Rather than preventing what it calls “censorship,” the Act does the exact opposite: it empowers government officials in Florida to police the protected editorial judgment of online businesses that the State disfavors and whose perceived political viewpoints it wishes to punish. This is evident from Governor Ron DeSantis’ own press release that touts the Act as a means to “tak[e] back the virtual public square” from “the leftist media and big corporations,” who supposedly “discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology.” The Governor’s press release also leaves no doubt about the Legislature’s unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination: quoting a state legislator, it proclaims that “our freedom of speech as conservatives is under attack by the ‘big tech’ oligarchs in Silicon Valley. But in Florida, [this] … will not be tolerated.”

The state has filed its response [PDF] to CCIA/NetChoice’s challenge of the law’s constitutionality. And it’s just as dumb and wrongheaded as the law that made the state’s courtroom presence necessary.

It starts out awful and only gets worse from there.

After years of unprecedented growth by social media platforms, Florida enacted a first-of-its-kind consumer protection law, Senate Bill 7072 (the “Act”), which takes aim at unfair and deceptive business practices by these platforms. The public record is replete with instances of their arbitrary and bad faith content moderation, only some of which are documented in the appendix to this brief. Moreover, the social media behemoths’ power to silence both on their platforms and throughout society has given rise to a troubling trend where a handful of corporations control a critical chokepoint for the expression of ideas. Such unprecedented power of censorship is especially concerning today, when most individuals use social media to obtain their news and government officials harness such mediums to reach the public. The Act seeks to rein in abuse of this power and ensure the widespread dissemination of information from a multiplicity of sources—a governmental objective of the highest order that promotes values central to the First Amendment.

So, it’s a “consumer protection law” that only protects people running for office from “tech giants” and only if those “tech giants” aren’t Disney or Universal or anyone else who might own a theme park in Florida. That sets the stage for the immense amount of stupidity readers (and the court) will be subjected to.

The immense amount of stupidity arrives in the very next sentence.

In seeking the extraordinary remedy of a pre-enforcement preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant them a First Amendment right to disable Florida from even starting the work of preserving the First Amendment rights of its citizens through this law.

Forcing websites to carry users’ content is the exact opposite of “preserving First Amendment rights.” Sites refusing to carry certain users’ content is exactly the First Amendment. When a private company says take your content elsewhere, no one’s First Amendment rights are violated.

Dumb, meet dumber.

The law merely prevents online platforms from using their vast powers to distort and suppress the messages of those speakers, leaving platforms free to speak with their own voices and largely free to adopt terms of service as they wish, requiring only that they enforce those terms consistently.

It takes an amazing amount of cognitive dissonance to say that forcing platforms to carry content leaves them “free to speak with their own voices.” If a platform says “this content sucks and we won’t be its conduit” and the government says “you must carry this content you feel sucks,” the platform is forced to speak in the government’s voice, rather than its own.

And as for “enforce terms consistently,” there’s a Pandora’s box of subjective interpretation no one should willingly want to open. Case in point, Governor DeSantis’ best buddy — former president Donald Trump — routinely violated the Twitter Rules but Twitter left his tweets up because he was the nominal leader of the free world and his tweets were considered newsworthy and of public interest. Had Twitter enforced its terms of use consistently, Trump would have been perma-banned long before he actually was.

Dumber and dumber and dumber:

Indeed, given the massive power that social media companies wield over the speech of their users, Florida’s efforts to prevent them from suppressing the speech of Florida’s citizens is little different from traditional common carrier regulation long thought to be constitutionally permissible.

Oh, this bullshit argument again. Trying to equate Facebook with AT&T is a non-starter. Common carriers do not prevent users from saying whatever they want. But neither do they provide platforms for speech that can reach any other user who uses the same service. Common carriers do not moderate content because they are not in the user-generated content business. They are the streets, to use an overused analogy. They are not the billboards alongside the road.

Just brain embolism-triggering levels of stupidity.

Nor is the Act preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; Plaintiffs grossly overread that provision as establishing a law-free zone over the entire Internet, even where the regulation in question would promote rather than restrict free expression.

What the fuck is this word salad. Section 230 simply allows companies to make moderation decisions without worrying about being sued for content created by users, whether the content stays up or is taken down. The immunity was added to the Communications Decency Act to encourage active moderation of user-generated content. And, once again, the “regulation in question” does nothing to “promote free expression.” What it actually does is allow the Florida government to determine what content platforms must carry.

That’s just the first two pages of the 61-page response. But it’s enough to show how badly the state is misunderstanding both the First Amendment and Section 230. And the rest of the response shows how deliberately the state is misunderstanding both of these issues.

Here’s just one example of the disingenuousness of the state’s arguments, pulled from First Amendment lawyer Ari Cohn’s two detailed Twitter threads about the state’s response. Here’s the state’s statement in its response:

To be sure, some courts have read Section 230(c)(1) to confer immunity whenever an interactive computer service exercises any of a publisher’s “traditional editorial functions — such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content.

Here’s Cohn’s acidic response to the state’s attempt to portray the issue as unsettled:

To be sure, saying “some courts” is a clever way to try to minimize “damn near all of them.” But that’s not going to fool the court. At the end of the day, 230(c)(1) applies to the editorial discretion to post or remove content.

And if you can’t find enough to work with in Cohn’s twin threads (one for the First Amendment and one for Section 230), click on over to Eric Goldman’s website where he breaks down thirty-one bogus assertions by Florida’s government and provides counterpoints and counterarguments for every single one of them.

This is bad legislating compounded by bad lawyering. But, to be fair to the lawyers, they’re being paid to advance the state’s agenda, even when the state is so clearly in the wrong that only those dying of Kool Aid-enabled cyanide poisoning think these arguments have merit. Compounding the wrongness of the law is the state legislators’ decision to create a carve out for companies they wish to appease, which clearly indicates this isn’t about equal protection for political hopefuls but rather a way for DeSantis and his buddies to punish tech companies for their perceived bias.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: ccia, netchoice

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
288 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
wshuff (profile) says:

I think the last paragraph highlights something that can sometimes be overlooked — the attorneys drafting this response aren’t necessarily die-hard advocates for the positions they’re asserting. They’re paid government functionaries paid to represent the state, which may have positions completely at odds with what the attorneys believe as private individuals. Sometimes I’d like to think the ludicrous arguments raised in these pleadings are the author’s underground rebellion – if you’re being paid to advocate for something stupid, might as well go all in and make it too dumb for any court to go with.

MathFox says:

Re:

One thing you should also consider is that the lawyers have to work with the facts and the laws that apply to the case. If the case is weak the best they can do is to conjure an argument from almost nothing. When the arguments sound far-fetched and ludicrous, that’s likely because there are no better arguments.

My summary is that a "consumer protection law" that protects (wannabe) politicians more than ordinary consumers should be called "politician protection law". I will not comment on the Mickey Mouse carve-out; enough has already been said about that.
Yes, it is hard to defend this law.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I think the last paragraph highlights something that can sometimes be overlooked — the attorneys drafting this response aren’t necessarily die-hard advocates for the positions they’re asserting

Perhaps, but observe that the paper is signed by the chief deputy AG, who presumably has read it and has likely shown it to the AG, who is a defendant. I am guessing that a chief deputy is chosen for political alignment, and probably gets sacked if he steps far out of line.

The Florida AG is generally considered strongly supportive of the entire mess. In fact, a stunningly large portion of Florida govt is thus aligned. In a one-party state, you tend to find officials with toes firmly planted on the line.

An hundred miles south of Florida, the one-party state substitutes Castro'' forTrump” but the results appear similar.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Public Interest - Cry Me a River

"When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control" ~Munn v. Illinios

Hard to argue that social media is not in the public interest. As such the State of Florida has every right under Munn to regulate it for the common good.

Cry me a river!

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Social media services are not public fora; if you need a citation for that, look no further than a Supreme Court ruling from 2019 where Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion:

Under the Court’s cases, a private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises “powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” … It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function.

The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. … Under the Court’s cases, those functions include, for example, running elections and operating a company town. … The Court has ruled that a variety of functions do not fall into that category, including, for example: running sports associations and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating nursing homes, providing special education, representing indigent criminal defendants, resolving private disputes, and supplying electricity.

When the government provides a forum for speech (known as a public forum), the government may be constrained by the First Amendment, meaning that the government ordinarily may not exclude speech or speakers from the forum on the basis of viewpoint, or sometimes even on the basis of content[.]

By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine[.]

The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it “is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment[”.]

In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.

If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” … Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as “a stagecoach, with seats for everyone.” … That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be “to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country.” … The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property.

A private entity … who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’d suggest wishing that those arguing against 230 and claiming that their first amendment rights are being violated by non-government actors had to actually read the gorram laws in question but I’m not sure even a magic wish granting dragon could pull that one off, and I don’t imagine it would change much for the majority of the whiners anyway.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

Forcing websites to carry users’ content is the exact opposite of "preserving First Amendment rights."

There is no first amendment defense against fraud or deception. Additionally, numerous laws requiring manufacturers to publish certain information that the manufacturers didn’t want to put on their products have been upheld as legitimate. Forcing big tech to live up to their own terms of service is more of a contract dispute, and not a first amendment issue.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

The first amendment does not guarantee you access to other people’s property so you can access to the largest available audience. If you want access to a platform, obey the terms of service you agreed to when you signed up. It’s not hard, millions of us have done so since these platforms were in their infancy without issue.

‘Conservative beliefs’ are not a ‘get out of consequences free’ card. You guys love telling others ‘If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime’, well, maybe you should think about that next time you post things you know violate rules you chose to accept.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

Already been happening since ages, and much worse since the previous 4 years.

Underfunding and removing power from the system, as well as installing those who would subvert the actual main mission of protection agencies works really well. Stuff doesn’t need to be directly in the consumer product, either.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

Are you likening conservative beliefs to something known to be harmful for a long, long time which escaped proper scrutiny thanks to bribery, corruption and poor education, something that has a severe negative impact on the lives of those who actually partake, as well as everyone unfortunate to be around them while they do it?

Huh, guess you’re nit quite as clueless as you seem.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

Koby, silly Koby,

Forcing big tech to live up to their own terms of service is more of a contract dispute, and not a first amendment issue.

Most social media sites have ToS that allow them to kick or ban for any reason (or no reason), or something online those lines. And even if they did not: they all also have sections that say they can update it unilateraterally, when ever and how ever they want. Which is really fine, it’s their own property. People can say things else where.

HINT: I don’t have any social media accounts, and yet somehow I am here calling you out and your demonized Facebook and Twitter can’t stop me (though I guess in this narrow case Mike could… but even if he did, I can still talk to people. And if I felt like a madman I could scream in the streets "Koby’s Wrong!". However I think I’ll refrain from doing that. Too much work. And that’s fine.).

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

I love how he thinks there’s a legal contract that is immutable, doesn’t carry the language that says sites can change things to meet evolving needs, and that he gave something up that gives him power in this "contract".

Also the fact that his imaginary "breach" of the "contract" is pure bullshit. If that has remotely any weight, then i sue about half the country for breaching the social contract of civil society in their lying, manipulative power-grabbing.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

There’s usually monetary compensation for such. How much are the users’ owed in you mind?

Compensation can also be asked for in terms of something called "specific performance". When available, and in this case it probably is, I think specific performance is a fine solution that need not involve money changing hands.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

There is a difference between ensuring that information to allow for an informed choice is made available on, or in association with products and services and forcing the carrying of political or religious speech where it is not welcome. Political parties have their own websites, and some social media where they can make their views and policies known. To demand access to all sites is to demand the right to forceable convert other people to your politics, and that is a horse of a very different colour.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’

The first amendment isn’t like the christian bibble, thousands upon thousands of pages of contradictory texts that you can use super selectively to justify just about anything, it’s short and to the point. There is nothing there about forcing private companies to host hate speech just because it’s coming from conservatives, bucko.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

Tell me, have you ever actually read the Bible in depth or are you just going on hearsay or what little you might know because it’s easier than doing any actual research on the subject? It’s not contradictory, it only seems that way because many people who try to read it either don’t have a solid understanding of the culture in which it was written, are seeing it from a modern perspective instead of the one for which it was originally intended, don’t have any familiarity with the original languages in which it was written, or don’t understand God and how he works and only think they do.

Take David’s census, for example, which is often pointed out as one such "contradiction". It’s talked about in two different books in the Bible, and on the surface, the differences may make it seem like it doesn’t add up. But what’s important to note is that both God and the devil wanted him to do the census, only for different reasons, and that one account was written before the Jews were exiled as a historical account while the other was written afterward as an encouragement and a reminder of where they came from and where they would one day return. Both accounts are true and make up the entire story, they’re just seen from different perspectives. And as for Jesus having two different lineages listed, another common "contradiction" often trotted out, it has a very simple explanation. One is Joseph’s ancestry, and one is Mary’s. But both are listed under Joseph because that was the practice of the day and of that culture.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30

“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18

“…thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25

“…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” — Matthew 5:39

And so on. It’s not just the supposed lineages and historical events that contradict oneanorher, it’s the basic messaging over and over and over and over in the magic book.

I was brought up religious, for a large chunk of my life. I took bible study classes, attended church, Sunday school, went to a church school… I know the bible well, I know Christianity all too well, and I know at the end of it all, the only thing faith will get you is an insincere priest at your funeral.l at your relatives expense.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

It’s not contradictory, it only seems that way because many people who try to read it either don’t have a solid understanding of the culture in which it was written, are seeing it from a modern perspective instead of the one for which it was originally intended, don’t have any familiarity with the original languages in which it was written, or don’t understand God and how he works and only think they do.

