Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the metacommentary dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side comes in the form of a reply that builds on the second place winner. So for clarity’s sake, we’ll present them in reverse order! In second place, it’s Stephen T. Stone with a piece-by-piece reply to yet another comment on our post about how Twitter is already doing most of the things Musk claims he wants to do with the company:
Elon did more than simply purchase Twitter.
Technically, he hasn’t bought it yet. He’s made an offer to buy it, and that offer could still fall apart before the sale is finalized (which will take months). Hell, Elon himself could pull the offer, considering how much it’s already fucked up the stock price of Tesla.
This stuff, if it was occurring behind the scenes, is now going to get exposed.
Okay, and…so what? What do you think is going to happen, some grand revolution where everyone abandons Twitter for Truth Social or a mass conservative convergence on Twitter headquarters for some “political discourse” involving pitchforks and torches?
If there truly was no bias at Twitter
Here’s the thing: There is always going to be some bias at Twitter becase humans can’t be unbiased. Even on something as simple as a single type of food (e.g., cheese), people will be biased towards one kind or another (e.g., preferring chedder over Swiss, preferring Kraft over other brands). People working Twitter moderation do their best to put those biases aside for the sake of their jobs, but a little bias will always slip through because they’re only human.
And as pointed out in the article, given how Twitter bent over backwards to make sure certain Republican/conservative accounts were given leeway to break the rules, the bias would arguably be in favor of conservatives. I mean, Twitter let Donald Trump say all kinds of wild shit until they finally banned his ass after the insurrection.
But more to the point: If conservatives are being dinged at a higher rate than liberals/progressives because conservatives are more likely to post content that breaks the rules, what does that say about conservatives and what is considered “conservative speech”?
In first place, it’s That One Guy replying to that comment and building on the part about Twitter’s special carve-outs for Republicans:
It takes a stunning level of dishonesty or at the very least overwhelming self-entitlement and ego to be treated better than everyone else and yet still be screaming about how persecuted you are.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with an anonymous comment about the Houston ordinance forcing businesses to install cameras and provide warrantless access to the footage:
It’s like Texas, Florida, New York and California are all one-upping each other to see who can pass the most blatantly unconstitutional law.
Next, it’s PaulT responding to the question in the headline of our post about how drug patents drive up drug prices — “why is this even up for debate?”:
The same reason why there’s constant opposition to the idea of a universal public healthcare system in the US, even though the current system already costs way more per capita that other western democracies (and many countries who aren’t) and is extremely inefficient with many duplicated functions, while covering a far lower proportion of the population – there’s a lot of money to be made.
Once you’ve decided that profits outweigh the health and public benefits that easier access to drugs or healthcare provide, you can then come up with all sorts of reasons why overpriced monopolies are great.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is apparently-not-actually davec continuing a confusing long-running discussion on last week’s comments post about parody comments and spotting them via the lack of certain recurring content:
I’ll keep that in mind for next week, thanks.
In second place, it’s Thad on our post about Musk and Twitter, responding to a commenter who asserted “this is just wrong”:
Thanks for warning us in advance, but if you already knew it was wrong you could have just not posted it.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with one more comment from That One Guy, this time on our post about ways that Musk taking over Twitter could be good:
The general vibe I’m getting from the article is that if Musk can reign in his ego, listen to and admit that other people might know more on the subject than him things have a possibility of going well.
Arguably I’m not that familiar with the guy but based upon previous articles I’m sure that will work out great.
Finally, it’s Pixelation with another comment about the Houston camera ordinance:
Based on experience with police cameras, they will understand when you tell them the camera was not on.
That’s all for this week, folks!
Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
It says that Liberals don’t believe in Free Speech.
“We don’t have Free Speech to talk about the weather. We have Free Speech so we can talk about and say controversial thing.” – Ron Paul
Sorry to say, but the fact that Stephen T. Stone and the rest of Techdirt thinks that Free Speech comes with caveats means that you don’t really believe in Free Speech.
“You just want to have consequence free speech.”
Yes. Yes I do. I want to say what I’m thinking and what’s on my mind without fear of repercussion. So long as what I say is legally protected, I shouldn’t have to worry that what I say will get me fired from my job, banned from social media, beaten or killed by others. And if you think that ANY of those are fine to do to someone for SAYING something, then you don’t truly believe in Free Speech.
Twitter and Facebook are the public square. You should be able to say anything that’s legally allowed without worry.
And for those of you who are freaking out over the possibility of Section 230 getting changed, remember this.
