Setting 1st Amendment Myths On Fire In A Crowded Theater
from the sick-burn dept
For years, we’ve written about the many, many, many ways in which people are wrong about the 1st Amendment, from trotting out the “fire in a crowded theater” line (for which we have a t-shirt, mug, pillow, and notebook) or how people falsely believe that hate speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment (it is, and for good reasons).
But, you know, not everyone likes to read detailed treatises on this subject. Some people prefer fun, action-packed YouTube videos. And we’d like to help you out there too.
So, it was nice to see that the always excellent Legal Eagle recently did a fantastic video version exploring some wrong free speech tropes, including both of the ones mentioned above, along with a few others.
For what it’s worth, he also discusses how private platforms have the absolute right under the 1st Amendment to ban you or remove your content, which people often mistake as being permitted by Section 230, not the 1st Amendment. You may recall that we posted about another recent Legal Eagle video about Section 230, which was also great.
Anyway, there’s not much more to say on this, but I figured many of the folks who enjoy our discussions on the 1st Amendment might, similarly, enjoy this video.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, 1st amendment myths, content moderation, fire in a crowded theater, free speech, hate speech, legal eagle, section 230
Comments on “Setting 1st Amendment Myths On Fire In A Crowded Theater”
It’s worth noting that if there actually IS a fire in that hypothetical theater, NOT alerting people to it, or even stopping someone from raising the alarm, would make you guilty of at least manslaughter if anyone died in the fire instead of escaping.
Re:
“if there actually IS a fire in that hypothetical theater, NOT alerting people to it… would make you guilty of at least manslaughter if anyone died in the fire instead of escaping.”
[citation needed]
Re:
Nope. Callous indifference to the suffering of others is a foundational American right.
Re: Re:
Nope, it’s a thing observed in everyone.
Re: Re: Re:
Speak for yourself.
Re:
Dood you are SOOoOOOOOooo right. There is a fire!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYZ7UojvA78
It’s just that youze guyz is fanning (and I DON’T mean Dakota) the flames!
LegalEagle has always been great, so thanks for linking to his video! He has a pretty insightful and fun way of breaking things out for people who aren’t necessarily lawyers.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
But the government can't censor speech, not even by proxy
No one said a private company can’t censor their own site. (I do think if they exert editorial control they lose 230 protections, but that’s a separate matter) That’s just a fucking strawman.
We DID say that the censorship was ideologically and politically based, which it very clearly was, and that was a bad idea and they shouldn’t.
And then of course it was revealed that the government was telling the SM companies who to censor, which is very clearly a 1A violation, despite your claims to the contrary. Spend several hundred million dollars on it, in fact. And you just continue to lie on the subject, lie about the clear evidence, lie about the 1A.
And then you write articles attempting to lecture people on how the 1A works. What a fraud.
Re:
You’re starting to sound like a recording…
Or a one trick pony.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
https://reason.com/2023/03/10/twitter-files-hearing-weaponization-matt-taibbi-democrats-elon/
“The Twitter Files, which show that multiple arms of the federal government—including the FBI, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department, and the White House under both Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden—pressured social media companies to restrict speech”
Re: Re: Re:
Way to prove my point!
Re: Re: Re:
When I last looked at the “Twitter Files”, I didn’t see anything that looked like overt governmental pressure to restrict the speech of U.S.-based Twitter users. If you can cite any evidence that proves this outlook wrong, well, hey—here’s your chance.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
You would if you were smarter.
I did, btw, in the long post that TD ate. Just gotta wait a few hours, I guess.
Re: Re: Re:3
This is basically your whole schtick now. “I’m so smart, you’re all dumb, pay attention to me!!!” Sad and pathetic.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
well….yeah, of course. How could it not?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Shadowban” is just a euphemism for “making too many good points ban”.
Re: Re: Re:4
you’re the fucking idiot that thinks Facebook can dismiss a lawsuit using §230 against Facebook’s own speech.
Do you think that is a good point that you made?
Re: Re: Re:2
..The white house and multiple government agencies, including several political campaigns, messaging twitter staff directly to demand messages be removed or certain topics be removed doesn’t “look like” (because, at this point, you can’t make a statement that it certainly isn’t) government censorship by proxy to you?
Let’s change the target a bit, let’s say it was the government telling a newspaper not to publish a story by a controversial journalist breaking a major story which may be embarrassing to them. Because the supreme court has ruled, time and time again, that is ABSOLUTELY a first amendment violation. But the same thing with ‘On the internet’ added to it changes the rules in your head, huh?
It’s just funny this site, which is used to dunking on nonsense stories about having real-life thing but ‘on the internet’ being added to it results in a completely different set of morals and standards applying, won’t do the same thing with speech because it revels in its opponents being punished. Like you would be fine with Digital North Korea as long as your opinions aren’t on the chopping block.
Re: Re: Re:
Given how much you bitch about Masnick being biased and a partisan hack, it’s hilarious that you’d link to a site as biased against the government as Reason.
Reason reading into things with the Twitter files is not evidence of the government “pressuring social media companies”.