I have a solid understanding. The authors were simple-minded goat herders who didn’t know where the sun came from. To view the bible in eyes other than those is exactly the problem. And to base what to do or not do, is a more ignorant position.

Debating the details is useless. If there is a god, it seems to have had PMS in the old testament, killing those he supposedly loves with impunity. And the new testament jesus is a simply a socialist libtard (as he would be referred to today by the ‘evangelical’ hypocrites who follow both him & trump.

But you be you. It’s your time to piss away trying to make a dollar out of 90 cents.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

No, it literally starts out with two mutually contradictory versions of the creation of the world.

It doesn’t matter that "it made sense at the time" (at different times) for political reasons, to write, edit, and compile what we have now. (And there is not even mutual agreement on what we have now.)

It is what it is, but the overall point was the people cherry-pick it to death to suit whatever it is they want to claim, with the "authority" of the book to "back them up", while there is nearly always multiple (sometimes mutual) opposing passages to back up something else entirely.

We’ve watched history. You can argue what you personally think the original intent or "facts" were forever, but changes nothing.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

"It’s not contradictory, it only seems that way because many people who try to read it either don’t have a solid understanding of the culture in which it was written"

Cultures, plural. What is today known as the modern Bible is in reality a severely truncated version of a hack job from the 15th century when the papacy, in it’s most secularly politicized stage, decided to formalize scripture and manufactured the current book out of every ancient scrap of parchment or vellum they could lay their hands on.

So the old testament is cobbled together by scriptures and fairytales gathered from all over the middle east, from half a dozen old cultures. The most credible bit of it (relevant to the abrahamic deity, at least) is just what was copied right out of the Torah.

And the new testament was similarly constructed with the pope and cardinals hanging over the texts from the apostles with a carpet cutter and a pot of glue, lifting only the passages they felt worthy of preservation.

At the point in time the modern bible was built the pope doing the censoring still had a dedicated brothel, lived like an emperor and didn’t much look like a divinely inspired prophet in any respect.

It’s a matter of infinite irony that "Christians" all assign holy status to the bad PR job of corrupt priests in the middle ages.

"…or don’t understand God and how he works and only think they do."

Bereft of all common logic? Anyone who calls for genocide in one turn and for "loving thine enemies" in the next is nuttier than the Joker – and less charming at that.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

Forcing big tech to live up to their own terms of service is more of a contract dispute, and not a first amendment issue.

Hey Kobes, when this case is tossed out on 1st Amendment grounds, will you admit you were wrong?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

They’ll be MARXIST, LENINIST LEFT WING ACTIVIST JUDGES.. Chosen by Conservative pressure groups and appointed by known liberals George Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

…or brainwashed by the Jewish Space Lasers deployed by the Satanist Cabal of Liberal Child-eating Sex Traffickers Headquartered in Hillary’s Pizza Parlor and Helmed by The Kenyan Muslim.

This is a bit of a problem for the GQP these days; Anyone with the required skillset to hold a position they’d like assigned is going to at least be sane enough to have learned those skills in the first place.

Take one good, long look at Marjorie Taylor-Greene. THAT is what happens when you get Broken Logic in office.
Anyone sane enough to operate as a judge isn’t going to send out a ruling which will have every legal body in the US hanging them in effigy.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Melvin Chudwaters says:

Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

If it was thrown out, what if that were the wrong ruling? Generally, the Constitution is an inspired document and the Bill of Rights in particular is exceptional. But is it perfect?

I don’t think anyone in the late 1700s could foresee a future where if people can’t speak online (on a dwindling handful of large websites), effectively they are silenced. Perhaps if they did, they might have modified their ideas on what censorship is.

Much of the ridicule here stems from the fact that you don’t like the people who are being booted from these platforms. And they certainly are obnoxious twats. This same mechanism can be used against you though, even if it’s not currently the case. Inevitably it will.

Whether this means that the first amendment itself should be modified (dangerous), or reinterpreted (also dangerous) I cannot say. I only suggest that liberty should be expanded, rather than restricted with a "nyah nyah nyah soullless corporations can do what they want with their own gigantic internet monopolies".

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I don’t think anyone in the late 1700s could foresee a future where if people can’t speak online (on a dwindling handful of large websites), effectively they are silenced.

You’re not being silenced; you’re being denied the use of large platforms. If you want to speak online and you can’t do it on Facebook or Twitter, there are still plenty of places to do it. That none of them give you the reach of Facebook or Twitter is irrelevant to the fact that they exist. You’re not entitled to “free reach”, you’re not entitled to make the government give it to you, and you’re not going to get any sympathy from me if the only options you think you have left all suffer from the “Worst People” Problem.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

I don’t think anyone in the late 1700s could foresee a future where if people can’t speak online (on a dwindling handful of large websites), effectively they are silenced. Perhaps if they did, they might have modified their ideas on what censorship is.

Then go advocate for a fucking new amendment. In the meantime, this one violates the 1st Amendment (and also the Equal Protection Clause).

Much of the ridicule here stems from the fact that you don’t like the people who are being booted from these platforms.

Nope, that’s not it at all. Which you’d know if you actually read what I wrote. I have had friends and people I agree with dinged from platforms. Techdirt itself has faced moderation. We may complain about it, but we recognize those sites’ rights to make those decisions, even if we disagree with them.

This same mechanism can be used against you though, even if it’s not currently the case. Inevitably it will.

Already has happened. We didn’t go running to demand a bogus law to force companies to do business with us. We just went elsewhere.

I only suggest that liberty should be expanded, rather than restricted

Florida’s bill MASSIVELY restricts liberty.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

I don’t think anyone in the late 1700s could foresee a future where if people can’t speak online (on a dwindling handful of large websites), effectively they are silenced.

Its more a case that they knew very few people could get their words published, or afford a press to print their own pamphlets. For most people, speech reached as far as their circle of friends and acquaintances that they met in bars etc. Ideas spread over a wider area mainly by being carried by travellers.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

"I don’t think anyone in the late 1700s could foresee a future where if people can’t speak online (on a dwindling handful of large websites), effectively they are silenced."

No, in the 17th century it was simply understood that although you could have your "speaker’s corner" in the public park, no one was owed access to the printing press.

"This same mechanism can be used against you though, even if it’s not currently the case. Inevitably it will."

And that is OK. Every sane person realizes that if the coolest bar in town doesn’t welcome them that’s a decision only the bar owner can make.

Every argument you try to make, Baghdad Bob, boils down to the idea that the owner of private property shouldn’t be allowed to choose who they allow entry and who they evict.

"I only suggest that liberty should be expanded"

By abolishing it or rendering the concept of property null and void. You aren’t arguing for liberty. You’re arguing that a set of obnoxious morons should be allowed entry into a place owned by me, against my will, because the law would compel me to host them.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

Well, Koby, you finally nailed it:

… more of a contract dispute…

Tell me, sir, where is the contract in dispute?? If I "sign up" and swear to obey a TOU and other agreements, there’s going to have to be something in it for me, or the contract can be nullified, easily. Oh yeah, I "get to" use the product or service, within the boundaries so laid out.

So what do you suppose should happen when I start pissing in someone’s Cheerios, eh? That’s right, I’ve broken the contract, and importantly, I was the first to do so. That triggers the other side to enact whatever penalties were included in the contract. For our purposes here, that means ejection from the service.

Notice that no fraud was involved, by either side. The dispute was about adherence to a mutually agreed-upon contract, and nothing else. If anything, there was deception on the part of contract breaker, by whipping it out and ruining the stock in trade for everyone, not just the service provider. In fact, the provider signed a contract with everyone else to provide an homogenous community that would be conducive to peaceful discourse. By NOT taking out the offender, the provider would be guilty of misfeasance towards everyone else.

Simple as that, pal.

By the way, your elementary Reading and Comprehension teacher called, she wants your certificate of completion back. For very obvious reasons.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

The problem is that people like Koby refuse to employ any of that ‘personal responsibility’ stuff and admit that they might be in the wrong and that a platform might have a very valid reason to moderation their posts/kick them out, and since the problem can’t be them then someone else must be to blame instead, hence blaming the platform for punishing them for absolutely no valid reason.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

That’s right, I’ve broken the contract, and importantly, I was the first to do so. That triggers the other side to enact whatever penalties were included in the contract.

States involve themselves in contracts all the time. I believe we’ve talked about many of them on this site, such as California’s non-compete employment contracts being null, thereby leading to the tech boom in CA over the past 20+ years.

Contract terms where one side can cancel at any time and for any excuse can reasonably be determined as unconscionable and unenforceable, especially if bias in enforcement can be proven. Just as some states cannot fire employees without cause, I think it would be wise for states to disallow a service cancellation without cause. Cancelling for any reason is a fig leaf for deceptive practices such as shadow banning or political censorship.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

Contracts require that each side is giving up something of value. Social media gives you access to their property. That is the ‘consideration’ they bring. Analogous Physical situations (museums, theme parks) explicitly understand that access can be revoked on the discretion of the property owner or their representative. The best compensation you could get is your consideration back. Normally that is money.

You don’t pay facebook money. But at best the ‘consideration’ you provide is your content. Banning you involves stripping that content out of their site. If fact, that is the goal.

This gets right back to the point you were responding to. Either you aren’t providing consideration, and therefore you can’t rely on a contract, or your consideration, your thing of value, is your content. And if that consideration in the opinion of the property holder does not have value, or has negative value, they have a right to remove you to protect the value of the property. This is well adjudicated in the courts.

This is why free speech has long been the point of argument. You need a wedge to drive through long standing judicially recognized property rights and force new contract terms into the contract. Conservatives have been convinced free speech is that wedge as it was in the past for bigotted speech on TV, radio, and print. That you aren’t even that far into the logic tells me how surface level your understanding of everything is.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

Koby,

You are obviously capable of rational , but you so often conflate ideas that simply don’t go together, and that’s what gets you into trouble here.

For example, we never mentioned ‘state’ in this context, so I have to assume you are implying Congress, yes? Well, the problem there is, no, states (and Congress) don’t address contractual issues until the courts have seen a pretty good-sized number of contractual disputes, most often played out to the harm of the lay citizenry, and said citizens start demanding of their representatives that "something be done". Only then do we get contract laws that try to re-balance the system.

But your main sticking point is that you wish for states to disallow a "service cancellation without cause". Normally, in most other contexts, I’d say that’s a valid and useful statement – services being those we recognize as utilities. And the rub is, utilities are semi-guaranteed to a user. Fail to meet just one condition, that of timely payment, and you’re gone. (With lots of fallback protections, to be sure.) Make your payments, and you’re golden – no "off with your head" without cause.

But what we call a social media site can in no wise be shown to have the same status as a utility – it is simply not a requirement for life to be lived, ala water, energy, etc. Thus it follows that regulation by government fiat is out of the question. Using a platform on the internet is an entertainment thing, and only an entertainment thing. If it were removed from society this minute, no one would die; no one would suddenly fall ill, or suffer a broken bone, nothing of the sort. We can live without it, period. (See All Of History Prior To The Third Millenium for examples.)

And all of that is before we even get to governments and laws and such. For that, I’ll refer to James’ response above , he covers it quite nicely. You’d do well to pay attention…. who knows, there might be a pop quiz in the near future.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

In re-reading your post, something else caught my eye;

Cancelling for any reason is a fig leaf for deceptive practices such as shadow banning or political censorship.

Holy Jeebus, man, what will it take to wake you up??? If you come into my home on the pretext of wanting a polite conversation, and you then proceed to drop trou and deposit smelly turds on my living room rug, you can be damned sure that my response is going to be to frog-march you right back out the door. And I’d expect that you’d respond in the same way, were I to pull that stunt on you.

How is this response any different that what social media sites do when they find someone (figuratively) shitting on their floors?? They are private, just like you and I, there’s no difference whatsoever. Well, except that they have a helluva lot more private people come trooping through their front door, but other than that….

Bottom line – do you really want the government to allow me to come into your home and start hanging banners proclaiming that you are a child trafficing neo-Nazi? Or in other words, be damned careful what you ask for…. you just might get it!

Deceptive practices, my ass!

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

"Holy Jeebus, man, what will it take to wake you up???"

It became crystal clear long ago that "Koby" is only here to be the "rational" voice of whatever alt-right echo chamber his friends and peers like to patronize. He knows damn well that what he keeps saying is bullshit and is only repeating it time and time again in the hope that eventually, at some point, people will be tired of contradicting him so his statements can become normalized.

People like Koby is the reason savvy bar owners evict patrons on the very first hint that said patron is a nazi. Because if they don’t, that patron brings his friends and then that bar becomes a nazi bar.

They operate the same way on social platforms. TD doesn’t practice moderation much from the admin side and so the persistent shitwits of the alt-right – Koby, Shel10, Melvin Chudwater, Restless94110 and Baghdad Bob (by whatever nick) hang out here since it’s one of the very few places they can still access without having their accounts banhammered.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

States involve themselves in contracts all the time. I believe we’ve talked about many of them on this site, such as California’s non-compete employment contracts being null, thereby leading to the tech boom in CA over the past 20+ years.

And employee – employer contracts have zero to do with a site TOS. I’ve seen this argument cropping up from alt-right idiots who think it’s some kind of gotcha, but it’s just illustrates their inability to understand how the world actually works.