I WARNED you that this would happen. I told you that if Twitter, Facebook and Google didn’t straighten themselves out, didn’t fix their censorship problems, then Section 230 WAS going to get changed/repealed and that all of you would blame the politicians instead of blaming the Social Media Companies for not messing around.
When you have people, on BOTH sides of the aisle going “we need to do something about the censorship on social media”, instead of going “hurr durr, not censorship”, MAYBE YOU SHOULD LISTEN!
But, regardless, this post is taking a long time, so I’ll hurry up here.
The fact that people are freaking out or getting critical of someone promising actual free speech tells you which side (Authoritarian or Liberty) they’re truly on.
I know, I know. This is going to be mass flagged (if people read it) because self reflection is not a strong point of any side.
Censorship is censorship, regardless of the source. The end result remains the same. A voice is silenced, information is lost, and people become more and more bitter and angry.
Re: Yeah, see, that ain’t how this shit works.
Free speech means you can speak your mind and say whatever you want. But it doesn’t entitle you to three things: an audience, a platform, and a right to be heard.
No one has to listen to, host, or amplify your speech regardless of whether you want them to. You lack the legal, moral, and ethical right to make anyone do those things. Twitter is no more legally obligated to host your speech than it is to host the speech of Mike Masnick, Joe Biden, AOC, or even myself (if I used Twitter, that is). The same goes for other social media services, newspapers, book publishers, television networks, and any other outlet for speech that you don’t personally own/operate.
I’ll defend to the death your right to say whatever inane, insane, or profane thing you want to say. But I don’t have to repeat it, I don’t have to shove it in someone else’s face, I don’t have to host it on a website I own/operate, and I don’t have to pay it any other mind beyond this reply.
You have the problem if you can’t deal with that reality. I can’t and won’t solve it for you—that is a goal only you can achieve.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Woke gender ideologues squeal like stuck pigs when the Florida government exercises its Constitutional right to its own speech and bans woke gender ideology from its public schools.
If it’s OK to criticize Florida for how it chooses to exercise its speech rights, it’s OK to criticize Twitter for the same.
Re: Re: Re:
Lol. That’s not how it works at all. The gov’t doesn’t have a Constitutional right to ban speech. I mean, that’s so incredibly wrong, that I no longer think you’re an actual serious human being.
One of those is the gov’t, which is LIMITED by the 1st Amendment. One is not.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
The state government gets to set its curriculum, which is the speech of the government. The government is allowed to speak for itself in any way it wants, and government employees do not have 1st Amendment rights to speak as they wish as part of their jobs.
It’s amazing that you need to be told this. Just as the government can ban teachers from teaching creationism in its schools, so it can ban teachers from teaching woke gender ideology. CDC employees do not have 1st Amendment rights to recommend ivermectin for COVID-19 while speaking as employees.
Re: Re: Re:
That involves the government banning speech. I hope even you can see the problem there, because if you can’t see that problem or don’t see that as a problem…well, prepare to hear a bunch of news stories in the future about slavery being taught in a way that doesn’t offend the sensibilites of conservative (white) parents.
Re: Re: Re:2
… you say, as though they’d find offense in such teaching.
Re: Re: Re:3
They would, actually. Like the Boers, they don’t recognise the pretence of ‘owning’ other human beings as slavery because they view non-white people as having no human rights. They’re far happier to assign such rights to chimpanzees than to recognise that black people have them on an equal basis to everyone else.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
The government can most certainly ban speech for its employees when that speech is part of their jobs. If the FDA decides that smoking is bad and wants its employees to publicize that message, an FDA employee, as part of their job, can’t speak for the FDA to sy that smoking is harmless.
Public school teachers are government employees, and the government gets to control what they say while they’re on the job. Just as woke New York tells its teachers that they are not to use the term “boy’s penis” but must say just “penis”.
Re: Re: Re:3 I triple dog dare you to not use “woke” in your reply to this.
Just so we’re clear: You’re fine with conservatives banning the teaching and discussion of “divisive concepts” in schools? Because that can mean the different between teaching the truth of slavery and…well, teaching kids that Black people actually liked being treated like chattel property for centuries multiple generations by some vague group of people whose race/ethnicity is never clearly defined. It can also mean the difference between teaching the truth of the civil rights movement and teaching kids that Black people weren’t treated as second-class citizens but needed to have their rights enshrined into law because of some oversights by some vague group of people whose race/ethnicity is never clearly defined.