Cite a specific part of the Twitter files where it says that there’s evidence of the government pressuring Twitter to remove content.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
You LOVE your ad hominems And bitch, I’m biased against the government. Government is rapacious and evil and needs to be beaten back with a stick.
Which is why them finding a way to censor by proxy is so scary.
Re: Re: Re:3
True.
Case in point: The treasonous, white supremacist filth known as the Republicans.
Re: Re: Re:
So your evidence is another journalist’s interpretation of the events?
O_o
Re: Re: Re:2
More like a “journalist’s” interpretation of a tiny subset of cherry-picked messages supplied to him under the condition of telling a particular story.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Oh you guys present that kinda shit as “evidence” all the time. Fuck, Masnick cites his own opinions as “evidence” all the time.
Oh there’s that ad hominem again. You can’t explain away the receipts, sorry, there’s no “context” that would make them better.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s a (very poorly argued) opinion piece which, crucially, offers no evidence at all for the claim “the FBI, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department, and the White House under…Joe Biden—pressured social media companies to restrict speech.”
Requests to review is not ‘pressure’, no matter now much Robby Soave and you claim it is.
Proper arguments require actual proof. You don’t cite another opinion haver just to support your opinion, unless that person is an eminent expert in their field and they have done the work. Which this guy has not.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Oh I’m some sorry, I’m gonna go with Robby Soave over some dumbitch who likes to make emasculating BDSM insults when she’s losing an argument.
Well, yes, they are, actually, especially when it’s the FBI. But it wasn’t the just the FBI, it was a whole swarm of paid proxies.
It’s almost like all this pressure has been laid out in great detail and you’re just refusing to see it…..
Re: Re: Re:3
In Matty’s world, up is down and left is right. What else is new.
I’ve told you this before thinking you were an adult, but now I will tell you like I am talking to a 5 year old…
Just because you say the same thing over and over again, does not make it true.
Re: Re: Re:4 Experiencing pressure
“Requests to review is not ‘pressure’”
In the specific “Twitter Files” case this may be true. However, pressure and responses are about astmmetric power relationships.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Everyone has an asymmetric power relationship with the federal government.
Re: Re: Re:3
Twitter refused to act on the FBI’s suggestions more than half the time. How did the FBI apply pressure to Twitter if the FBI didn’t punish Twitter in any way for those refusals and said Twitter could take any action it wanted (which explicitly included the option of taking no action at all) on those suggestions?
No, it’s more like we’ve seen what the documents actually say as opposed to what they say in your Emotional Support Reality. If I thought the government was illegally pressuring Twitter to censor U.S. citizens, I’d say so. But even your favorite right-wing hack Taibbi said that he saw no evidence of such a thing happening. When your own “source” is contradicting you, you’re deeper in shit than you think.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
So the government spend hundreds of millions of dollars to censor people with a 40% success rate….why they would do that? Cuz it was successful 40% of the time and repressing that 40% of speech had value to them. Also super illegal.
Well there you’re lying. Cuz some “requests” said that, but the explicit purpose is create plausible deniability…and many others did not.
No, you wouldn’t. Particularly when it’s “your side” and the censorship was going in the direction you agree with.
Re: Re: Re:5
Because it wasn’t trying to actively censor people. Again: 40% success rate means Twitter denied 60% of those requests, and there’s no indication that says what action was taken on the 40% of requests that were acted upon.
Then I’m not lying.
And yet, when Twitter refused to act on a clear majority of those suggestions, the federal government didn’t punish Twitter for those refusals. What would the federal government need to plausibly deny when Twitter isn’t even listening to it more than half the time? I mean, even you can’t dig up anything that says the government punished Twitter for those refusals—so what the hell is the big deal? What, were you looking for a 100% refusal rate?
Twitter can take suggestions from the government under advisement, but it has no obligation to act on those suggestions. That it may have suspended, shadowbanned, and/or banned some—not all, but some—accounts that the government suggested had violated the Twitter ToS isn’t exactly solid evidence that Twitter was doing the direct bidding of the government. That the government suggested that Twitter could refuse to take action isn’t “plausible deniability”—it’s a reiteration of an actual fact.
Dude, I’ve mentioned before that I think book bans targeting public libraries that are driven by governmental pressure are a form of censorship. I’ve also said that I think the worst speech from the worst people deserves the most protection from attempts to censor it. If I seriously thought the government was actively trying to censor people on Twitter, I would say so. This isn’t some partisan bullshit, either: If the book bans were targeting conservative-penned books instead of queer-friendly books, I would still think the bans are bullshit.
You haven’t shown me any credible evidence that says Twitter complied with an direct and explicit order from the government (or a government proxy) to ban someone from Twitter. Show me that evidence and I’ll concede the point—but saying “this says what I want it to say” and showing me something that doesn’t say that isn’t going to get the job done, sunshine.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Oh? What the fuck was it then? “Passively” censoring people?
So you guys keep on repeating this as if it mattered (it doesn’t) and why I find it so dumb and fascinating is at what % is OK, or not? If the censorship is only 99% successful is it still government censorship? No?
Tell you what, I’ll cut you a deal: It was only 40% a constitutional violation. So, y’know, still a constitutional violation.