Contract terms where one side can cancel at any time and for any excuse can reasonably be determined as unconscionable and unenforceable, especially if bias in enforcement can be proven.

And a TOS can be canceled by any party for any reason, like a user closing down an account. Your argument also means that a site could possibly stop a user from canceling their "contract" because the person has biased reasons.

Also, bias? Grow the fuck up Koby, you are a man-child.

Just as some states cannot fire employees without cause, I think it would be wise for states to disallow a service cancellation without cause. Cancelling for any reason is a fig leaf for deceptive practices such as shadow banning or political censorship.

Yeah Koby, give us real examples of these "deceptive practices", where people have been banned for no apparent reason.

Once again Koby, put up or shut up! Or perhaps you are just another lying asshole who make shit up because factual reality doesn’t agree.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

"So what do you suppose should happen when I start pissing in someone’s Cheerios, eh?"

Koby’s arguments so far all imply that the owner of those cheerios should then be forced to eat them. With a big grin on their face and while thanking the glorious state for guaranteeing a similar meal for everyone.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

Forcing big tech to live up to their own terms of service is more of a contract dispute, and not a first amendment issue.

One of you butthurt whiners should take them to court. You know what I’m talking about – action versus just bitching and complaining. No one likes do-nothings who don’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and instead cry about their lot in life. Over social fucking media. Like a bunch of 12-year olds who got their phones taken away.

I would think if someone sued, then at least we can find out for realsies what kind of asshole comments are really getting you banned. Curious why no one would do that. I mean, it’s a slam dunk, no? You’ve obviously done the research. Maybe you should tell them.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

But Facebook, Google, Etc. can clearly libel people in their take downs and those who suffer this normally legally actionable tort have no legal recourse because Big Tech hides behind section 230.

If you take down a video of one of the worlds most respected epidemiologists calling it misinformation because he doesn’t agree that lockdowns are effective that claim of "misinformation" is libel. Section 230 should not immunize them from attacking a professionals professional reputation.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

230 doesn’t protect platforms from lawsuits over their own speech. But given the high bar to clear for defamation, that epidemiologist will have one hell of a time suing YouTube over a takedown of a video they could easily repost on any other site willing to host it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

"Then prove it in court. Don’t say ‘nah nah nah section 230 you cant sue me’"

As a matter of fact, he doesn’t have to. The way law operates – in the US at least – is that it’s the plaintiff who has to prove it’s libel.

The fact that under 230 any number of courts have agreed with him tells us more than your assertion that he’s wrong because the law apparently operates backwards.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

But Facebook, Google, Etc. can clearly libel people in their take downs and those who suffer this normally legally actionable tort have no legal recourse because Big Tech hides behind section 230.

If the statement comes from FB/Google etc, then it is not protected by 230, and they are absolutely liable for it if it’s libel.

If you take down a video of one of the worlds most respected epidemiologists calling it misinformation because he doesn’t agree that lockdowns are effective that claim of "misinformation" is libel.

That’s not how libel works. Calling something misinformation is not a statement of fact. It’s easily protected opinion.

Section 230 should not immunize them from attacking a professionals professional reputation.

Again, if the statement is made by the platform itself, 230 isn’t an issue. 230 only protects platforms for statements made by others.

Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? It does not appear so. And, indeed, just as I predicted, this law has now been thrown out on 1st Amendment grounds, with the judge noting that on basically even the lower levels of scrutiny, it fails the 1st Amendment test. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210630/17110247100/as-expected-judge-grants-injunction-blocking-floridas-unconstitutional-social-media-law.shtml

I await your admission that you were totally full of shit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

"I await your admission that you were totally full of shit."

I never expected the initial court to rule in Florida’s favor. The plaintiffs filed that suit at exactly the right time in exactly the right district knowing with near certainty which judge they would draw.

With as precise as judge shopping has become in the 21st century the district court ruling is basically meaningless.

You can pat yourself on the back but this is far from over.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

I never expected the initial court to rule in Florida’s favor.

Lol. Yeah, sure. Look at those goalposts moving. You insisted that the law was constitutional.

The plaintiffs filed that suit at exactly the right time in exactly the right district knowing with near certainty which judge they would draw.

They did no such thing. They filed days after the law was signed, because they needed to get an injunction before it went into effect. There was no judge shopping. They had a random draw of any of the judges in the northern district of Florida.

You can pat yourself on the back but this is far from over.

There is no way the 11th Circuit is going to overturn.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

I want you to step back a moment and hear me out for a moment.
Just a moment. For one reason only; fuck the Republican Party!

Got your attention? Good

This is how the system is suppose to work. Congress makes laws. The executive passes them. Courts hear challenges.
[hush quite, no talking]

This set of actions in Florida is a good thing.
The ruling will drive the law to the state appeals, where history say it is likely to be overturned. Majority will say association is not protected.
[I said hush]

This will move on to the federal level where the appeal will be reversed based on federal precedent.

If Florida pushes we could, finally, have a SCOTUS ruling on this.

There are three issues here.
1) is it constitutional to force equal access, and thus forced “association”
2) does equal access law violate free speech.
3) does creating a law that is more restrictive that crosses federal boundaries remain legal under the rights of the State.
[please, just shut up for a moment, I’m on your side]

Bitch all you want till you’re blue about the SC, they’ve proven to be less than partisan.
There’s no doubt this will be struck down.
But without this going all the way the situation will remain contested.

Once that happens we can move on to more important things. Like what are the wining lottery numbers, where’s the damn remote, and why are the car keys in the fridge… again?!!!!?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Platforms Can't Claim the 1st

Because the law was passed because a vocal vocal minority think that they can use social media to directly attack those whose life styles or race that dislike, and who have no respect for the constitution or other people, even a supreme court ruling will stop them looking for a way to regulate themselves onto the major platforms. A supreme court ruling will not solve the deep problem that there is a group of people who are determined to dominate society, and they have found some politicians who will support them in that objective.

As an outsider looking in on US politics, I can see you have deep social problems, and the republican party has turned towards politics that will make them worse.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Oh the site stopped "moderating" my posts for now.

Repealing Section 230 would be a better way to ensure free speech.

Conservatives are definitely censored, as are some liberals, like feminists who aren’t on board the pronoun train, or lesbian victims of domestic violence, or anyone who doesn’t fit the liberal narrative.

That they let stupid conservatives function as controlled opposition doesn’t mean they aren’t censoring the smart ones. The public can decide for itself which speech to follow just fine, and in fact needs a censorship-free environment to know that nothing is being shielded. No one can be "forced to read it" either since filters do work, but are limited to working just for the person using them, not for silencing others.

This is a good law. Liberals have become speech fascists.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

AOL not removing a post made in the middle of the night isn’t the same thing as Google forever archiving every lie some autistic incel on 4chan tells about someone they’re stalking. "Defamatory stalking" should become its own tort or crime.

Distributor liability is a notice-and-takedown scheme which eliminates all risk for the ISP. Individual reputations deserve protection; there is no outcome that should be permitted where someone’s life is destroyed by a liar with an axe to grind or who is trying to silence someone.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Baron von Robber says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

AOL, although an ISP, was not what they were sued for. It’s was their forums.
This would be akin to suing road makers for allowing bank robbers use their roads.

I know a particular habitual liar on Twitter that got preferential treatment and they were a conservative. So it seems Twitter favors conservatives.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"Defamatory stalking" should become its own tort or crime.

… you mean bog-standard "Defamation"? Already exists. "Stalking"? Already exists. "Defamatory Stalking" adds nothing that doesn’t already exist.

there is no outcome that should be permitted where someone’s life is destroyed by a liar with an axe to grind

… and that is why we have courts. To, among other things, determine who the liar is. In related news, it is why companies are permitted to do content moderation on their own – so you don’t necessarily have to go to court to prove it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Distributor liability is a notice-and-takedown scheme which eliminates all risk for the ISP.

At the cost of removal of legitimate content.

there is no outcome that should be permitted where someone’s life is destroyed by a liar with an axe to grind or who is trying to silence someone.

What if the person who is making the complaint is the liar and is the one who is trying to silence people?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Individual reputations deserve protection; there is no outcome that should be permitted where someone’s life is destroyed by a liar with an axe to grind or who is trying to silence someone.

Well, not for nothing, some of those people you’re talking about destroyed their own reputations by being outright full of shit and incompetent. Perhaps if they were silenced sooner, they might not look like the shit-flinging morons that they do. For their own good.

There’s some people that should just shut the fuck up, you know? Take for example you and your fucking spamming – now you’re exactly one of those assholes I can see getting banned. Because you’re an asshole.

Koby’s a little more difficult. He’s an asshole, but I don’t know if his obtuseness is due to a lack of mental capacity, or he’s just the garden-variety asshole like you.

Either way, you fools would likely not look so ‘fooly’ if you would just shut up. Sometimes less speech is better. Go where people like you.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"Koby’s a little more difficult. He’s an asshole, but I don’t know if his obtuseness is due to a lack of mental capacity, or he’s just the garden-variety asshole like you."

Pretty clear Koby’s obtuseness is deliberate. He’s smart enough to know his persistent argument lacks logic, and just keeps repeating it in the hope that eventually people will start thinking he has a point.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The public can decide for itself which speech to follow just fine

Funny how they are able to decide which speech to follow, but aren’t intelligent enough to go somewhere other than Twitter or Facebook.

That sounds kinda fucking stupid, no?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Moreover, the social media behemoths’ power to silence both on their platforms and throughout society

I would love DeSantis to give one example where a twitter ban meant that the person banned could no longer speak freely "throughout society."

Let’s take Trump as an example, after being banned from most all social media, he is still able to publish his own blog site, can still have rallies, and whenever he wants, he can call up fox news and be heard by millions.

Explain to me how he is "silence[d] both on their platforms and throughout society."

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Anyone who gives a genuine example of censorship of conservatives puts a target on their back. Entire political discussions on a global scale are being warped by moderator bias, and this shouldn’t be tolerated.

To the extent it is tolerated, any resulting discussions are irrelevant and worthless, because they are not true discussions. Cancel the best player on the night before the Wimbledon final and it’s still Wimbledon, but…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let me ask one question, why do you think Trump is banned from social media?

Question assumes the premise. In fact, Trump is banned only from certain social media platforms, but is free to use others.

As to those from which he is banned, I need not discern a reason; it being their soapbox, they may lend its use to whom they please. Likewise, my living room shall not contain rude people who offend my other guests.

While I may not discern the reason for Trump’s ouster from particular platforms, I suspect that it comes down to a totality of factors:

  • telling many lies
  • harmful covid disinformation
  • leading armed rebellion against U.S. govt
  • endorsement of “proud boys” and similar hate groups

But, really, I am just guessing. The platforms which do not choose to have him as a user are free to choose on that basis or on the basis of coin flips. Their platform, their choice. If I do not like it, I can go to Parler or Stormfront where I can have all the Trump promotion I want.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Anyone who gives a genuine example of censorship of conservatives puts a target on their back.

Yeah, that’s more of trying to paint yourself a victim. Who has been censored and for what exactly? We never seem to get to that part of the question. You know, the ‘put up or shut up’ part.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Gotta love how pathetic and transparent the excuses for why no-one ever seems to be able to present actual examples of ‘conservatives’ being censored have gotten, as though the eternal ‘victims’ would ever pass up a chance to show how terribly they’re being ‘persecuted’ just because people would be mean about it, something which would just fuel their persecution complex/fetish.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Anyone who gives a genuine example of censorship of conservatives puts a target on their back.

For absolute fuxake. It’s always something. Any excuse.

So, what back will be targeted as an anonymous post? Why wouldn’t people who make every other argument besides actually putting up some putative evidence not have a target on their back?

Seriously, what the actual fuck? You can’t make bullshit salad "arguments" like that outside of where your own choir just eats that shit up. Thinking people won’t have it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

He’s hobbled. Those alternatives are costly as well.

Social media sites which host "official" political channels should not be allowed to ban people from that part of the service. Trump should have "protected-speech access" to Twitter that limits his participation only to constitutionally protected speech or that involving state actors or state issues.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Seems Trump is not the billionaire he said he was?"

He really isn’t. I mean, yeah, he might have taken a 400 million dollar loan guaranteed by the Russian state bank because he didn’t want to use his own money in that "self-funded" campaign but the preponderance of the evidence suggests he simply didn’t have the money.

What he is, is a successful grifter who for some reason people keep giving another chance. By 2016 they’d stopped doing that and he couldn’t get another loan by any bank for any reason – until Putin whispered a few words and the Deutsche Bank received word that the russian state bank would stand as guarantor for Trump’s massive new loan.

And now that he’s no longer president his base keeps giving him cash. Funding his own blog isn’t the problem. The only people who visit it is – he’s made no secret as to the contempt in which he holds the yokels dumb enough to give him their vote.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Please point the the exact words in the 1st amendment that guarantees you the right to be heard wherever you want to go, especially when it’s on somebody else’s private property.

If you think that is some sort of fundamental right, then it should be easy for you to find the text in the 1st amendment, or hell, anywhere in the constitution.

So please, provide the exact wording from the constitution that states what you think it states.

I’ll wait.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

He made hundreds of millions of dollars from the government, he had the military redirect flights to land near his resorts they could help prop up his ailing businesses. He sold access to government business, performing it like a theme park attraction at Mar a Lago, and let members of his club run the VA, all while milking the government continually for trumped up expenses incurred by people there for his own protection. After the bumper years he’s had, if anyone can afford to pay Godaddy and squarespace to host a WordPress blog, it’s him.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

As a reminder racism is constitutionally protected speech.