It can also be the difference between merely mentioning that gay/trans people exist and being unable to mention even heterosexuality out of the fear that mentioning any kind of sexual orientation (or gender identity) in any way—including, say, whether a straight person is married—could be cited as a “divisive concept”. After all, mentioning heterosexuality could mean someone is putting ideas about sex and sexuality into the heads of vulnerable underaged children who may not be prepared for such mature discussions, and we certainly can’t have that going on.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’m fine with making the curriculum age-appropriate, but otherwise, the only thing I want to ban are lies. That means that sex-ed classes should be able to discuss both normal and unusual aspects of sexuality, but must not promote the lies of woke gender ideology as true – those should be presented as “some people believe”, just as would be a discussion of religion. Similarly, history needs to be taught comprehensively, not just from the woke critical race theory point of view, and disputed accounts such as The 1619 Project should be taught in context, again as “some people believe”.
But just as you insist with the social media platforms, states have the right to set their public school curriculum as they wish. And then people have the right to criticize the state for the things they don’t like. Ultimately, it is the voters who decide what the result will be.
Re: Re: Re:5
Wait, is your definition of truth based solely on how many people believe something? Weird.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Not even slightly.
Re: Re: Re:5
Fucking ironic for someone with a Jewish name to get all het up about people trying to eliminate racism, Hymen Rosan. Do you think someone like Hitler being the POTUS would be a good idea, as well?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
In retrospect it was a terrible idea. But we live our lives forward, not backward, and there are many more people who have been called the next Hitler than have become the next Hitler. Woke ideologues can try to use Hitler scares to get their way, but that has long become a worn-out trope.
Re: Re: Re:7 Rookie mistake
Woke count= 6
You were on a pretty good roll then you godwined yourself.
Re: Re: Re:5
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
It used to be “some people believe” that the human species evolved from ape-like ancestors. “Some people believe” that the earth is more than a few thousand years old. “Some people believe” that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and neither is the center of even our local galaxy, let alone the universe… Huh.
Also, “some people believe” that people should choose their own government, that the “Right of Kings” is self-justifying political-religious balderdash. And “some people believe” that ‘race’ is a contrived social construct and that there’s no sensible reason that people of different skin colors shouldn’t marry and have children. “Some people believe” even that people of different colors should have equal access to a good education — Why some people even believe they should all be allowed to vote and that every vote should be equal…
Heck, “some people” even believe that teachers generally have a pretty good notion of what their students need to be learning, and that ambitious, partisan demagogue politicians with a crude political agenda, should butt out of curriculum issues instead of launching divisive social propaganda campaigns to deny the existence of realities that those kids can already see with their own eyes — But you know… maybe that’s just what I believe.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Well, of course. Propositions turn into facts after they are sufficiently vetted with the passage of time.
Neither woke gender ideology nor critical race theory have passed through that process. Communism has failed. Psychology has largely failed. Economics is on its way to failure as well.
Ideologues of all stripes want their beliefs held as true in advance of convincing evidence. It is the responsibility of those who value truth not to let them do that.
Re: Re: Re:7
Unfortunately for your “argument”, the “propositions” that you’re citing all either:
You may believe you’re making rational, logical statements, but you’re actually spouting meaningless word-salad — pure drivel, quite unmoored from actual reality.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
If we all agreed on things, we wouldn’t be fighting a culture war.
Re: Re: Re:9
Those who fight a culture war are authoritarians, now matter what they claim. Reasonable people agree to differ.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Exactly. That’s why Twitter should not be banning “deadnaming”.
Re: Re: Re:11
Nobody demands that you talk to queer people, but if you do, use the name that they use. Deadnaming is you being an authoritarian about sex and gender.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
“Deadnaming” is necessary to avoid erasing history. The fact that someone once had a different name is in fact a fact, and facts do not get erased because woke gender ideologues want it that way.
Re: Re: Re:13
I’m curious…
Do you ever actually think about the blather you spout, before* you post it?
.
( * ) or, as far as that goes, after you post it, either
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
Yes.
Re: Re: Re:15
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:13
There is a difference between making a factual observation that a name was changed, and continually referring to a person by their previous name because you don’t like the new one.
Re: Re: Re:14
Yes, of course. For example, someone has changed the Wikipedia entry for the movie Juno to say that it starred Elliot Page, even though the actor’s name was Ellen Page when she starred in that movie. Using the actor’s name as it was at the time is factual.