Yes, they did, and I don’t even think you believe that. Someone had the perfect answer to this: “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?” — it wasn’t a suggestion then, either. It is, of course, what they were hoping to pretend. So why do you want to let them get away with it? Why does Masnick?
Here is an email showing that Twitter employees felt they COULD NOT say no, btw. So that’s just false.
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610394294850064385
This is a horrible example and part of why I don’t believe you. 1) Public libraries are part of the government 2) No, choosing not to carry a particular book is not a “ban”. Byt that logic MOST books are “banned” from any particular library because any particular library only has a small selection of total books. There’s also nothing wrong with a library choosing not to carry porn, gay or otherwise. It’s a completely nonsensical comparison, top to bottom.
I did! It was literally a direct link to a tweet showing that exact thing and you pretended I didn’t show you a link to one specific tweet. I really wasn’t sure if you were gaslighting me, hadn’t clicked through, or just can’t use twitter.
Here’s another one. Paul Sperry was banned per Schiff’s request. There are many, many others, most of them less direct and explicit, or pretending they were foreign agents when they were not. But this one is explicit and direct:
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610394284867436547
Re: Re: Re:3
“some dumbitch [sic]”
If I offered the kind of ‘evidence’ for my opinions that you do when asked for it, I would be.
Unlike you, I know what constitutes proof (having multidisciplinary degrees providing actual training in the matter, as well as research experience), and so I don’t do this.
You really do think BDSM is emasculating, don’t you? If being identified as a masochist offends you so much, why don’t you stop behaving like one?
If you’re ashamed of your fetishes, you could seek therapy to understand them. If you are going to let your freak flag fly in public and then attack people who say “ooh, look at the freak flag”, then you are being unreasonable.
“It’s almost like all this pressure has been laid out in great detail and you’re just refusing to see it”
See, one of the things one learns to do when researching anything, particularly in science or history, is that you check for bias, and people getting ahead of their data. Robby Soave has a very obvious agenda to push which he summarises in the quote you excerpted. More than that, any support for his ‘both sides do it’ contention consists of slamming Democrats for not being sufficiently exercised about free speech, as if that balances out the numerous, documented demands – not requests for review – that Donald Trump made to Twitter.
It does not. I am entitled, as an independent reader or even as some “dumbitch [sic]”, to look at the claims made, and the evidence provided, and assess that Soave is full of shit.
It has been fully documented that Donald Trump wants to overturn the Sullivan ruling on press freedom
His administration literally gave cover to a regime which had a journalist murdered
Trump also tried to remove completely protected speech from Twitter that just hurt his feelings.
You have not one skerrick of proof that Joe Biden has done anything like that, or that the other organisations have. If you did, you would be able to provide direct links to reporting, not opinion pieces, with evidence quoted, not just interpreted by your lying eyes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Oh of course you do honey. Women’s studies isn’t real, tho.
So? I do too. The precedent was judicial activism and gave journalists free rein to lie with impunity.
Sure. Biden did too, of course.
Sure, as did Biden and Schiff and a buncha other people. (Schiff successfully) Arguably Trump did it as a private citizen over defamation, not as president which makes it less bad.
Is this what you think passes as an argument? And wtf does this have to do with Soave? Something about “both sides”? Bitch, not only is it “both sides” democrats were way way way worse. Not that’s the important bit, the important bit is the (very clear) government involvement. Listing some random shit about Trump doesn’t change that.
Yeah, so you’re a dumbitch. Thank you for confirming.
Re: Re: Re:5
“Women’s studies isn’t real”
If you say so. However, I’ve never taken those. I have taken a BA in English, French, and History, a BSc in Animal Physiology and Biochemistry, and a Masters in Internet Technology. I’ve also written scholarly articles on the history of science.
“Biden did too, of course”
Yes? How?
“as did Biden and Schiff and a buncha other people”
Yes? How? Links, citations, evidence, please
“wtf does this have to do with Soave?”
What is has to do with is Soave’s conclusion/opinion, which is not factually based. Soave’s article is a partisan Gish Gallop posing as serious opinion.
As is the rest of your comment. Just insulting me with a misspelling slur, and claiming I’ve ‘proved’ I’m stupid.
See, I tried to engage with your comment seriously, and all you do is retreat to bald assertions, opinion, and insults. This is not going to impress anyone outside of 4Chan.
At least I can spell ‘dumb bitch’, you blathering cockwomble.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
I actually don’t believe you, but the only one I found interesting was Biochem. The rest is just “I want to be a perpetual student” nonsense. But yeah, press x to doubt.
So you don’t keep up on current events? That’s really not my concern. You can literally just google “Biden Khashoggi”, it’s that simple. I really wouldn’t admit to being ignorant like that.
Oh, sure, but literally only cuz I had it open. This is another thing you should be embarrassed not to know, btw.
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610394284867436547
No, it wasn’t. It had NOTHING to do with Soave. You just wanted to rant about Trump (cuz OF COARSE you did) and pretend it was important some how. Hilariously you picked 3 of the most inane and bipartisan things. Maybe you thought I’d get all offended and defend him, maybe? I don’t think you thought it through, tbh.