Sexism is constitutionally protected speech.

Arguing in favor of torturing gays until they ‘give up their sinful ways’, constitutionally protected speech.

Claiming that the nazis had the right idea and it’s a shame they were stopped before they could really do something about those shifty jews, constitutionally protected speech.

Saying that vaccines not only don’t work they actively make things worse? You guessed it, constitutionally protected speech.

Anyone who tries to argue that platforms should limit themselves to only excluding unconstitutional speech is arguing that all of the above and more should be exempt from moderation.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Does this include the outrageous lies he keeps pulling out of his fat butt?

Sure, most of his lies are protected speech. That does not mean that any given platform ought to be required to host them. If Twitter does not wish to host that particular collection of vulgar falsehoods, Mr. Trump is free to go to Parler, or Stormfront, or Fox News, or donaldjtrump.com for that matter.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"Mr. Trump is free to go to Parler, or Stormfront, or Fox News, or donaldjtrump.com for that matter."

Are you daft, man? Those sites are all full of deplorable people. Trumpists. Why on earth would Trump want to go together with the people he only tolerates when they give him money – at arm’s length, at that?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Social media sites which host "official" political channels should not be allowed to ban people from that part of the service.

If a politician declares their "official" channel to be your front lawn (with or without your consent), should you therefore be unable to ever kick them out?

Trump should have "protected-speech access" to Twitter that limits his participation only to constitutionally protected speech or that involving state actors or state issues.

Trump is no longer president, but even if he was, he has just as much "right" to Twitter as I do.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

He’s hobbled. Those alternatives are costly as well.

Hobbled? Wow, and here I thought he was rich and powerful. I can never tell with you guys – are you tough 2nd Amendment badasses taking your country back or impotent little bitches whining about a time-out from social media?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"…are you tough 2nd Amendment badasses taking your country back or impotent little bitches whining about a time-out from social media?"

Oh, they’ve always been impotent whiny little bitches. The worst sort of entitled snowflake who likes to bully the weak almost as much as they enjoy cowering in front of the strong.

It’s an unending source of relief that for all their posturing they’ve got nothing on the original nazis. Hitler led his mob from the front. Cadet Bonespur sat in an office shouting "I’d be with you all if it wasn’t for my gimpy knee!" at a camera.

The original nazis managed to set their parliament on fire and blame the communists, and organize kristallnacht; Trump’s mob, with communications orders of magnitudes better, swarmed the Capitol like concussed and malicious lemmings, achieving nothing significant, unless you count the pile of shit left on the floor by one of the less continent village idiots attending.

There’s nothing "tough" about these feckless shitwit snowflakes who lose their marbles completely when the gas price goes up a bit, someone heckles them on twitter, or, god forbid KFC decides to ration the butter-jalapeno sauce.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

No benefit of the doubt

It takes an amazing amount of cognitive dissonance to say that forcing platforms to carry content leaves them "free to speak with their own voices."

Typo, you misspelled ‘dishonesty’. They know that what they’re saying is full of shit but they’re willing to lie through their teeth in order to pander to the gullible rubes who’ve been told that ‘conservatives’ are under attack because of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with being raging assholes.

It’s certainly not surprising that the arguments in defense of the bill are utter garbage, when there are no merits to defend something on all you’re left with if you want to try are misdirection, lies and baseless assertions, so while their arguments may be abysmal they’re also entirely expected.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
John85851 (profile) says:

What do they want to post?

I know this has been said before, but all say it again. Whenever conservatives accuse websites of censoring thier posts, ask them what they were trying to post.

If they’re trying to talk about fiscal responsibility and a smaller government and they’re getting banned, then there might be an issue. But I somehow doubt this is what they mean by "censorship".

If they’re trying to post racist comments or if they start discussions about killing Democrats or even overthrowing the legitimately elected president, then yes, those kinds of comments should be removed.

Basically, if the average person thinks the comment is racist or hateful, then the site has every right to remove it. But it seems like their "right" to post crap is more important than a community’s right not to deal with crap posts.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: What do they want to post?

Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones

(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mike says:

common carrier

overall I agree that this law should be struck down on 1st amendment grounds. I would like to explore the section about common carrier:

"Common carriers do not prevent users from saying whatever they want. But neither do they provide platforms for speech that can reach any other user who uses the same service. Common carriers do not moderate content because they are not in the user-generated content business. They are the streets, to use an overused analogy. They are not the billboards alongside the road."

ethernet providers DO prevent users from saying what they want. How many strikes are required? how quickly will they invite the FBI to someone’s door for saying the wrong thing?

They DO provide platforms for speech that can reach any other user who uses the same service. that is the internet protocol. anyone with a computer and a provider can launch a website sharing information. and if your provider doesn’t like it they will kick you off.

Common carriers ABSOLUTELY moderate content because they ARE in the user-generated content business. They are the streets AND the billboards alongside the road."

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: common carrier

anyone with a computer and a provider can launch a website sharing information.

Oh no no no no no…they certainly CAN’T. If they could, then this whole ‘we need to make Twitter carry muh views’ discussion wouldn’t be taking place.

Get with the program, Skip. Conservatives are unable to build anything of substance on the Internet, and as a result needs to force Twitter and Facebook to carry their bullshit.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: common carrier

Common carriers ABSOLUTELY moderate content because they ARE in the user-generated content business. They are the streets AND the billboards alongside the road."

Please tell me how AT&T moderates my private phone calls and posts them on a billboard for all to read?

Can you not understand the difference between a common carrier, such as a phone company, and social media?

If not, then the problem is with you and not social media.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mike says:

Re: Re: common carrier

take the example of a bad actor posting a threat to his own personal website on his own personal server in his closet. how quickly do you think that IP address is tracked and/or banned? does AT&T moderate that? you bet your ass they do.

the billboard analogy can be as simple as a DNS lookup service that allows other people to find the content you want to share.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re: common carrier

AT&T will not initiate any action by themselves in most cases. If you aren’t clued in to how AT&T et al works, they will only do things if necessary since it costs money to be pro-active.

If they on the other hand get a report that one of their customers are hosting content through their service which is falls outside what’s specified in their TOS, like for example copyright infringement, they will come down on you. Here’s the relevant section from their TOS:

1.5 Termination or Suspension of AT&T Services
. . .
Misconduct includes but is not limited to the following conduct by you or any user or your AT&T Services:
. . .

  • any use of AT&T Services in a manner that negatively affects our or others’ networks, customers, or operations, or that infringes anyone’s intellectual property rights, violates others’ privacy, generates spam or abusive messaging or calling, or results in the publication of threatening, offensive, or illegal materials

Of course, this has zero to do with what the person you replied to said: Please tell me how AT&T moderates my private phone calls and posts them on a billboard for all to read?, for the simple reason that AT&T doesn’t listen on on phone-calls.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Bruce C. says:

Part of me...

…thinks it would be more fun to use this law if this law stood up, and then use it to block evangelical sites from removing LGBTQ content, or racist sites from removing BLM content. But then I remember that the culture wars don’t need any more ammo than is already in circulation. The greatest virtue of the Biden presidency is that it (mostly) seeks to restore sanity.

ECA (profile) says:

know what would be fun?

To make a list of all these strange bills, created recently, lets not favor either side, and Display it for everyone to see.
Name of the bill
Who created it
Synopsis
Link to the bills
It would be great to show off to other sites.

Sec. 230 does have rules.
And anything Blatantly Illegal is part of it.
Problem tends to be WHO is in control of this country?
I love it when the corps make promises and Even the Gov. has it on Paper, wont enforce it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Failure

When you write: "Governor Ron DeSantis’ war on imagined anti-conservative bias" this is so obviously deluded that everything you wrote after and even everything you wrote before, immediately fails.

What is the point of reading the work of someone who thinks that anti-conservative bias and censorship is "imagined." So it was people’s imagination that the top conservative in the United States was de-platformed? Are you an escaped inmate from a decayed mental institution or do you just play one on TV?

I mean what is the point is writing as you do? Does anyone believe a word you say?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Failure

What is the point of reading the work of someone who thinks that anti-conservative bias and censorship is "imagined."

I dunno – I ask myself that same question of "conservatives" insisting on posting to Twitter or Facebook, despite not being wanted there either.

I mean what is the point is writing as you do?

Perhaps you could just ‘skip over it’ and move the fuck on instead of complaining about it. That’s what we’re supposed to do with conservative bullshit on social media, if we don’t like it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Failure

So it was people’s imagination that the top conservative in the United States was de-platformed?

Deplatforming someone for TOS violations, who just happens to be conservative, and deplatforming someone because they are conservative are not the same thing.

But by all means, point out the bias. Please feel free to point out the specific conservative viewpoints for which Trump was banned.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re: Failure

Please feel free to point out the specific conservative viewpoints for which Trump was banned

Advocacy and encouragement of armed violence against the govt of the United States.

I presume that supporting armed efforts to overthrow the govt is still considered a “conservative” value because the GOP seems very much in favor of such, and opposed to anything that would discourage or learn from such violence.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I’m posting this again to prove a point.

The following are quotes from Donald Trump himself; they come from his speech on the 6th of January, just before the insurrection:

Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with: We will stop the steal.

We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen, I’m not going to let it happen.

We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: To save our democracy.

You’re stronger, you’re smarter, you’ve got more going than anybody. And they try and demean everybody having to do with us. And you’re the real people, you’re the people that built this nation. You’re not the people that tore down our nation.

Republicans are, Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder.

[Y]ou’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we’ve been forced to believe.

You will have an illegitimate president. That’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.

The radical left knows exactly what they’re doing. They’re ruthless and it’s time that somebody did something about it.

The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican Party if you don’t get tougher. They want to play so straight. They want to play so, sir, yes, the United States. The Constitution doesn’t allow me to send them back to the States. Well, I say, yes it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can’t vote on fraud. And fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules.

We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again, can never be allowed to happen again.

The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help. We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

Now, I’m sure you’re going to mention all the times he brought up marching peacefully and whatnot. Don’t bother; I’ve skimmed enough of the transcript to know those parts exist. Instead, I want you to read each of those quotes, and notice some of the verbs/verbal phrases he uses: “stop”, “save”, “fight”, “take back”, “get tougher”, “show strength”, “protect”. Then look at the overall gist of those quotes: “we’re fighting to stop the steal”, “we have to get tougher on the fraudsters”, “we’re here to save democracy”, “we need to do something about this”.

He isn’t explicitly calling for violence, no. But between his planting the idea that his “patriots” must stop the steal by showing strength and doing “something” about the Democrats/“weak Republicans” to save the country, his talking for months about how the election would be fraudulent only if he lost, and his continual(ly rebuked) efforts to overturn an election he lost both electorally and popularly, those quotes — his words — become a form of his mob boss–esque stochastic terrorism. He didn’t need to directly call for violence; all he needed to do is make his wishes known and let his followers do the rest.

Take a bunch of people who have already been manipulated by right-wing media and Donald Trump into believing the election would be/was stolen. Tell them that the literal last line of defense against the stolen election is a Vice President who has already sworn himself to the duty of his office (i.e., to confirm Joe Biden as the President-elect). Gin them up further by referring to them as true patriots, telling them to toughen up and show strength, and implying that they alone can save American democracy itself. What do you get as a result of all that?

You get an insurrection.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Failure

So it was people’s imagination that the top conservative in the United States was de-platformed?

Not at all. I mean he set up his own space and everything and then all of a sudden, poof! He was gone. Perhaps he stiffed the developers or the service he was hosting it on, or maybe the rubes finally figured out they got fooled and stopped donating.

I think it’s horrible that ‘from the desk of Donald J. Trump’ is offline because of big tech not paying his bills for him. After all, what else could it be? He should call that Frankspeech guy and piggy back on his amazing infrastructure.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The effectiveness of disposable masks?

Why will you not listen to actual medical advice, rather than the part of the data that justifies you refusal to follow advice. A disposable mask will do little to protect you from, an infected person, but does a lot to protect others should you be infected, and not showing symptoms. Wearing one in public is not a great inconvenience, and helps stop the spread. Being vaccinated is not a reason not to wear one, as the vaccines are not perfect, but will reduce the severity of infection, possible to the level that you show no symptoms, but are capable of infecting others.

Any discussion about election irregularities?

Don’t you means conspiracy theories pushed by a bad loser, whose supporters have not produces a single bit of creditable evidence in court where it counts, but has been used to initiate seditious actions.

HyCl as treatment for symptoms and the effectiveness of zinc in combating the SARS family?

Medical advice from non medical people, such is the stuff of quackery.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“ What specific conservative views are being banned from social media?”

“ Why will you not listen to actual medical advice,”
I do, including those in my family. Us an N95 or comparable mask. Protection for everyone.
Maybe if the discussion were allowed at all people would realise there are actually proper tools available. To protect everyone.

“ Don’t you means conspiracy ”
No, I mean irregularities. Which we see in every election.
A proper discussion on the topic would show there’s no evidence that the irregularities, errors, etc are outside the margin of error?

“ HyCl as treatment for symptoms and the effectiveness of zinc in combating the SARS family?”

Well documented and studied material. You want to blame the 400K+ deaths on someone? If we had rolled out HyCl as a stop gap the rates of death would have been lower. Until a proper vaccination was ready.
There’s a very well referenced post above you can look at.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

If we had rolled out HyCl as a stop gap the rates of death would have been lower.