For comparison, look at the Wikipedia entry for Muhammad Ali. He is consistently and correctly referred to as Cassius Clay up to the point where he changed his name. And he apparently never changed his name legally, so when the Supreme Court overturned his conviction for refusing to be inducted into the army, the case was Clay vs. United States.
Re: Re: Re:13
Making excuse for your transphobia does change the fact that you keep on attacking trans people.
Re: Re: Re:13
No, it isn’t. The only purpose for intentional deadnaming is cruelty. You can wrap it up in the nicest possible language and claim the most benign possible motive, but its only true purpose is to be cruel to people you hate.
I’m in a foul mood today for reasons that should be quite obvious to anyone looking at U.S. news right now, so I’m not in the mood to get into a protracted Internet slapfight with a bigotry-spewing asshole like you. (This is likely going to be the only comment I post on this site all day today.) Alls I’m gonna do is ask you this, and I promise that you don’t have to answer…because I’m not going to care if you do:
Other than the pleasure of inflicting cruelty and pain and misery upon those you hate, what do you get out of making trans people miserable—even (and especially) if they haven’t first been making your life miserable, save for your own imagined fears about trans people?
(…oh, and one more thing: The Venn diagram of “people who love to say transphobic shit” and “people who will literally celebrate the end of Roe v. Wade” is probably close to being one circle, so enjoy being on that side today, you hateful son of a bitch.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
If I am something of a free-speech absolutist, I am very much more an abortion absolutist. I would happily watch every forced-birther Republican die in a fire. Woke ideologues are idiots. Republicans are evil filth.
Note that being an abortion absolutist means that I support abortion rights for women (and only women can be pregnant) for any or no reason, including women who want an abortion because their fetus will be born deaf, or have Down syndrome, or be of a sex she does not prefer.
And no matter how many times you refuse to hear it, “deadnaming” is necessary to accurately portray history. Woke gender ideologues do not get to force people to erase history on their say-so.
To the extent that I “attack trans people” it is because I am attacking woke gender ideologues who are attempting to force people to affirm false beliefs. Men cannot be turned into women, and therefore we should not have laws and policies that state or imply the opposite.
Re: Re: Re:15 After this, I’m done with you.
(Warning: This comment will be long. Get comfortable.)
I’ve been racking my brain for a good long while now in the hopes of finding the right response to this specific comment. Several approaches crossed my mind, all of which seemed good to me.
I could’ve wondered why you think you need/deserve to know about what’s between a trans person’s legs. I mean, what use is it to you if you can categorize someone as either male or female based on their genitalia—besides having the chance to use that knowledge against them? Knowing someone is trans is a fact of life; how you treat them after learning that fact is a choice you make. And you’ve all but said that you’ll treat trans people like shit because they don’t fit into your way of thinking.
I could’ve wondered why you’re willing to dismiss the words and experiences of trans people and their cisgender/queer allies. What do you get out of ignoring trans people (and their supporters) when they talk openly about how society treats them as second-class citizens? It doesn’t help trans people receive better treatment. It sure as hell doesn’t make you seem sympathetic to trans people and the way society marginalizes them only because of their gender identity.
I could’ve wondered why you’re so insistent on deadnaming and misgendering trans people. What does that do for you that you would prefer to cause misery? The whole “historical record” thing is a misdirect because you’ve essentially been arguing that no trans person should ever be known by the name they prefer to use. Deadnaming and misgendering trans people doesn’t do them any favors, so it must be doing something for you—something that assuages your own discomfort with their existence in this world.
I even could’ve wondered what purpose all that “woke gender ideologues” shit has to do with trans people. Who the fuck is even teaching kids what you claim “woke gender ideology” to be (this week), and how do you know for a fact that it’s happening? You seem to think queer people are out to make kids queer when the fact of the matter is that being queer isn’t a choice one can be goaded into making. And don’t think I haven’t noticed how you keep using “woke gender ideologues” whenever you mean “trans people” or “queer people”…or, worse yet, “faggots”. (Yes, I’m not censoring it this time because you need to fucking learn how transparent your bullshit is.)
But then I thought a little further. I thought about all the hate and bigotry and flat-out cruelty you’ve been spreading in the name of “protecting the children”. (Incidental question: How many hateful people have used that as a motive for marginalizing “undesirables” while you’ve been alive?) I thought about how you keep using words and phrases that, through overuse and vagueness, mean nothing to rational-thinking people. (“Woke” is the primary offender amongst them.) I thought about how, at every turn, you’ve defended your transphobia not as bigotry, but as a defense of “the truth”.