Ad hominem again. But I mostly like his opinions (CNN would call it “analysis”) and yours is worthless, so.
Incorrect. Or at least I hope so. If that was “serious” that would be really sad.
Dumbitch, it’s a made up word, I’ll spell it how I please. I even debated whether it needed one “b” or two.
Now please, you’ve thoroughly embarrassed yourself and earned your name.
Re: Re: Re:7
“I actually don’t believe you”
I’m heartbroken. Also, at 60, I have had plenty of time to earn degrees, and also have real jobs. In fact, I had full-time jobs while earning those degrees, thanks to remote and part-time courses. And unlike you, I actually graduated from proper institutions with real names, not the University of IMadeITup.
“So you don’t keep up on current events?”
I do, passionately, and I still don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t hang around far-right hell holes, though, so maybe you have a source that’s escaped my interest.
“literally only cuz I had it open”
(We won’t speculate as to why.)
That’s a request, Matthew. And it wasn’t about hurt feelings, it’s about a staffer being harassed by a journalist. Schiff’s committee was rightly concerned about the safety of their staff. Also, Twitter said no, and nothing happened to it. Like you requesting Mike stop writing about Twitter. You can ask, he can ignore you. Unlike you, Adam Schiff didn’t call people at Twitter “bitches”, “idiots”, or “fuckwits” when they said no.
“Ad hominem again.”
My assessment of Soave’s opinion is not an assessment of him, or do you not know what the ‘hominem’ bit of that expression refers to? Unlike you, I don’t dismiss him because he’s ugly, dumb, fat, or Liberal. I dismiss his article because it’s very poorly written, and lacking any real support for his conclusions. “Because I say so,” isn’t evidence.
“If that was “serious” that would be really sad”
Sorry, I could have written “Darling Matthew, you are a god among me, let me blow you repeatedly and swallow your manly essence, so that I can have your babies and spread your genius DNA around”…
But just typing that made my fingers fall off my hands in disgust and my eyeballs roll so hard I am currently powering the house’s electrical devices.
What is serious engagement in your view? Oh wait, it’s just insulting people’s intelligence and calling them poopyheads. I previously estimated you to be aged 15. Based on this last comment, I’d say you are about 8, which is the oldest anyone would expect someone to behave like you do before they get a justly deserved smack across the back of the head for idiocy.
“I’ll spell it how I please”
Okay, mahthrough.
“you’ve…earned your name”
Obviously you have no idea who Anathema Device was, or you would never compliment me thus.
I found a TikTok by a MatthewMBennett. The person seems to be a very sad person stuck on their sofa making the most self-pitying vids I’ve ever seen. I’m sure that’s a coincidence.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
OK, dumbitch.
Look, there’s no excuse for this, Taibbi actually tells you the part he’s highlighting and you just go and read another unrelated part.
It was not, it was a demand, and the pertinent item is #2 about Paul Sperry who was just a normal reporter and had definitely not “harassed” anyone. He DID however reveal some embarrassing things about Schiff. This may surprise you, but politicians lie to get what they want sometimes. Schiff lies a LOT, in fact.
Incorrect, actually, both users were banned. The fact that they were banned is elsewhere, but here they actually only said “no” to one of them, presumably Paul Sperry, and both were banned. (The other guy is a conspiracy theorist and no one cared much that he got banned, Schiff was still wrong to ask.)
You’re 60 with multiple degrees? (still don’t believe you) Then I would think you could fucking read.
Skimming….some random dumbitch opinions I don’t care about…..oh, no, the name in question you earned was “dumbitch”. Sorry you misunderstood. (again)
I do not have a tiktok, no.
Re: Re: Re:9
Just like a typical troll to post stupid shit online and then claim he didn’t do it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
OK? Do you know how stupid this is? Do you know how many Matt Bennett’s there are?
And yet, I don’t have a tiktok. Think the app should be banned, in fact. Have said that, many times.
Re: Re: Re:11
Not my problem, white boy.
Re: Re: Re:12
Ah, so you’re a racist
Disgusting.
Re: Re: Re:13
lol dude, nobody gives two shits what white boys think. The only time anyone cares is if you identify as queer or a wolf.
Re: Re: Re:
Government is the bad actor, not the site.
This has been litigated in court multiple times. Cases involving more than what you speak of have been easily dismissed.
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/10/government-jawboning-doesnt-turn-internet-services-into-state-actors-doe-v-google.htm
Re:
And they haven’t.
Ironic that you make a strawman to debunk a strawman. Masnick didn’t say that people are saying that private companies can’t censor their own sites(though some of the dumber commenters around here have made that claim), he’s saying that people mistakenly attribute that right to Section 230.
And a matter you’d be wrong on.
And you were wrong.
No.
Then it’s a good thing they didn’t.
Requests are not “telling them who to censor”.
Sure, it would have been if it had happened. But it didn’t.
Please provide a credible source that states that the government paid Twitter specifically to censor people. No, Matt Taibbi’s Twitter profile doesn’t count.
And you continue to be completely clueless about the whole thing.
Well, yes. Unlike you, Mike(and Devin from LegalEagle) actually know something about the 1A.