You can’t know that with the certainty of God Herself, so don’t make those kinds of proclamations as if you are God. You’re not God and you never will be.

Well documented and studied material.

It isn’t as effective as you want us to think it is. But sure, keep repeating the same shit that Trump does. You gonna whine about all that non-existent widescale election fraud, too? Fuck off outta here, Lostcause.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

No, what I’m saying is that the media is Ignoring that it has proven benefits.
First it reduces the he body’s ability to contract the virus in an active spreadable way by zinc chloride bonding.

Post full infection, it reduces the effects and decreases recover time for the same reason.

It’s not a solution on it’s own. It’s entirely dependent on the body to be useful.
But there’s little doubt that it can work as a full antiviral for a small minority.
More importantly it would have worked as a good stop-gap to reduce the spread.
Not perfect, but not pointless.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

You better read this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77748-x#article-info

CQ = Chloroquine, HCQ = Hydroxychloroquine, AZM = azithromycin, SC = standard care, PCR = viral polymerase chain reaction, MV = mechanical ventilation

Conclusion

Treating COVID-19 patients with CQ/HCQ did not decrease mortality. It was even increased if AZM was added. Besides, CQ/HCQ alone or in combination with AZM increased the duration of hospital stay. Overall virological cure rate and that on days 4, 10, or 14 were not affected by receiving HCQ. Adding AZM to HCQ/CQ did not show any benefit in terms of virological cure as well. The Need for MV was not improved by exposure to CQ/HCQ alone or in combination with AZM. Moreover, CQ/HCQ, did not neither shorten the duration till conversion to negative PCR, prevent radiological progression, nor affect clinical worsening of the disease. Future randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.

TL;DR: By studying all available data on hydroxychloroquine-treatments it’s shown that it didn’t help, it even increased mortality if administered together with the antibiotic azithromycin. Ie, there is no proven benefits – just people who cherry-pick studies containing statistics they don’t understand in the larger context.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

But there’s little doubt that it can work as a full antiviral for a small minority.
More importantly it would have worked as a good stop-gap to reduce the spread.
Not perfect, but not pointless.

Lostcaiuse uses non sequitur to justify bullshit. If it only works for a small minority, it does little to stop the spread. More likely the claims for efficacy fall under coincidence is not causation by use including a dew people with natural immunity to covid.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

the media is Ignoring that it has proven benefits

And how broad or narrow a group of people can benefit from hydroxychloroquine’s alleged effects in treating COVID? If the group is significantly narrow, the benefits of the drug may be outweighed by the fact that the drug isn’t effective in preventing the further spread of COVID. And that assumes the benefits look the same across the board instead of varying from person to person depending on a variety of factors (including which strain of COVID they’re infected with and what preëxisting conditions they may have).

More importantly it would have worked as a good stop-gap to reduce the spread.

You say hydroxychloroquine could work “as a full antiviral for small minority”. Then you say it could’ve been “a good stop-gap to reduce the spread”. If it could’ve worked only for a small number of people⁠—your words, not mine⁠—how could that have stopped the wider spread of a virus that has infected millions and killed hundreds of thousands?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

“chloroquine acts as an effective inhibitor of the replication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus“
The study includes the same conclusions of other Clq variants including HCL/HcQ
~ doi:10.1016/
And while that research was on the SARS virus later studies found the same in the current C19 virus, at a lower degree.

It reduces your he virus’ ability to replicate.
The premise here: reduced replication ≈ reduced spread.

And while I understand fully the danger of the side effects, there was a targeted population that could have greatly benefitted from use.
Those high risk people with respiratory issues who had healthy hearts.
Including the seniors in dedicated living facilities.

The ratio of treated effectively vs treated with side effects in the emergency use period last year was positive.
The number of those with effective treatment was a minority, personally.
But Those that did show signs of effective treatment, the number with dangerous side effects was minimal.

It has not been reported what the reduced replication rate is, but the virus at the time was too new to know the nature replication rate as well.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

later studies found the same in the current C19 virus, at a lower degree

“Lower degree” means “worse performance” in this context. As in, “hydroxychloroquine does worse at preventing the spread of the COVID-19 virus than it does at preventing the spread of the SARS virus”.

The premise here: reduced replication ≈ reduced spread.

By the time hydroxychloroquine was even considered for use in COVID patients, it couldn’t have done much to reduce the spread since⁠—by your own admission, no less!⁠—it only would’ve been effective on a small minority of the population.

there was a targeted population that could have greatly benefitted from use

And if the side effects happened to kill them…well, better that than COVID, huh?

The number of those with effective treatment was a minority

And that was reason enough to start using hydroxychloroquine on a wider segment of the population? That was reason enough to hoard doses of the drug that people with non-COVID conditions they needed the drug to treat would’ve needed?

Hydroxychloroquine’s use as a COVID-19 treatment is, at the absolute best, limited in both effectiveness and who it can work on. To act like it could’ve single-handedly stopped COVID-19 in any meaningful way when absolutely no scientific study to date has ever supported that premise makes a fool out of the person acting that way.

And so you know, Lostcause: “Fool” is the kindest word I could’ve used in that sentence.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Exactly. But not ineffective.

Ineffective enough to make it not worth the trouble of trying to turn it into a catch-all COVID-19 treatment like Dear Leader tried to do, though.

The study’s aren’t long enough with the Covid-19 version but with tested SARS Variants previous, it weakens the virus’s spreadability.

Was it you or some other trolling schmuck who was talking about how COVID-19 wasn’t SARS and the response to COVID-19 being based partially on the response to SARS was a bad idea?

The biggest side effect, as I mentioned, is varying heart issues. Which normally don’t cause serious concern for patients with a healthy heart.

Even people with a healthy heart can still suffer fatal heart issues. Life and biology are funny that way. Well, not “ha ha” funny so much as “huh, that was unexpected” funny, and not so much “funny” as “tragic”, but…uh…hmm. Well, I trust you get my point, anyway.

it’s well documented that the vaccination also has this same issue, it’s at a much lower degree than HCL

Which means there is far less risk associated with a vaccine designed specifically to stop COVID-19 than there is with a drug that isn’t generally effective against COVID-19. Imagine that~.

even if the effects aren’t immediate to the recipient they weaken the vir[us’s] ability to replicate

Given the time that could elapse between someone catching COVID-19 and someone showing symptoms of that infection, that person could easily be a infection vector well before knowing they would need any sort of treatment. What good is a drug you say could weaken the virus’s ability to replicate if people don’t know they need it until after the virus has replicated and spread in far larger numbers than even you could anticipate?

here’s nearly a decade of research on these clq drugs. Enough supplemental evidence that the FDA did allow usage.

The FDA revoked the emergency use authorization for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine three months after it was issued:

Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.

So maybe instead of relying only on information that helps your argument and fellates your biases, try looking up the information that makes you uncomfortable and punches your arguments in the face.

The misuse by doctors not verifying pre-existent heart problems, and wide over usage, and quickly rescued supply, had the authorisation pulled (revised, not reversed).

Oh, sure, it was the doctors that were the problem, not the drugs itself. Do you listen to yourself say these things in your head as you type them, or do you just say inane bullshit without thinking twice and hope it sticks?

I didn’t say miracle cure. I said helpful tool for the fight.

Every argument you’ve made in favor of hydroxychloroquine paints the drug as an über-useful tool in stopping COVID-19 altogether, when the drug has proven to be anything but. You almost sound like an evangelist huckster selling snake oil every time you talk about the drug, claiming it does this and that while ignoring the fact that hydroxychloroquine was proven to be an ineffective treatment of, and ineffective preventative measure against, COVID-19 infection.

Between that, your twisted desire to prioritize property and property rights over people and their civil rights, and your refusal to admit that you’re a conservative despite supporting them and mirroring many of their bullshit arguments, you’re coming off as a bigger troll than people who post on 4chan all day. At least /b/ regulars have the testicular fortitude to admit they’re assholes. Where are your balls, Lostcause?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

“trying to turn it into a catch-all COVID-19 treatment like Dear Leader”
I didn’t. At any point. Stop trying to tie people’s statements into a narrative.

“Was it you or some other trolling schmuck…”
Someone else. Covid-19 is definitely part of the SARS family.
As such sars was the best place to start.

“Even people with a healthy heart can still suffer fatal heart issues. “
Unfortunately all chemical concoctions are potentially fatal.
Acetaminophen, Naproxen, Ibuprofen, aspirin, all can kill.

“Imagine that”
Repeating formulation and use results in similar, er, results.

“vir[us’s]”
Viri- shorthand. Sorry, forgot you’re big on grammar.

“replicated and spread in far larger numbers than even you could anticipate”
Because it reduces the ability to further replicate.

“The FDA revoked the emergency use authorization for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine three months after it was issued”
Correct. I read a release summary, which used different terms but did link to the official revocation.
I was wrong on that.

“argument and fellates your biases, try looking up the information that makes you uncomfortable and punches your arguments in the face”
I read the release notification from the FDA’s news feed at the time. My mistake I’m not clicking into it.

“über-useful tool in stopping COVID-19 altogether”
Useful tool in the fight.

“prioritize property and property rights over people and their civil rights”
Yes, in your tiny little application.
Property is definite. Your mis-association could be quickly and easily recognised by stating it was mis-association.

“refusal to admit that you’re a conservative despite supporting them and mirroring many of their bullshit arguments”
You have again mid associated me with conservatives based solely on my few aligning ideals, eg strong Borders with legal vetted monitored immigration of verified individuals, and my support for the right to bare arms.
Any yes, my belief in personal liberty in masking and closing of businesses.

“Where are your balls, Lost[inlodos].
Between my legs.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

Stop trying to tie people’s statements into a narrative.

Everyone tells a story, Lodos. What story you’re telling is something I’m allowed to explore, despite your wishes that I don’t. That First Amendment’s a bitch, huh.

it reduces the ability to further replicate

Does it reduce that ability in significant enough numbers to make it worth injecting into people who may suffer severe side effects⁠—possibly even fatal ones⁠—from the drug even before they know if they have COVID? Because the best way to stop the disease from spreading is to prevent it from infecting people in the first place, and since hydroxychloroquine is being used as a post-infection treatment rather than a pre-infection preventative, the drug doesn’t seem like one of the more effective ways to actually stop COVID-19 from spreading.

I was wrong on that.

Holy shit, he can admit it. He can actually fucking admit it.

That puts you one step above the average conservative, Lodos. It’s a small step, but it’s still something.

Useful tool in the fight.

That you continue to believe this despite all evidence to the contrary is why you’re telling a story you don’t think you’re telling but everyone else knows you’re telling.

Property is definite.

And people are what, temporary meat popsicles?

Your mis-association could be quickly and easily recognised by stating it was mis-association.

There is no misassociation. You’ve continually placed property rights above human rights in a way that makes me think you get off sexually to the idea of exercising property rights. If anything, you’re the one associating yourself with that idea by way of your continued fetishizing of property rights above all else, you fuckin’ libertarian.

You have again mi[s]associated me with conservatives based solely on my few aligning ideals

Well, when the jackboot fits…

my belief in personal liberty in masking and closing of businesses

Yes yes, you think someone should have the absolute freedom to make other people sick without regard to public health or basic human decency because PrOpErTy RiGhTs or some shit, we get it already. Find someone who likes the idea of being a disease vector and tell them about it; no one here is going to give you that conversation.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

“ That you continue to believe this despite all evidence to the contrary…”
There’s a well sourced post above, now hidden by flagging, that shows multiple studies (one didn’t state what the poster thought though).
In reality the evidence for it against is about even, but it no longer matters since we have a vaccination.

The question is, should it have been given a far more extensive look in way, last Feb? Or March?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

the evidence … is about even

No. No, it isn’t. Far more evidence shows hydroxychloroquine is an ineffective treatment for COVID-19 than shows it is an effective treatment. Even the FDA yanked its EUA for the drug after studying it long enough to make a determination on the matter. Do you not trust the FDA, or do you not trust people who don’t comfort your biases?

it no longer matters

Except to you, who keeps trying to push the idea that the drug is some sort of fucking miracle worker in stopping the spread of COVID (despite all evidence to the contrary) and hoping we’ll get so sick of debunking your bullshit that we’ll finally agree with you.

The question is, should it have been given a far more extensive look in way, last Feb? Or March?

See my point above.

The drug was given as extensive a look as possible without unnecessarily risking lives to test whether it was an effective COVID-19 treatment. It was generally found to be ineffective, edge cases notwithstanding. You’re the one so obsessed with the idea that it could’ve stopped COVID that you’re still trying to find ways to make us agree with you on that point.

Give up, man. Nobody here with any credibility is buying your bullshit. Go sell it on Facebook or Parler or fucking 8kun; at least there, you might find a few assholes willing to say “you’re 100% right”, which is probably all you really want anyway.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

“ Do you not trust the FDA”
My jury is hung. Given the thousand and thousands who die from drugs they passed, multi-billion dollar lawsuits targeting approved drugs, multiple corruption scandals over the last 30 years: I’ll read the scientific reports, thanks. I’ll make my own decisions, with help from members of the medical community far more versed than I, and far smarter.

“ some sort of fucking miracle worker”
No, it was a potential tool that wasn’t properly investigated by the FDA.

Non interest in facetwit.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

I’ll make my own decisions, with help from members of the medical community far more versed than I, and far smarter.

Seems like the only members you’ll listen to are the ones who placate your biases. ????