It was that last point where I realized what had been staring me in the face all along: You don’t give a fuck about the truth. You care about being cruel to trans people without consequence.
You want to have trans people who work as educators fired so they can’t teach an “ideology” they aren’t even teaching. You want their trans identities erased so they’ll always be who they were before they transitioned—so they can always be humiliated and embarassed about having done so. You want trans people marginalized by society so you can more easily separate them from the broader queer/LGBTQ+ community (who will be next on the chopping block) and deny them any form of social or cultural support. You want the government to help you marginalize trans people by passing laws that “protect sports”, deny transgender-related healthcare even to adults, and otherwise keep trans people in a permanent “second-class citizen” caste.
I was racking my brain when I didn’t even need to—you hate trans people, and that’s really all there is to your bullshit.
I’m not a transgender person. I’ve never considered being transgender. I’ll never know what it’s like to exist as a trans person. But I know enough from my four decades of life to know that treating trans people like lab experiments or subhuman filth or—to couch it in terms you’d probably use—“undesirables” is to be an asshole. How a trans person chooses to live their life doesn’t affect me, and I see no reason to try and affect theirs by way of deadnaming, misgendering, and otherwise marginalizing them.
Yes, the reality of transgender, intersex, and non-binary people complicate gender analysis. Yes, the reality of their decision to live openly with those identities represents a social upheaval in the realm of gender identity. Neither one of those facts offers a good enough reason to treat trans people like shit.
You claim that accepting a trans person’s identity is about “forc[ing] people to affirm false beliefs”. But by deadnaming and misgendering a trans person—by belittling and denying their identity—aren’t you trying to force them into affirming your beliefs? Aren’t you trying to force trans people into living in a way that ensures you don’t have to do the messy thinking associated with gender identity beyond a limited “boys do this, girls do that” binary? Aren’t you ultimately trying to make trans people stop being trans in public (and maybe even in private) so you can be more comfortable?
Based on everything you’ve said, I know the answer to those questions—and I say “answer” because those questions can all be answered the same way: “Yes, I am.”
You’ll find no one here (with any credibility) willing to defend your transphobia. Whether they don’t want to get lumped in with you or they sincerely disagree with your bullshit is irrelevant. You can keep pushing the “woke gender ideologue” argument all you want, but it will either fall upon deaf ears or be mocked for the “I can’t use queerphobic slurs because that’ll give away the game” bullshit it is. If you want to push that garbage argument somewhere, I suggest you try 4chan—you’ll find no shortage of support there.
So please, by all means: Take your transphobic bullshit and leave. Door’s to your left. 👋
🖕
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16
You are free to argue with imaginary versions of me that say what you want them to say, but they are not me. And naturally woke ideologues would prefer that their opponents be silent and leave, so they can win by default. We see, in colleges for example, that woke ideologues try to shout down opponents to keep them from speaking to audiences that want to hear them. So until Techdirt implements bans on non-woke commenters, no, I will not be leaving.
Woke gender ideology is a lie. Men cannot be physically changed into women, or vice versa. Barring rare genetic and developmental abnormality, humans are of exactly two sexes. No one can “know” that they are “a man” or “a woman” for two reasons. First, there is no male or female mind for someone to be. Second, people can only have experience of their own mind, so they cannot possibly know what it is to have a different one. Because humans have only two sexes, no one without physical developmental abnormality is “non-binary” or “gender-queer”. They are only men or women..
We have religious, social, and cultural taboos that require separation of sexes in various contexts. Men and women who suffer from the delusion of thinking they are a sex different from their bodies do not get to force their way into single-sex spaces against the wishes of the people who are already there.
Because woke gender ideology is a lie, public schools should not teach it as truth, and no one should be forced to affirm it, explicitly or implicitly. Because people who change their names nevertheless once had their old names, it should not be forbidden to use those names in appropriate context. Anyone of age or with permission from guardians should be free to seek out whatever treatment they like, whether that treatment is to make themselves appear to be the sex they wish they were or to try to overcome such wishes.
In no case should schools ever provide any sort of health services, mental or physical, to minor students without the involvement or permission of parents or guardians.
As far as treating trans people kindly, we have a model for that, which is how we treat religion. Religious people get to follow their own beliefs, customs, and behavior. They have titles for their authorities that people generally honor. In no case is anyone obligated to affirm religious beliefs of others, but religious organizations in turn have the right to decide who may belong to them. Employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for the religious beliefs and practices of their employees.