Re: Re:
Just a thought here:
“I do think if they exert editorial control they lose 230 protections, but that’s a separate matter
And a matter you’d be wrong on.”
The question is more should they loose
As soon as you moderate via censortorial methods, yes, I believe you should loose 230 protections.
But
That’s because I recognise that 230 isn’t there to make you immune, it protects you from defending against lawsuits about user content.
When the site makes its changes, it, not the users, are developing the distribution of content.
Thus I believe those choices should be legally defendable.
Re:
You can think it all you want—that doesn’t make it the law. The First Amendment gives platforms the right to “exert editorial control” by way of moderation and 230 protects platforms from lawsuits over how they moderate third party speech. Neither one mentions any sort of difference between a platform and a publisher in those regards. (And before you allude to it: 230 doesn’t protect platforms from the consequences of first-party speech.)
Regardless of whatever the government has to say about it: For what reason should platforms ignore (or even encourage) the posting of hateful speech against marginalized people?
[explicit and specific citations needed]
You haven’t proven that anyone who has contradicted your claims or criticized your lack of proof is lying. If you can, now would be a great time to do exactly that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Fully incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Application_and_limits
By exerting editorial control they effectively become the publisher. Various courts ruled that a platform could take down porn and actual hate speech (i.e. using the N word and the like, what’s actually mentioned in the statute) and that anything else made the platform the and thus liable. 20 years later those early precedents just seem to be ignored…..certainly most of what Old Twitter did would make them the effective publisher under early precedents.
So I repeat, exerting editorial control should make you liable for the content.
1st amendment has nothing to do with it, btw, that’s just dumbshit Masnick says sometimes.
I’m honestly more concerned about attempts to quash “misinformation” when they don’t know what is “True” any more than I do and often it winds up just enforcing gov propaganda. But as to “hate speech”? How about being able to discuss honestly that a “transwoman” is NOT indistinguishable from a real woman and that has certain safety and competitive ramifications? As a country we need to have a real discussion about that and policies like Old Twitter actually block such.
More importantly? “Hate speech” as a label becomes a weapon. You just label whatever you disagree with “Hate speech” and then listen blissfully to only those you agree with. We have seen this extensively lately.
Here you go! Can’t wait to hear you ad hominem this one!
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610394284867436547
https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter
https://public.substack.com/p/exposed-americas-secret-censorship
https://reason.com/2023/03/10/twitter-files-hearing-weaponization-matt-taibbi-democrats-elon/
“The Twitter Files, which show that multiple arms of the federal government—including the FBI, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department, and the White House under both Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden—pressured social media companies to restrict speech”
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I notice that you didn’t quote the sentence that followed: “Thus, the CDA does not provide immunity with respect to content that an interactive service provider creates or develops entirely by themselves.” In other words: 230 doesn’t immunize first-party speech. But it does immunize for decisions regarding third-party speech and the moderation thereof. (Hell, that’s the whole point of 230.)
And that might mean something if moderation were the exact same thing as editorial control. But it isn’t—and no court in the land has yet said otherwise. If one had, we all would’ve heard about that.
I don’t see how. But hey, maybe you can explain to me how enforcing a ToS is the same thing as publishing first-party speech. Give it your best shot, champ~.
Then go to a different platform. I dunno why you apparently think Twitter’s moderation decisions are effectively the literal Word of God about what is and isn’t scientific fact.
Go find Hyman Rosen so you two can metaphorically jerk each other off over your shared transphobia.
You say that like the right doesn’t weaponize language like “woke” and “diversity”. Just look at all the right-wing dipshits yelling about how that failed bank failed because it wasn’t being run exclusively by white guys. Besides, if the label of “hate speech” can be weaponized, what does that say about hateful speech in and of itself?
I’m not seeing anything in that document that rises to the level of an overt government demand to have any speech or users banned. Hell, in the one item that comes closest to being such a demand (the second item on that reviewed list of recommendations), Twitter pushed back against the request by saying “only one [account] actually qualified for suspension”, and the document doesn’t say that account qualified because “the government said so”.
Okay, and…what specific and tangible evidence, exactly, backs up the claims that those entities overtly pressured Twitter to restrict speech? Because if all you have is the “Twitter Files”…well, I’ve already picked apart one of those documents, and it didn’t show me anything that proves your claims, so I don’t see how the rest of it might do the job any better.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Because it was a non-sequitur. A content provider would be responsible for that, but also moderation that was anything more than removing porn and specific slurs.
Incorrect. 230 protects a very limited and specific form of moderation and that is all.
No, the point of 230 is to make sure platforms (and ISPs and a bunch of other things) can’t be held liable for content that isn’t theirs. Not to let providers viewpoint discriminate and take no responsibility for the resulting viewpoint.
The ninth did, in 2009. And that precedent was just….ignored.
Anyway I want that better and more vociferously voiced. (redundant, whatever) If you edit the content you own the content unless you’re just following a brightline rule like “no porn”.
I disagree with your characterization but get back to me when someone gets their account banned for being either “woke” or “diversity”. It’s not even vaguely the same and you know it.
So you can’t read? “Suspend the many accounts, including @gregrubini @paulsperry ”
That is a DIRECT, SPECIFIC request.