No, it was a potential tool that wasn’t properly investigated by the FDA.

How many lives should the FDA have put at risk for a “proper investigation” into whether hydroxychloroquine was going to help people survive COVID-19, and which lives deserved to be put at risk for that study? I don’t think you have the answers to that⁠—or, at least, answers that won’t make you sound any more heartless than you’ve already made yourself sound by prioritizing property rights over public health.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Re:

"How many lives should the FDA have put at risk for a “proper investigation” into whether hydroxychloroquine was going to help people survive COVID-19, and which lives deserved to be put at risk for that study?"

  1. There is no legal requirement for an efficacy study. Once a drug has been approved by the FDA for use it can be used with a prescription for any off-label us. That is our law.

Stop making up law!

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:19 That Isn't Efficacy

"Shouldn’t the FDA have done one before, y’know, potentially killing people as part of a “test run” of whether a given drug could actually treat COVID-19?"

There are two kinds of testing safety and efficacy. I know your English sucks but efficacy means effectiveness not safety. When a drug is first introduced it must pass both efficacy and safety testing. Originally government felt it had a compelling public interest in making sure that drug companies don’t introduce drugs that while safe are not effective. They didn’t want pharmaceutical companies swindling people out of their retirement savings.

It seemed like a good idea at the time during the early days of the pharmaceutical industry. The efficacy requirement became law in 1962. But as time went on the cost of efficacy testing became a problem. A drug would be introduced to the market for a specific treatment like how hydroxychloroquine can treat both malaria and lupus. Or how antiparasitic like ivermectin tend to also have antiviral properties.

Now lets go back to that 1962. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of lupus in 1955, 7 years before the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1962. So hydroxychloroquine never went through the efficacy testing to treat lupus that you are demanding for COVID-19. It was tested for safety and doctors believed it could be effective for also treating lupus. That was the basis for its approval. It was never proven effective at treating lupus or malaria. But during 2020 we had casandras like yourself screaming both that we cant use HCQ to treat COVID-19 because it would take the drug away from lupus patients and HCQ isn’t proven effective, yet HCQ isn’t "proven" effective against lupus either.

Many common drugs we use never went through FDA efficacy testing because they predate 1962. But taking them is not dangerous because they did go through safety testing.

As more and more drugs moved to generic by the 1980s we had a problem. There were many drugs that were off patent and available as generics that were most likely effective to treat many different ailments but because there were generic no drug company was willing to spend the money, about $20M, to move a generic through FDA efficacy testing. There is no money to be made if they cant patent the drug.

This came to a major head during the AIDS crisis as we saw the revolving door between the FDA/NIH and the major pharmaceutical companies. More and more it became obvious that the FDA/NIH were using efficacy testing to keep alternative treatments off the market. Hell AIDS crisis aside the FDA still argues against low dose aspirin.

Ultimately what had been intended in 1962, to protect sick people from swindled out of their finances, had the opposite effect. People were being denied access to safe cheep alternatives and were losing their life’s savings paying through the nose for patented medicines that were arguably no more effective than cheep generics. Or in the worst instance with AZT a drug that was developed in 1964 was given a use patent in 1987 this patent on a 20+ year old drug for the treatment of a 100% fatal illness made allowed AZT to be the most expensive drug of all time despite the fact alone it wasn’t very effective against AIDS, it slowed progress a little but AIDS was still 100% fatal.

In 2017 congress with unanimous consent from the senate passed The Right to Try Act because it was clear that the intent of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1962 had been turned on its head and the act was being used for the exact purpose it was intended to stop, swindling desperate people out of their money for drugs that don’t work.

Today once a drug has passed FDA testing once, it is free to be used for any other treatment with the informed consent of the patient. Once a drug has been proven safe a doctor can prescribe it for any treatment. The benefits of informed consent far outweigh the risks.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

Property is objective, speech is subjective.
I’m no Republican. Their views just happen to align with Tommy libertarian views from time to time. Just like the Democrat platform does.

“ Yes yes, you think someone should have the absolute freedom to make other people sick without regard to public health or basic human decency”
No, I think that a private business has the right to set their own choices. And if they wish to be open and serve masked customers that’s their right. And if they wish to stay open and serve I masked customers, that’s their right.
And if they wish to stay open and ban mask use inside that’s their right.
You talk about the public: the business sets it’s rules.
Aren’t you fond of ‘if you don’t like it go somewhere else’?
That’s an idea you support, yes.
Well, if you don’t like mask free zones go somewhere else.
And if you don’t want to use a mask shop a business that won’t require you to put one on.
It’s not hard to understand how that’s not forcing anything on anyone.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

Aren’t you fond of ‘if you don’t like it go somewhere else’?

I’m also fond of the idea of public health⁠—which means that any public-facing business willing to make itself a disease vector shouldn’t have the right to do so. But you care more about property than people, so of course you don’t think that’s a good idea.

One person is all it takes⁠ to spread COVID-19 to countless others. If a business isn’t willing to take any preventative measures against that possibility for the sake of protecting every single person who comes into the store⁠—regardless of whether they agree with mask mandates and other such measures, regardless of whether they prioritize their personal liberty to make other people sick over the health and well-being of themselves and others⁠—that business can and should go out of business.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

By the time the use of chloroquine was considered, any spread had occurred, and the patient was in isolation. That is most spread occurred by people who did not yet know that they were infected, and not by people after they were hospitalised. A treatment tried in case it might help critically ill people has no impact on the spread of the disease.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

"HyCl, you are claiming that the majority of doctors ignored evidence that it was effective, a conspiracy of such a scale as to be impossible to maintain."

We already lived through that conspiracy once. It was called the AIDS crisis. They managed to maintain that conspiracy for almost 2 decades. There is even a good movie about it.

As a result we the people pushed back against big Pharma and the ABC bureaucracy, FDA, NIH etc. We passed right to try legislation.

As a result our law today is that if a drug is FDA approved for one treatment a doctor and patient with informed consent can use it for an off label treatment.

A large part. And I mean a very very large part of the current HCQ/Ivermectin fiasco is a bureaucratic end around of the law.

Zuckerberg and "Tony" have gotten so buddy buddy that big tech is going to ban any discussion of off-label use even though off-label use is perfectly legal and safe. This censorship is in effect gutting right to try laws.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Zuckerberg and "Tony" have gotten so buddy buddy that big tech is going to ban any discussion of off-label use even though off-label use is perfectly legal and safe.

Even if this were true, so what? Facebook is 100% legally allowed to decide what speech it will and won’t host on its servers⁠, even if that speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Racial slurs are legally protected. Anti-queer slurs are legally protected. So is porn, spam, and all other kinds of reprehensible speech. Make the argument that Facebook must host one type of legally protected speech that you want forced upon Facebook, and you’ll have to stand on the side of the people who are arguing for all those other types of speech to be forced upon Facebook and all its social media brethren. Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:8 I've Answered that!

"Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?

I keep answering that question and you ignore it. The answer is absolutely because it already does. Cable providers of a certain size have to provide channel access and local broadcast assess. This was the issue in Warner v. FCC 1996. The able providers argued that the requirement to carry channels was a violation of their First Amendment rights and the size requirements was a violation of 14 Amendment equal protection. The court said that such requirements did not violate the cable providers 1st or 14th Amendment rights.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

The answer is absolutely

Your other bullshit aside, I have another question for you: Do you believe the government should make you host speech you don’t want to host on an interactive web service you own and operate? For example: If you don’t want to host Ku Klux Klan propaganda⁠—or Black Lives Matter propaganda, for that matter⁠—on a Mastodon instance you run, do you really believe the government should make you host it “or else”?

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

"Your other bullshit aside, I have another question for you: Do you believe the government should make you host speech you don’t want to host on an interactive web service you own and operate? For example: If you don’t want to host Ku Klux Klan propaganda⁠—or Black Lives Matter propaganda, for that matter⁠—on a Mastodon instance you run, do you really believe the government should make you host it “or else”?"

That’s a consequence of entering the speech industry by my own free will. Im the one that chose to own and operate a virtual public square. By putting my private property to the public interest I submit to the control of the public. That’s the law.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

By putting my private property to the public interest I submit to the control of the public.

So, just to be clear: If the government told you that you had to host⁠—had to associate yourself and your private property⁠—which racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and even pro-Nazi speech, you would willingly (and perhaps even ecstatically) host that speech despite your property being private and the government having absolutely no right to tell you that you must host such speech?

Because if putting private property to the public interest is all it takes for part of the “speech industry” to be deemed a public forum that the government can force speech upon, then your logic would seemingly apply to newspapers. But I don’t see the government trying to turn those into public fora, so…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Failure

anti-conservative bias and censorship is "imagined.

Please provide one example of this anti-conservative bias that leads to censorship. And please be specific as to what was the reason that led to the "censorship."

Also, please explain to me why Trump has been banned from social media. Is it because he is a conservative? Or was it because he used social media to promote a lie about election fraud and riled up his supporters to the point where they actually attacked a US government building in which congress was validating his election loss?

Since being a racist, xenophobic, homophobic, bigoted raging asshole seems to be the majority of "conservatives" who complain about anti-conservative bias, then of course you would believe that there is an anti-conservative bias. You are just too blind and / or stupid to realize that you are indeed a raging asshole online and that is why people of your ilk are being banned from social media.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Failure

A person mentioned socialism and how it was bad.
I had to ask him, how and where did he hear WHAT about socialism.
Was it a person, TV, or where.
The person mentioned ‘HE TOLD ME’
I intimated, "from TV", he said yes.
I suggested he make his own opinion, based on READING what it was. NOT another persons opinion of it.
And if yuo choose YOUR bias over others, It would be nice to know the SAME question. FROM whom did you get your answer.
Father, mother, friend, TV. OR did you go out and READ what the truth is?

Anonymous Coward says:

Use a paywall!

So I just had an idea that I’m sure someone else has thought of…

Rather than ban or remove postings like these, maybe just shove the problem users and messages behind a paywall… that way, if you want to see these messages, you have to pay a fee…
Let those problem users still log in and post, just put all their nonesense behind a paywall…

That way, the content is still hosted, but only the folks who really want to see that drivel will pay for it and well, you don’t let "free" users see behind the paywall.
Some of you may wonder: "but who would pay for this crap?" I would think no-one, but this way, you’re not running afoul of these new stupid "1st amendment laws" that force you to host others speech… your hosting it, it’s just behind the paywall

This might be the first useful way to implement a paywall that might actually increase traffic.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Use a paywall!

"but who would pay for this crap?"

I bet we would all be surprised as to how many people would throw money at that. I mean, look at all the grifting that goes on with top "conservative" voices. Sydnee Powell, Mike Flynn, Alex Jones, My Pillow Lindell, Trump rallies, Rudy ‘cock and a charred spot’ Giuliani. Trump’s entire political campaign was all just a grift to get the rubes to pay him to validate their racist, xenophobic, homophobic, bigoted lives.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

It is nice they have funds to fight this stupidity,
shame there were no funds to keep the retaining pond of death from threatening citizens
shame there were no funds to make sure building codes were enforced
shame they handed out covid shots based on if the citizens were nice to the Gov or not
shame they spend more time on imaginary problems than solving the issues actively killing citizens on their watch

shame there seems to be no system in place to protect citizens when the leadership loses their damn minds, encourages people to get infected, puts the almighty dollar ahead of human life…

But then it appears we are willing to accept citizens being killed in the name of imaginary rights we can’t even explain in any way tethered to reality.

Anonymous Coward says:

Bad and backward "Constitutional" arguments do not surprise when coming from a 100% Constitution-free Zone such as Florida.

It’s regrettable that the thing won’t just snap off and drift away at high speed. More unfortunately, that most intense collection of wackaloons will flow back north, at least a bit, as it ends up under water. Although, given the immense powers of denial and imagination which many of them hold, perhaps they will stay there under a few meters of water, dodging hurricanes for eternity.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It’s regrettable that [Florida] won’t just snap off and drift away at high speed.

My preference would be to build machine gun towers at the bridges over the St Marys, particularly focusing on the south-bound lanes of I-95. That would offer less disruption than a complete separation.

The problem is that we get so many people here from up north. A lot of them stay. If they were to go home, they would probably raise the average both here and in their home states.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Because of course you believe that the deaths of millions of people who don’t share your political views is “salvation”. I don’t like Republican/conservative voters⁠ (or libertarians, for that matter…), but you don’t see me seriously wishing for all of them to suffer whatever would be the real-life equivalent of getting dusted by Thanos.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

It was sarcasm you literalist nut.

You’ve already made your position on humanity clear; don’t blame me for taking that position seriously. Use a sarcasm mark in the future if you don’t want serious responses to “jokes” that seem to reflect your actual sociopathic positions⁠—like, say, a “joke” about genociding an entire state to create an imagined paradise, which tends to align with your views about humanity (and liberals/progressives in particular) being near-worthless compared to the property they inhabit.

Poe’s Law is dead. So is the “I was just joking” excuse. Be clear about your humor or be taken seriously when you suggest something ghoulish. Make your choice.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Yes, I have.
And yes, I get it. Anyone that doesn’t bow down to the socialism of your beliefs is anti human.
“ genociding”
An earthquake is not genocide.
Killing hundreds of people because they are Russian descendants is.

But look who I’m talking to, I don’t see any horror over machine gunning Americans. In Florida. Nice.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Anyone that doesn’t bow down to the socialism of your beliefs is anti human.