Treating trans people kindly does not include being forced to ndulge their delusions based on their claims of fragility. If a trans person is so distraught that they believe they will kill themselves if people around them do not affirm their beliefs, then they need to be hospitalized until they are no longer a danger to themselves. But in no way should such emotionally blackmail force action upon anyone else.
Re: Re: Re:17
Whatever you believe about men and women is no excuse to ignore the other person choice of presentation and name. What you are doing is deliberately trying to force people to what you believe sex and gender is. Like the anti-abortionists, my objection is not to your beliefs, but rather that you want to force other people to behave in a way that conforms with your beliefs. That makes you an authoritarian monster who thinks they know best how other people should live their lives.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:18
No, I do not want to ignore trans people’s choice of presentation and name, as long as honoring those choices does not involve affirming that their beliefs about themselves are true, or involve erasing truth from history. If a man wants to be addressed as Ms. or a woman as Mx., that’s fine with me as long as it is in a casual context. It’s just like addressing someone as Rabbi or Sister even though gods do not exist, while, as an American, not bowing to foreign royalty.
It is woke gender ideology that has made this difficult, because presenting as trans or “non-binary” is now often a political as well as a personal stance. Is a person who insists that they are “non-binary” and must be addressed by “z” pronouns simply stating their own belief about themselves, or are they issuing a political challenge to those who will not affirm their beliefs? It could be either, and parsing that can be difficult.
Re: Re: Re:19
Yet again your attempted denial is unconvincing, as it lists reason why you will behave as accused.
Re: Re: Re:19 The "first rule of holes" applies here.
The more you “explain”, the dumber (and more dishonest) you reveal yourself to be.
I suggest you stop digging.
Re: Re: Re:9
That’s essentially Putin’s pretext for waging it’s war on Ukraine… and in both cases the pretexts are transparent excuses and bald-faced lies, with only the most tenuous connection to (or contradicted by) verifiable reality — pure propaganda, pushed by the side instigating the fight, to try to blame the target for the conflict.
Re:
So, have you stopped raping children yet?
Re:
So you wish to take away the free speech rights of others? It is their free speech rights that create repercussions and consequences. And you’re saying they should not have that right.
Your statement is incredibly anti-free speech. You are really saying that only you should have free speech rights, and those who don’t wish to associate with you must be forced to against their will.
Why do you hate free speech so much?
Re: Re:
There is no such thing as totally free speech. There are limits to free speech and ignoring them will likely lead you to court. It’s called libel and it’s enshrined in the law. It means there are consequences for your speech.
The problem you have, is you want your cake and eat it too. No one is guaranteed to have an audience for their speech. You or I am free to walk away without hearing it or reading it.
Further, unless you are on a government site, no one has to put it up. You are free to go make your own site and put your speech up there. If you don’t want to do that then you are at someone else’s rules. That’s your problem not the site in question’s problem.
Conservative speech has turned into ‘owning the libs’. That comes out to mean being nasty, throwing disinformation out as if it were reality, and generally being obnoxious. That’s why conservative sites aren’t doing well. It’s an echo chamber and there is almost no one there to argue against and be just generally an arse about it.
In a nut shell, they want to say what they have to say without filters or rules and if they don’t get that then suddenly its a free speech issue. Funny how that works.
Re: Re: Re:
You do realise you’re ‘rebutting’ somebody who’s saying the same thing as you are, right? Hot tip: check which comment you’re on before clicking ‘reply’.
Re:
The response to speech should be more speech, so I am going to use some to reply:
You say that you should not get fired for what you say, but if an employee goes around bad mouthing their employer why should they remain employed, and what if they use racist, sexist or otherwise do something that reflects on their employer causing reputational damage?
The employer is exercising their speech by saying “we don’t agree with what you are saying, therefore you no longer work for us.”
Is that censoring you, or is it using their speech in response to yours?
I would say it is the latter.
Twitter and Facebook are not public property, they are more like malls , where anyone is admitted, but if they break the rules they are asked to behave, or leave. You have no right to force your local mall to display posters saying that certain people are sub-human, even if it is legal for you to say it. Similarly websites can say we don’t want that speech here, clean it up, or leave.
We do hear both sides saying something needs to be done, but when one side is saying I want to be a foul mouthed racist, misogynistic a**hole without consequences, and I want to force you to let me do it on your property, and the other side are saying that it should be possible for there to be conditions they are asking for mutually exclusive responses to the current situation.