Except that both were banned. You’re also misreading: it says “I believe [redacted] mentioned only one actually qualified” Redacted is a person’s name. Presumably that person was Greg Rubini, he’s a Qanon conspiracy theorist and people weren’t too upset about him. (I don’t think you should ban conspiracy theorists either). Paul Sperry is just a normal reporter. He was banned, no TOS violations that anyone has nailed down in evidence. The permanent suspension did not list a reason.
Well that’s a lie, unless by “picked apart” you mean “dramatically misread”. You have a direct request to ban two people, which was honored (only one could plausibly be accused of TOS violations) presumably (and reported elsewhere) because they personally pissed off Schiff.
If that doesn’t satisfy you, I guess I can stop cuz nothing will, right?
I very much do not think “overtly” is required, (again, “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”) but sure, here you go:
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610394294850064385
Of course you’ve already shown yourself willing to discount ironclad evidence so I don’t know why I’m bothering.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I was feeling generous and posted a fairly lengthy reply with citations, but because Techdirt is a cite from 2005 and my reply had links you’re not going to see it for a couple hours, I’m betting. “¯_(ツ)_/¯”
Good job Masnick!
Re: Re: Re:
Please tell us where your site is so that we can go read the articles and spend time in the comment section…
I’ll wait….
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
….why did this make sense to you?
Re: Re:
No, it doesn’t. That has yet to be tested at the highest level of law. Once the Supreme Court makes a decision, we will know one way or another. Until then lower judges continue to make opposite rulings.
This is what I mean. Now, I believe once you make active content choices that result in the destruction of content by a user, you have engaged in the editorial actions of a publisher.
You disagree.
But I see far better options than the destruction of material.
I consider deleting content the digital equivalent of burning books. Or destroying records.
You act as a censor. Destroying content based on your personal self-aggrandising philosophy.
Re:
Evidence pleads, such as the posts of your that got taken down or got you banned.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Why would they have to be MY posts, exactly? I got a ton of stuff taken down on FB, actually. Most notably a meme defending Rittenhouse. But why the F does it have to be mine?
Jay Bhattacharya, an actual doctor of some note got shadow-banned for saying things that all turned out to be true, in the end.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes or no: Do you have evidence that this “shadowban” happened on orders of the U.S. federal government, either directly or indirectly?
Also yes or no: Do you have any citation of law or binding legal precedent that says a social media service that voluntarily takes steps to minimize the reach of a given user is committing an illegal act?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes, actually.
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600?lang=en
Combined with:
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1633830002742657027
Now you’re strawmanning. I never asserted it was illegal for twitter to do it on their own. (It is however wrong and might well remove 230 protections) It is however illegal for it to happen at government direction (on the part of government, not Twitter)
Re: Re: Re:3
Ah, I see you’re trying to get me to do your work again. Not gonna happen, son. Link to the pertinent tweets or STFU about having proof.
No, I’m asking you a question.
But you have asserted, as you say a sentence later, that it’s “wrong”. You’ve also heavily implied that bans, shadowbans, and content deletion are censorship regardless of whether those actions are voluntarily decisions by a platform. If you’re going to imply that those actions are censorship—that they’re somehow a violation of the First Amendment—I have every right to ask you whether you have proof that those actions are illegal.
If you could cite specific evidence that shows Twitter doing those things on direct orders of the government (or orders handed down by a government proxy) such that Twitter’s refusal to do those things would have resulted in legal consequences—which would absolutely be against the law—that’d be a real boost for your otherwise empty argument.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
I did, you fucking moron. Those are both to single, specific tweets. The first one you should scroll down but it details how Twitter shadow bans works and mentions Bhattacharya directly, starting with #3. But it’s all essentially one page of text. You know how twitter works, right? The second is just a single tweet showing the screenshot of the request (from a fed-funded NGO, I believe, so indirect) to censor info that is “true, but misleading”.
Jesus Christ, this is why I don’t bother. I ACTUALLY provided what you asked. Did you even click on it?
Holy fuck….how many times do we have to make sure that “censorship” != 1A violation?!? It’s still censorship when private parties do it. Censorship is illegal when the government does it.
I did. You either didn’t bother to click on it or don’t know how twitter works.
Re: Re: Re:5
No, you linked to the start of a thread. You didn’t link to the tweets that show the evidence you claim backs up your assertions. If you need a template for how to do that, use this…
…and repeat it as many times as necessary. It’s really not that hard to do.
Again: No, you didn’t. I asked for direct links to the proof. You linked to the start of two different threads. I’m not here to do your work for you—cite the exact tweets and the text you think backs up your claims or stop whining because I asked you to do your own legwork.
How is it censorship when it doesn’t actually stop anyone from speaking their mind elsewhere?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
No, it was one tweet, with replies, I don’t believe you can NOT have the replies show, also: read the fucking thread, dumbass. The ENTIRE thread is about the subject in question. As normal text it would be like 1 page. Jesus fuck. You are going to ridiculous lengths to ignore evidence.
Here, read #3. This is where Bhattacharya is first mentioned you lazy fuck. Then go read the rest, cuz it also matters.