My beliefs have nothing to do with the fact that you, independently of whatever I’ve said, only took issue with efforts to repeal Section 230 when property rights entered the chat and have continually placed property rights in a position of importance over things like public health. You’re the one who sees property and property rights as more important than humanity; I’m only working with what you’ve given me.

An earthquake is not genocide.

You talked about sending California into the ocean. That’s going to kill a shitload of people on its own; the days and weeks that follow will kill more as essential supplies run out, power plants stop working, and the government drags its heels in trying to figure out what the fuck to do (which it always does, regardless of who runs it at the time). That’s a fucking genocide, and that’s what you wished for⁠—and if you didn’t want to do that, you should’ve used a sarcasm mark.

I don’t see any horror over machine gunning Americans. In Florida.

I don’t see you expressing condolences for the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting. Which were you angrier about: the dead people or the damage to the building?

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

“ only took issue with efforts to repeal Section 230 when property rights entered the chat”
Correct. Because forced association is a fallacy. All you have to say is that their opinion is their own. No association then.
That people like you can’t accept what a person says as their beliefs is your own opinion.

“ I don’t see you expressing condolences for the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting”
Where is that part of this discussion?
I went ballistic on the web over all the brainwashed turds who worshipped fantasy cloud people and created the culture where people were targeted over how they enjoy life.
I sent money to gofundmes and charities set up in the aftermath.

I don’t equate someone not using a disposable mask with murder.
I’ve also said not wearing a mask was selfish.
But I still stand by the principal that it should have be a choice.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Because forced association is a fallacy. All you have to say is that their opinion is their own. No association then.

Yeah, no, shit doesn’t work that way, son. If you claim not to be associated with racists, but you still allow racists to use your property as a soapbox for their speech, you’re still associated with racists regardless of how many disclaimers you put up. People will see your property being used by racists and assume you’re okay with the racists and their racism; that’s how human nature works. Being forced to host racists and their speech doesn’t change that fact. But it does bring up the question of why you might think being forced to host racists is a good idea if property rights weren’t a thing.

I sent money to gofundmes and charities set up in the aftermath.

Oh wow, you had a semblance of an afterimage of a ghost of a heart somewhere in your body at one point. Bravo~.

I still stand by the princip[le] that it should have be[en] a choice.

Do you really believe people should have the right to knowingly and purposefully infect others with a deadly disease? Because I’m sure plenty of anti-maskers who contracted COVID would’ve argued for the right to be without masks in public…before they caught COVID, anyway. (And probably after⁠—assuming they were still alive, that is.)

I walked into a store a few days ago without a mask⁠—the first time in well over a year that I’d done that!⁠—because I forgot my mask, I’m vaccinated, and I knew the store had a “if you’re vaxed, you don’t need the mask” policy nowadays. Doing that made me feel like some semblance of normalcy was returning⁠—but it also made me feel like shit for not thinking of others. I could have caught COVID and carried it back to my family or spread it to strangers, even just by being in that store maskless for a few minutes, and I would’ve had no one to blame for that but myself.

Do I believe mandating masks in public was the right thing to do? Absolutely. Do I plan to keep wearing masks even when the mandates fall for good? Absolutely. Why? Because I’m not a selfish dickbag who only thinks of himself. That’s what a society is: caring for other people, easing the suffering of others, and helping each other realize our full potential. What the fuck is the point of having a society if a good chunk of people within that society care more about themselves (or property…) to the detriment of everyone else?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

What’s next?

“ “war on imagined anti-conservative bias”
Don’t hurt your argument by peddling a lie
230 protects private sites. Period. Regardless of their perfectly legal bias.

““What the fuck is this word salad. Section 230 simply allows companies to make moderation decisions without worrying about being sued for content created by users,”

Yes. 230, Out of the likes of Prodigy, allows private companies to remove content they don’t like from their private platforms without fearing legal ramifications for missing illegal content in the purges. (That they gain plausible deniability is a bonus).

“What it actually does is allow the Florida government to determine what content platforms must carry.”

Yep. While I applaud Florida for attempting to fight content censorship this isn’t the way to do it. (Oh, that’s right, democrats don’t call deleting comments censorship).

““being paid to advance the state’s agenda,”
Good for them. Doing their job. And I hope lawyers from both side fight the best damn fight they ever have. Because this need’s to be decided, appealed, decided, appealed, and finally put before the Supreme Court!
Then, and only then, will it be “settled “.

Congress makes laws, be it states or National.
Courts judge the constitutional aspects of challenged laws. Be it state or National.
Depending on the outcome the law survives, or dies.
If it dies, Congress can accept it or amend the constitution.
That’s how it works.

I look forward to following this case as closely as I can.
Hopefully enough reporting isn’t done with the same partisanship as the moderation is. Be it left or right.

This is a vital case. It’s more than just the right to control your own platform, and more than the association issue of some Liberal types.
It’s about more than the bias, which absolutely exists.
It’s about more than all of this and every other 230-related argument for or against it.

This is a chance to see if courts can get politicians on the left to admit what they really want (delete the conservatives and anyone who ever agreed with them).

This is a chance to see if they can get the politicians on the right to admit what they really want (demanded hosting and access to the public via private corporations).

The real fun here will be watching how politicians trip over themselves to not say what the mean.

This has all the makings of a good UK scandal if we can get anyone to cover it down the middle (hopefully CSPAN carries this).

There’s no doubt this will get shot down. I just hope that happens in the SCOTUS.
For all the bitching on a “conservative” court the cases we’ve seen since the refill have all been decided, or refused, on purely constitutional grounds.
The law is dead based on private property rights alone. Compellment is also well judicated. A further nail in the law.
And yes, there is even some case law for “association” being a violation of speech.

The big question then will be: what’s next?
What is the reaction to the case loss. That should be even more entertaining!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: What’s next?

Lost cause, you keep on claiming that a private entity removing posts is censorship. Why must a site keep up hateful and racist speech, solicitation for prostitution, and spam, as all are legal speech? Do you really want to hand the Internet over to trolls and spammers, and drive everybody else from the Internet?

Read up on the history of Usenet, and the wandering of various groups to escape the trolls, and re,member there we are talking about people where the majority had the skills to provide their own filtering.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 What’s next?

Usenet was a large server interconnect that expanded time share services to general access relays.

Usenet came up as an add on to other dial in services in the mid-to-late 80s.
I’m well aware of the history. CIS was the largest on-ramp to UseNet, and dozens of other protocol servers around the country. Database repositories of site linking for UseNet, Archy, Gopher, Slack, FTP, Veronica, Speed, Burst…
As an employee handling content I’m well aware of the trash that got posted. A side effect of the glorious global speech revolution.

“ Why must a site keep ”
They don’t have to. They’re private companies.
230 protections them legally safe from things they miss in purging what they don’t want.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Moderation may include censorship

Trump had achievements and failures, like all presidents. Your, or my, political viewpoint is the only difference in how one sees each action.

“ climate change isn’t anything we have to worry about right now”
Compared with to more immediate issues?
I welcome you to go look at some of those resources I posted. I assure you most Republicans would call them crap fear mongering.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Moderation may include censorship

No, it can’t, because then it would be censorship instead of moderation.

Trump had achievements and failures, like all presidents. Your, or my, political viewpoint is the only difference in how one sees each action.

Apparently you think 400,000-plus people dead is an “achievement” because he didn’t start a panic by treating COVID-19 seriously, didn’t recommend that people wear masks even after he caught COVID-19, and didn’t actually say “drink bleach to kill COVID-19”.

Compared with to more immediate issues?

That freakish heatwave in the Pacific Northwest seems pretty “immediate” to the people who’re suffering and dying as a result of the record-setting heat. But sure, keep thinking we can put off a response to that until a few decades from now.

most Republicans would call them crap fear mongering

In ten years, when the weather is even worse than it is now and conservatives are saying things like “why didn’t you tell us things would get this bad” and “why didn’t you do anything about this” to the scientists who were trying to do exactly that, I want you to remember that you’re on the side of the assholes whose fearmongering and hatred of science, expertise, and anything resembling an education beyond the sixth grade⁠—if even that⁠—made impossible any kind of meaningful response to global climate change.

Then again, maybe I should point to that building collapse in Florida and tell you that plenty of other buildings are going to end up like that one thanks to climate change. You’ll probably care more about the potential for catastrophic property damage than about the potential for catastrophic loss of life, you property rights–humping libertarian ghoul.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“ No, it can’t,”

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. ~Wikipedia

“ Apparently you think 400,000-plus people dead is an “achievement” …”
Not wince did I say that. Nice of you to ignore the extremely high number of deaths caused by Democrats placing covid patients in nursing homes.
Not only did that kill residents, it created spread pockets based on prolonged contact. People using disposable masks thinking they were safe working directly with returned infected patients then spread the virus outside said locations.

“ put off a response”
No, how about not choke the country to death with deadlines and no plans for infrastructure!??
The green new deal provides zero reliable infrastructure for dealing with such a drastic and rapid change in energy.

“I want you to remember that you’re on the side of the assholes whose fearmongering and hatred of science, expertise, and anything resembling …”
Blah. I’m on the side of fact.
For nearly 50 years people ran around saying the end is near.
With zero evidence and a lot of conjecture based on less than conclusive samples.
From the 70s the glaciers would be gone in a decade.
From the 70s Florida and California would be under water. From the 60s the oceans would be acid lakes.
Etc etc etc.
We are now, finally, starting to get some scientists displaying actual proof. Not conjecture
If this evidence continues to be presented the likelihood falls on the side of man-made. We’re now seeing it swing that way based on evidence.
If they had gone and done this research in the first place instead of fighting to see who could publish faster maybe we could have come up with a plan.

The problem with fear mongers is they are more concerned with spreading their messages than supplying facts.
You don’t have to be wrong to be a fear monger.
Now people are starting to present actual evidence. And I’m willing to listen to evidence.

That doesn’t change the fact that we have no sustainable thought out plan in evidence of HOW to do the transition. Just a mandate to do it.

As for Florida, all evidence points to the primary and majority reason for the collapse being poor building construction and lack of adherence to regulations.
Rising sea levels may be a contributing factor.

As oceans rise (naturally or accelerated) we need to use common sense in moving off risky land.
Building on sand is ultimately unwise in Florida or anywhere else.

Let’s also not loose sight of more immediate concerns that are a direct threat to the majority of the population in the process.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information.

Moderation is removal from one outlet, and that does not suppress speech, just requires the speakers use a different outlet.

Devin Nunes use of the courts to sue anyone who says anything that he does not like on the other hand is censorship, via a creditable threat to cost the a potential speaker large sums in defending themselves should they speak..

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

“ Moderation is removal from one outlet, and that does not suppress speech, just requires the speakers use a different outlet.”

“ Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.”
Once deleted it’s gone from that platform.
It has effectively been censored within the confines of that private institution.
And it’s a right they have. No private entity should be forced to host what they don’t want to host!

230 guarantees that if a private owner practices moderation, including site based censoring, they are not held liable for illegal user material they have not taken down. It assumes good faith in removing illegal content. And secures the premise of innocent until proven guilty.

Devin Nunes, not following, don’t care.
Everyone has the right to file a lawsuit. If it’s frivolous, there are many punishments available. From private or public rebuke by the court to monetary rewards to the defendant to civil a d criminal contempt.

Keep in mind 230 doesn’t actually protect you from a lawsuit; it secures your defence in law.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

It has effectively been censored within the confines of that private institution.

No, it’s been moderated off a platform. For the speech to be censored, it would have to be suppressed from being repeated anywhere else⁠—which it can’t be because Twitter doesn’t have the right or the power to do that.

Devin Nunes, not following, don’t care.

You should. His lawsuits are the definition of “censorship via legal action”⁠—SLAPPs in the face of the First Amendment, if you will⁠—so I’d think someone as opposed to censorship as you claim to be would want to know whether his efforts to censor his critics are succeeding.

Or maybe you just don’t care when it’s a conservative trying to silence a critic of conservatives and their ideology, which seems to overlap with yours in ways you’re afraid to admit.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: What’s next?

Lies:

That anti-conservative bias isn’t imagined

That section 230 doesn’t protect private sites

That Florida fought against censorship

That the legal issue hasn’t already been settled

That there’s nothing more to moderation rights than property rights

That the right to association is at odds to speech rights
That there’s a partisanship problem with moderation

That liberals want to delete conservatives and all that agree with them

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

the association issue of some Liberal types

You still think that’s a “liberal” issue? Jesus, Lodos, do you think conservatives would want the government to make Stormfront host speech in favor of critical race theory?

The freedom to associate is like the freedom to worship: To have the freedom to do it, you must also be free from being forced to do it. That isn’t a partisan principle. Unless you believe the government should legally force queer people to attend an anti-queer Christian megachurch every Sunday, I’d think even you could find it within your long-dead libertarian heart to see people as people long enough for that principle to sink in.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“ conservatives would want the government to make Stormfront host speech in favor of critical race theory”
Doubtful, but that’s exactly what they are demanding.
Lol.

“ you must also be free from being forced to do it.”
Unfortunately the government hasn’t figured that out yet.
“god” is everywhere!

But where you confer the association some cases have left it undecided. One always has the ability to say “I’m not in alignment with:”

That’s a side issue to me though.
The main concern is the private service being allowed to maintain its rules to its own standards.
Regardless of who it is.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

That’s a side issue to me though.

Of course it is. Property rights seem to trump every other kind of right in your eyes. Hell, two hundred years ago, you’d probably be giving lectures to plantation owners about what to do about their “property” if “it” died in the middle of a cotton field on a hot summer day.