Re:
The ‘shouting fire in a crowded theater case’. The case that clarified what the limits on free speech are. And those just apply in the US. In other countries, there are greater restrictions.
Re:
*“You just want to have consequence free speech.”
Yes. Yes I do. I want to say what I’m thinking and what’s on my mind without fear of repercussion. So long as what I say is legally protected, I shouldn’t have to worry that what I say will get me fired from my job, banned from social media, beaten or killed by others. And if you think that ANY of those are fine to do to someone for SAYING something, then you don’t truly believe in Free Speech.*
So, have you quit screwing decapitated pigs’ heads yet?
Re:
Twitter and Facebook are the public square. You should be able to say anything that’s legally allowed without worry.
Actually, as has been pointed out before, Twitter and Facebook are more like restaurants or cafes that open out to the public square. If the owners don’t like what you say or do while on their property, they’re perfectly free to kick you out of it, shithead. I can call you shithead, can’t I? Oh well, doesn’t matter. Free speech! 😀
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
If you’re going to compare Twitter to a restaurant, then it’s more like a restaurant that kicks you out because you asked for ketchup. Twitter and Facebook are built for speech. If they’re going to kick you out for wrong-speech, then they’re like restaurants kicking you out for wrong-eating.
Re: Re: Re:
…is what you’d say if you had any capacity for honesty.
Re: Re: Re:
No, it’s more like kicking you out for shouting for it. Multiple times. Possibly while using profane language.
Re:
Yes. Yes I do. I want to say what I’m thinking and what’s on my mind without fear of repercussion. So long as what I say is legally protected, I shouldn’t have to worry that what I say will get me fired from my job, banned from social media, beaten or killed by others. And if you think that ANY of those are fine to do to someone for SAYING something, then you don’t truly believe in Free Speech.
Congratulations, you want something that doesn’t exist in the form of consequence-free speech at the cost of something that does in the form of people choosing to exercise their free speech and property rights in response to you.
That’s not free speech that’s consequence-free speech but only for certain people, and to call that hypocritical and overflowing with self-centeredness is a woeful understatement.
Re:
Ever notice how not a single person who understands and supports freedom of speech has ever made any of these claims?
Re: By some strange quirk of fate....
…. I too would like to exercise my rights. After all, if you get your way like this:
… then I should be able to get my rights to swing my fist around in circles without fear of any repercussions, shouldn’t I? I mean, if your nose gets in the way of my fist, then there’s no problem, is there. And if you do think there’s a problem, then it’s all on you, because if you swing your fist back at me, then that’s a repercussion, which, by your own lights, I don’t have to suffer any such thing. Right? RIGHT??
Why do I bother…. In fact, why do any of us bother. I thought it was a perfectly good Rule of Internet Law that one must not feed the trolls. They aren’t here to learn, they’re here only to, what’s today’s favorite saying? Oh yeah…. they’re here to “own the libs”. How droll.
21 responses to just one comment, the first one. FFS, I’ve seen more intelligent discussions on Chaterbate.
Re: Re:
I thought it was a perfectly good Rule of Internet Law that one must not feed the trolls.
That was before we had different types of trolls that carry on and on and on, and harass people to suicide if their actions are ignored. The old adage of “do not feed the troll” no longer holds true, it only ever worked with jokesters.
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed. As I’ve said in a few ways over the years – my comments aren’t for the troll. My comments are there because there is a sub-section of the internet who will see a troll go uncontested and believe there is no counter argument. I provide another perspective not for the troll but for the next reader so they can come to more reasoned conclusions. Way to many far-right hangers on don’t understand the arguments at a deep level, they sound good and no one has disputed them. And if that goes on too long they become trapped by belief in rhetoric which poses opposition as censorship.
Providing real counter arguments against trolls can help inoculate other readers. At a simple level, its like clowning Koby anytime he tries to claim censorship shows your idea is the ‘strongest'”. If we let that go, someone will read it, not look at it too closely, and say oh yeah that makes sense. But with 10 replies pointing out that under his definition of censorship Nazis and Stalin have the strongest ideas, you cut his rhetoric off from most readers who want to avoid that comparison.
However, on a deeper level, “don’t feed the trolls” still has a use. If you engage the troll you need to educate. You need to be willing to explain the same ideas over and over again. Because if all you do is say “nuh-uh!”, you feed the troll Massive Weight Gain powder. That next person who doesn’t have your knowledge will see the troll as smarter and more knowledgeable. But when you break down their ideas point out the well-known and unsolved issues the troll ignores, you provide groundwork for the next reader to make the right conclusion. When you do that, you feed the troll poison.