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601011428579717121
And that seems rather intimately tied to this:
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1633830002742657027
This is:
If you try to ignore this I’m just going to accept that you NEVER argue in good faith and never provide you a link again.
That is not, never was, and never will be what the definition of “censorship” is. No, not even when you link to a dumb cartoon (which doesn’t mention the word, funny enough)
Re: Re: Re:6
Yep. US “censorship boards”, their actual names, didn’t censor films because you could alway go to another state. Right.
The video nasties weren’t censored because you could just head over to France.
Burning of libraries isn’t censorship if the books survive elsewhere.
Modifying a game isn’t censorship because you could always buy it from the original country.
When clean flick and Angel flix and pure film carry out “censorship”, their term, that’s not censorship. You could always buy the original elsewhere.
You keep talking about reducing the value of the word. You do that yourself by insisting only the government can do it.
The majority of censorship throughout history was NOT conducted by government but with government turning a blind eye to it.
Every time content is deleted or modified it should be screamed from the rooftops through Manowar’s sound setup!
Just like I sad back before the twitter sale was completed, those cheating the censorship that they liked would suddenly complain when one of their choices felt the actions. And that’s exactly what happened.
Now we get demands for content removal! Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to read works of any user.
You can block anyone you want.
What we have here is government actors acting in what appears to be official capacity calling for specific actions against specific content.
The government has no right to do that.
You can say a cabinet member or senator sending a letter private from a private account is outside of official action. Sure you can. It stop pretending a company is going to just treat such a notice the same as one from you.
You are so stuck on the how and who, you totally ignore the facts of the what.
Re: Re: Re:5
And there it is, when pushed into a corner Mighty Mean Baby throws a tantrum and starts swearing. Keep that petulant nastiness rolling whiny boy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
I start swearing when people are stupid fucks, which happens quite a lot, unfortunately, you stupid fuck.
Re: Re: Re:7
Wow, you liberals are a hateful group.
Re: Re: Re:4 Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?
“If you could cite specific evidence that shows Twitter doing those things on direct orders of the government…”
I don’t completely agree with any of you, but you, Stephen T. Stone, need to seriously revisit your history lessons. Governments don’t have to order people to do things, they can simply suggest what they’d like to be done, once, and thereafter all they have to do is inquire pointedly about the things/people/words that they’d like to go away.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
^^^This, a thousand times this. Thank you, I’m going to use that quote, too. “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
Re: Re: Re:5
According to the “Twitter Files”, the government brought to the attention of Twitter the names of accounts that the government believed had violated Twitter’s Terms of Service. The government then said that Twitter could take whatever action it deemed necessary in re: those accounts, including—and you’re going to love this—no action at all. Twitter refused to take action on more than half of those requests. And yet, Twitter suffered no penalty, and the government never once threatened to punish Twitter, for those refusals.
Governments can suggest all they like. But nobody has to listen unless the government exercises its power. Where is the proof that the government exercised its power—directly or by proxy—as a way to force Twitter into banning certain kinds of speech and/or certain users?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
that’s one example. pushing bad news via ngo’s funded by the government.
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610394232832905216/photo/1
but you should read Michael Shellenberger’s article on the censorship-industrial-complex
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
None of what you just said is true. You’re just making it up.
Oh, they said “but you don’t hafta” one time? Oh well, I guess that not only means they definitely is not a super powerful government disguising an order as a soft request. It even means that all the times they didn’t say that. And the times they badgered them into submission.
Jesus fuck.
Re: Re: Re:2
see for what mathew is talking about, it was opposition to all measures to stop Covid, resulted in:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Well THAT isn’t true. Really just pointing out that school closures and lockdowns went on way too long. (and that’s been proven unquestionably right)
And Dr. Tedros isn’t a good guy.
Re: Re: Re:4
How long is “too long”?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
You’re attempting to bait me into debating covid policy (which the facts are on my side, I’ve already won that) rather discuss the fact that the intent was to stifle dissent. Which ANYONE should be able to debate covid policy freely and openly, but Bhattacharya is a semi-famous and well respected medical expert. Which is arguably WHY they muted him — because he is someone people would actually listen to.
It’s clear and unambiguous. They muted someone who knew what they were talking about cuz he disagreed with the “official” “truth”. That isn’t OK.
Re: Re: Re:5 Shooting your own foot and then whining about the medical bill
The best part about maskholes and anyone on that side bringing up how horrible lockdowns and closures were is that by and large they were the biggest cause of those.
Had there not been so many selfish and self-centered assholes who decided that their convenience was more important than the safety and lives of everyone around them then the impact, including lockdowns/closures would have almost certainly been a fraction as severe as they ended up being.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
That’s nice. None of the statistics (y’know, “The Science”) actually supports what you’re saying at all, in fact actually refutes it soundly. Lockdowns did basically nothing to reduce mortality. Huge economic cost, education loss, missed wedding and funerals and grandparents you’ll never get back for…..nothing. School closures really were a teacher’s union negotiation ploy with NO basis in fact. (Europe, btw, largely did not close down schools or closed down only briefly, so the comparison there is particularly stark) Bhattacharya is, again, an actual health and policy expert who would know (did know, pointedly). You can and could disagree but you can’t call his opinion unqualified.