Jesus fucking Christ, Lodos, do you really not give a fuck about whether the government can make you go to church or host racist speech aside from the property rights angle?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Well, making me go to church would be a violation of the first amendment as forcing me to go would be government sponsorship.
Unless; every American was forced to attend every religious activity. Which may or may not still be considered sponsorship.

“ host racist speech”
Racists suck. All of them. No race is superior to another.
No, I don’t want them on my platform.
For me, i bury them in the sandbox. A deep as I can.

“ Hell, two hundred years ago, you’d probably be giving lectures to plantation owners”
Uh, no. Just no.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

No, I don’t want them on my platform. For me, i bury them in the sandbox.

A bit of breaking news for you: Burying them on your property means they’re still on your property. Putting them out of sight doesn’t kick them off, and they could point to that fact if you ever said you don’t associate with racist assholes.

Uh, no. Just no.

Why not? Back then, enslaved people were considered property, and you seem to care far, far, far, far, far more about property than you do about people. What makes you skittish about that particular idea when damn near every idea you’ve expressed on this site to date heavily implies that property is all that matters to you?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“ Putting them out of sight doesn’t kick them off, and they could point to that fact if you ever said you don’t associate with racist assholes.”

“ModNotes: you have clicked on the sand box this is not a children’s playground. This section is unmoderated, uncensored, and totally uncontrolled!
You must be over 21 to enter and have signed the age verification form before you can access links here.
Nothing will be removed without a court order.
The moderation team does not visit here.
You are on your own.

You HAVE been WaRnEd!”

“ Back then, enslaved people were considered property”
Yes. By law they were. Some agreed with it. Most did not.
I do not believe you can own life. I don’t own plants or pets either. Though I care for some.
Again, just because something is legal doesn’t make it right.

Just because the law said you can own a person didn’t I would.
Just because the law says you can do something doesn’t mean I would or that anyone should.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Some agreed with it. Most did not.

ahahaha holy fuck you actually think there was widespread opposition to slavery

the South literally fought a war to preserve slavery, you asshole

Just because the law said you can own a person didn’t I would.

Yeah, but given how much of a fetishist you are for property rights, I’m pretty sure you would’ve defended that law back then.

Just because the law says you can do something doesn’t mean I would or that anyone should.

The law says you don’t have to host racist speech on a service you own, yet you’ve said you’d do it anyway, so…that’s on you, Lostcause.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

"Yes. By law they were. Some agreed with it. Most did not. "

You…need to hit the history books once more. The south went to wart primarily to defend their rights to own other people. The confederate constitution literally had slavery enshrined as sacrosanct and forbade any law to be made to mitigate it with the same fervor that 1A bans congress from making laws restricting speech.

Slavery was supported, in the south, to such a point that it served as casus belli with the citizenry as a whole convinced that if they had to treat black people as human beings of equal worth, civilization would perish.

"Just because the law said you can own a person didn’t I would. "

Had you, I, or Stephen grown up in 18th century Kentucky, Alabama, Virginia or Ohio then odds are overwhelming that we’d all have been in favor of owning people. We would have been taught since birth it was proper. We might, like Robert E. Lee have postulated that the suffering of these lesser being on earth would give them a slim chance for heaven so that whipping and branding became a work of God…or we might just think of it as the natural state of the black man as the state legislation would have it.

Don’t assume that the enlightenment of today has any bearing on the citizenry of the savage days of yore.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

“The south went to wart primarily to defend their rights to own other people.”
Yes. The majority of citizens we in the North though.

Along with that, most in the South did not own slaves, want slaves, or care at all about them.
It was an institution that was accepted as ‘is’ and not much more.
Slavery was a system of the rich plantation owners.

Slavery was a primary institution in the South and the cornerstone of mass farming.
It was a major cause of Southern schism with the North.

It was not the only one though.
The South maintained the view that the Union was of independent self-governing states. State in the general international term.
They believed they maintained complete autonomy as long as they complied with other states’s laws. But that they maintained the rights to control their own land within their borders.

There were many, many, reasons for the civil war. The issue of slavery was the main one more because of the implication of annulment than the actual act.

Lincoln himself lends support to that by stating he would preserve slavery if he knew it would preserve the Union.

“We would have been taught since birth it was proper”
You assume much in your thoughts.
I was raised in a catholic household. Yet I broke away, quietly at first, in my early teams from that dogmatic view.
Since bigotry and hate are inshrined in biblical teachings there is no reason to think I would have tossed that off as well then, any more than now.

Nobody taught me the Bible was a work of fiction. I figured that out on my own.
And I just have well may have then as now.

I’ve always been my own self. It’s the way I am.

Just as you say I would have supported it, there’s no way for me, or you, to know if I would have; or if I would have been a freedom runner.
No way to know. I’d like to think I’d have been the latter.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

"Along with that, most in the South did not own slaves, want slaves, or care at all about them. "

I refer you this quote, by a certain A.R. Moxon, regarding an analogous historical situation;

“Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed. That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.”

The only thing which really matters about the south is that all the southerners accepted the institution of slavery, "as is". And all southerners more or less willingly joined up to defend the nation centered around the institution of slavery. I don’t believe more than one in a thousand confederate soldiers owned slaves, if that. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that they were willing to kill and die in the defense of that institution.

"But that they maintained the rights to control their own land within their borders. "

That’s not what all the hubbub was about though. There was no contention about self-governance. What had southern representatives in congress break every border of civility, up to and including assaulting and maiming other representatives right on the floor, was one thing and one thing only; That slaves who fled the south were set free on reaching other states. That was loudly hyped as the north "stealing" valuable "property" from the soutern states as a whole, making a mockery of their "right" to own other people.

There have been many studies made about why the south declared war and formed their confederacy. All of them come back to slavery as the sole impetus of any importance. Either just as the right to own and hold or as the right to retrieve.

"I was raised in a catholic household. Yet I broke away, quietly at first, in my early teams from that dogmatic view. "

Because, unless I miss my guess, you actually made contact with different views. Read too much science, talked to people with different views, and grew up in a place where uttering scepticism in public wouldn’t get you beaten, shot or hung. No such input would have been in the offing for a southern boy born in the 1850’s.

"Just as you say I would have supported it, there’s no way for me, or you, to know if I would have…"

The odds are slim, for both of us, in this hypothetical scenario. We might want to believe we would have been the one in a thousand white southerners willing to lend a hand to an escaping slave or hold a station for Harriet Tubman’s railroad…

…But the odds are very much against, and by far more likely that we would have been on the other side of the fence, holding to the belief that such is the natural state of things – and particularly so if we owned land.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

“ What matters is that they were willing to kill and die in the defense of that institution.”
You see, commentary like that is why people don’t understand why the flag is still flown in the south.

The general (Southern) population didn’t sign up and fight for any institution or regulation.
They fought over being ‘invaded’ their land. They fought because Union platoons crossed their fields and burned everything in their wake.
They fought based on the factual knowledge that Union solders shot first and sorted it out later.
They fought to remain free.

The hypocrisy and irony is not lost on me in fighting for freedom when your leaders keep slaves.
But the many many thousands who gave their lives on the Southern side did so not for slaves but to be left alone.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

The general (Southern) population didn’t sign up and fight for any institution or regulation. They fought over being ‘invaded’ their land.

That means they signed up and fought for the Confederate States of America, a nation-state that seceded from the United States for the purpose of ensuring the survival of the institution of slavery. If a Southerner fought for the Confederacy, they were fighting for everything the Confederacy stood for⁠—and above all else, that failed nation-state stood for enshrining slavery into law.

They fought to remain free.

…to own people as property, yes. Jeez, you’d think you wouldn’t forget that, seeing as how you’re a sociopathic libertarian who thinks property and property rights are more important than people and their civil rights.

But the many many thousands who gave their lives on the Southern side did so not for slaves but to be left alone.

…to own slaves, yes.

Look, you can do all the secession-justifying rhetorical backflips you want, but speaking as someone who has been a Southern man since the day I came into this world: The Confederacy was a failed nation-state that seceded from and lost a war with the United States over the right to keep enslaving Black people as if they were property to be bought and sold like one would buy and sell a car these days. Whether the soldiers were specifically fighting for the institution of slavery is irrelevant⁠—they were fighting for the Confederacy, and in doing so, they were fighting for everything the Confederacy stood for. And the Confederacy stood for slavery.

Are you going to bitch about critical race theory and whine about how I’m painting a racist nation-state as racist like all your fellow conservative “lost cause” comrades, or are you going to acknowledge the fucking truth?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

The truth?
“ The hypocrisy and irony is not lost on me in fighting for freedom when your leaders keep slaves.
But the many many thousands who gave their lives on the Southern side did so not for slaves but to be left alone.”

Just like I am capable of separating an individual’s pay and compensation from that of a company proper, I am capable of separating the framer who grabbed his musket and side arm to fire at Unions soldiers burning his crops, from the Confederate government and it’s goals, including slavery.

Just like I separate the Union soldier who was called to duty not by choice by by conscription, who burned Southern property on order under penalty of field marshal and death, from the Union command that orders such scorched earth policy.

Ignoring the other factors leaves them repeatable.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

I am capable of separating the f[ar]mer who grabbed his musket and side arm to fire at Unions soldiers burning his crops, from the Confederate government and [its] goals, including slavery.

Admittedly, fighting for the protection of one’s home is a noble cause. That said: Not every Southern farmer who fought in the Civil War did so for that purpose. You’re coming off as someone trying to rewrite history by implying that a good chunk of the people fighting against the United States were simple farmers protecting their crops.

I separate the Union soldier who was called to duty not by choice by by conscription, who burned Southern property on order under penalty of field marshal and death, from the Union command that orders such scorched earth policy.

You shouldn’t. Every soldier had a choice to make. They made their choices regardless of the pressure. Any one soldier could’ve chosen punishment over the acts they committed. Separating the troops from the decisions of their command is to deny those troops the responsibility for their actions⁠—to treat them as little more than robotic drones. You know that’s not true, and you shouldn’t ever make another argument that makes you sound like you don’t know that’s not true.

Ignoring the other factors leaves them repeatable.

Go tell that to your conservative friends, who are trying to all but outright ban the teaching of racial history in this country by attacking critical race theory. In their world, we could teach the fact that the 13th Amendment exists, but we wouldn’t be allowed to say why it exists and what it says because that might hurt white people’s feelings. Hell, in their world, we’d probably be teaching kids that the Confederacy was right⁠—and given how you appear to be defending the Confederacy, that approach might be something you’d be okay with.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

Yes, I would use deadly force to protect my home, my neighbourhood, my village, my county, my state, and my country, from attack.
That’s why I insisted. To help protect my country and do my duty as a citizen.
That didn’t go away with discharge.

The civil war had some of the largest counts for desertion in US history, possibly the.

The the deserters were often conscripts. And seriously, I don’t much have a problem with that. Being forced to fight against your own neighbours… grr; not good.
But I won’t disparage those that did either.

People do what they think is right. Most, anyway.
Sometimes they’re wrong, and sometimes they’re deadly wrong.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

Insisted-> enlisted.

Outside of a military setting: I would only use deadly force to respond in kind.
Are you implying you would never pick up a weapon to protect yourself, your loved one, your family and friends, your community?

I apologise if your a pacifist, and truly believe in that!
That is your choice: I don’t agree with it, but I definitely respect it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17

Are you implying you would never pick up a weapon to protect yourself, your loved one, your family and friends, your community?

I will only pick up a weapon in defense of self or others. All other violence is bullshit⁠—and that includes the death penalty as well as violence intended to protect (or destroy) property.

My “issue” isn’t with the violence itself. It’s that I said you’d kill without hesitation because people aren’t property and you never pushed back on the idea. I mean, if you want to say otherwise, now is the time to assert that you actually give a damn about people⁠—moreso than property, too!⁠—instead of letting the idea that you sincerely believe in an ethos of “property over people” hang in the air.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18 Re:

“ because people aren’t property and you never pushed back on the idea”
People are not property. Why would I ‘push back’ on that. I agree.

You make me out to be a Wild West gunslinger in all this murder crap.
Let me make this absolutely clear then:

If you threaten myself, my family,
My loved ones, my friends. I will defend with equal force.
That extends to the association, the town, the county, the state, and the Country. (Theoretically to the plant in case of non-planetary invasion).
If you break into my house a 3pm nude and obviously unarmed, I’m likely to smash your head a few times with the softest thing I can graband toss your nude arse right out the front door.

If you break into my house a 3am you’ll likely get shot. That’s not just property. That’s a likely threat to my castle. And castle doctrine allows me to protect it.

Btw:
Shot doesn’t mean kill except in the most over broad of terms. I know how to use a firearm- how to stop a person in most cases using non-lethal force.
Unless you are an immediate, undeniable, threat, my first choice is to stop you, not kill you.
If you keep coming, be it drugs or your a terminator, I will quickly move to more permanent targets, and ultimately yes, lethal force.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:20 Re:

No. I’d call the police and report you.

Given how much video security I have I’m quite sure they will find you and arrest you for petty vandalism.
At which point my lawyer would supply me with a civil form so I can file against you for the full price of the window replacement, and the cost of removal and replacement.

One does not need to be violent to punish. I’ll be sure to add cleaning and landscaping repair post replacement, to the cost. By the time I’m done we’ll reach the civil limit here, and I doubt you’ll be dumb eno