In the modern day, with a modern understanding of the human nature issues the internet faces, feeding the troll isn’t an issue. What you feed them is.
Side note: I like refining arguments against a troll because they help close the big holes – genuine pitfalls in rhetoric that would undermine or distract you in a less contentious discussion where changing minds is possible.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s my motivation too. If woke ideology is allowed to go unanswered, it becomes the common wisdom, and then just the way things are, and then assumed to be true because no one is arguing against it. The time to fight wrong ideas is before they become entrenched, but often the problem isn’t seen until it’s too late.
Re: Re: Re:3
You’re so right. Woke ideology is exactly the same Kool-Aid that people swallow before declaring a fallacious belief that black people are human beings. /s
Re: Re: Re:3
Facts don’t care about your feelings, snowflake.
Re: Re: Re:2
OK, James, I’ll go along with that. Thanks.
Re: The public square
No, they’re not. They are more like the publicly accessible part of a bank. Usually everyone has access to it. But if you walked in there with a big sign that said, “Power to the people. Give the rich’s money to the poor.” a friendly but firm security guard would escort you out of the building. You’re still allowed to hold up your sign outside – on actual public square (as opposed to public property, where the rules are made by the owner…)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Once again you are confusing the platforms with their users. The users of social media use the platforms as if they were the public square. They don’t care, aside from a bare few, what the political opinions of the platform owners are. The think of the platforms as a place where people can gather to have whatever discussions they want. Because of that, if it starts appearing that the platforms are censoring based on viewpoint, the users become upset and believe that their free speech rights are being impeded.
This has nothing to do with the fact that the platforms have the legal and Constitutional right to impede the free speech of their users, as part of their own free speech. People are allowed to criticize the legal actions of others; indeed, this is what nearly every posting on Techdirt is about.
Re: Re: Re:
Even if that’s the case, it doesn’t change the fact that those users are wrong. The platforms aren’t the public square, and the government can’t legislatively compel them to be.
It doesn’t help that politicians, who should know better but are just interested in their own gain, are wrongly telling those users that their rights are being impeded.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Those politicians are not entirely wrong. The free speech of the users is being impeded, it’s just that the users don’t have a right to it because it’s on a privately-owned platform.
Note that Techdirt speaks out of the other side of its mouth when it comes to privacy, complaining bitterly when companies and the government use publicly available information about people to direct advertising towards them, or to track them.
Re: Re: Re:3
And this is exactly how it should be. Because no bank should be forced to tolerate people with any signs on their publicly accessible property…
Re: Re: Re:3
The users, the politicians, and you are wrong. The First Amendment right to speech free from governmental interference isn’t being impeded, because as even you pointed out, the users don’t have a right to free speech on private property.
A user could be forgiven for their error because they simply don’t understand the difference. A politician that misinterprets the First Amendment in this manner is either incompetent or is deliberately misleading the public.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
The 1st Amendment does not define or limit free speech. It is a partial implementation of free speech directed against governments. People who value free speech value it in many more contexts, as should be evident from the woke gender ideologues who are complaining that Florida’s Constitutional right to set its public school curriculum is silencing the speech of public-school teachers.
Re: Re: Re:3 re: Note that Techdirt speaks out of the other side of its mouth when it comes to privacy
Tell me you don’t understand the issues without telling me you don’t understand the issues.
Re: Re: Re:
Once again I am confusing the platforms with the government. I believe that anybody should be allowed to say what they want on any platform regardless of the feelings and rights of the other users on it, and then keep doubling down on this incorrect supposition every time it’s explained to me how wrong I am and in which way.
FTFY. YW. 😀
Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be too busy “being right” to stop and think and realize you’re being stupid.
Re:
“then Section 230 WAS going to get changed/repealed”
Any day now, any day now…
Man, even not-davec is better at being davec than davec.
Re:
Being better simply means not being a complete trash heap of a human being. It’s not a high bar to clear. And yet, somehow, there exists a part of humanity that keeps trying to break the limbo record on that front.
There doesn’t seem to be an option to submit articles any more and
the “This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy” banner won’t go away no matter what I do.
Re: Go away.....
Use AdGuard, either as an extension, or as a complete stand-alone program. Either way, you can eliminate any and all “cookie” warnings.
Cookies themselves are an entirely different matter.
Re:
I believe that’s a glitch that they’re still working on fixing.