But that’s not the topic today. The topic is how Twitter quashed dissent, apparently at government request, and very definitely echoing government propaganda.
Re: Re: Re:7
I find it interesting how locations with lockdowns and shelter in place had the highest mortality rates regardless.
Here’s more interesting facts ,locations with mask mandates had lower mortality than places without. That shows even crappy paper disposable masks had some level of protection. (So I was incorrect, paper masks had a noticeable benefit).
But here’s the take away!
locations with mask mandates but no SIP had lower mortality concerns. Why? Because daily routines kept people safer and generally more separated than SIP.
But don’t pretend your liberal death cult locales did something right. Sip (intentionally?) killed the weak and old.
Then used those numbers to justify further lockdowns. They caused the very thing they claimed they wished to prevent.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, what did he say that turned out to be true?
Re: Re: Re:
Unless he got “shadowbanned” after those things turned out to be true, that’s only evidence of social media companies having to continually update their policies as new information about the pandemic came out.
In other words, you have yet to provide evidence that this was ideologically or politically based.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
What the FUCK?!? NONE of that is true.
You’re LITERALLY saying that SM should decide what the “Truth” is and edit anything that disagrees with it. The fact is that a lot of this stuff was very obvious at the outset (schools shouldn’t be shut down or were shut down waaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too long, lockdowns were ineffective and costly, etc.) but the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT WAS TO STIFLE DISSENT?!?
And your position is that that’s all cool, because what Bhattacharya was saying wasn’t “known” to be true? IT WAS KNOWN TO FUCKING HIM.
YOU ABSOLUTE SHIT FUCK DUMBASS. Put your head in a toliet and flush it, your brain needs a wash.
Re: Re: Re:3
Now who’s strawmanning? 🤔
He was saying that social media companies may at some point punish someone for making a statement that is, at the time of that punishment, believed to be false. When information proves the statement is true, those companies will update their policies to account for the change. That’s how things should work—and it isn’t a social media company declaring what is and isn’t the factual objective truth across all of time and space.
Damn, I wish it worked, those anti-vax shitheads wouldn’t shut the fuck up… 🙃
Whatever punishment he faced was consistent with both known information about COVID and Twitter’s policies on COVID mis- and disinformation at the time. Whether you think that’s good or bad is irrelevant.
And besides, Twitter has every right to ban “dissent” if it wants. So does Truth Social—a right that it exercised when it banned numerous left-wingers who flooded the service in its opening days. Again: Whether you think that’s good or bad is irrelevant.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
vs
These are literally the same thing. I honest to god do not understand how with a straight face you could pretend these are different things.
If you actually think that then you are an enemy of free people.|
Yeah, it literally is.
Bhattacharya is not an anti-vaxxer (I’m not either) but sidenote the covid vaccines legitimately don’t work very well.
You fucking totalitarian nutbag.
Re: Re: Re:5
No, they’re not. Twitter isn’t making God-like declarations of objective truth. Even if it was, that would only apply to Twitter, not to every other platform on the Internet.
lmao
If Twitter declares something to be the truth (which it hasn’t ever done, FYI), how does that declaration affect literally anything outside of Twitter? Elon Musk could literally tweet “it is the official position of Twitter that the FBI is run by monkeys and that’s a fact” and while that may be a “fact” on Twitter, it isn’t a fact anywhere else.
Besides, the whole point I was making was that even if a certain nugget of information is later proven to be true, that a platform’s owners/operators believed it to be false when it punished someone for posting that info should only be taken as a sign that the platform was doing its best to clamp down on potentially dangerous mis- or disinformation. Nobody gets it right 100% of the time; anyone who claims they do is lying.
You fucking totalitarian nutbag.
I’ll point out, once again, that using Twitter is not a right, but a privilege. Losing a spot on Twitter robs nobody of the right to speak elsewhere—and Twitter owes nobody a spot on the service or access to the potential audience therein. Prove otherwise or shut the fuck up.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Yes, they really were. For instance, you were not allowed to say the covid vaccines didn’t work. (they don’t work very well, actually, particularly for catching it and transmission)
Why do you keep on saying shit like that like it’s relevant? They would and did kick you off twitter.
Sure. Which is why I am saying they definitely should not be doing. How the fuck do they know what is true? They fucking don’t! In this case, “Twitter defined true” was essentially just government propaganda. CDC probably didn’t believe a lot of it, but they really wanted you to do as told.
All the same reasons it is illegal to have gov define what is “true” and punishh you for saying otherwise are all the reasons it is a really bad idea for a huge social media company to define what is “true” and punish you for saying otherwise. (but not illegal…..unless government was involved which they almost certainly were in this case)
Re: Re: Re:7
How the fuck do they know what is true? They fucking don’t! In this case, “Twitter defined true” was essentially just government propaganda. CDC probably didn’t believe a lot of it, but they really wanted you to do as told.
This right here is why I’m looking forward to the next pandemic.
It’s because of sentiment like Matthew’s and every single fucking person like him that caused the pandemic to go on for two years too long.
These simple minded fuckheads just want to piss people off. They’re perfectly aware of how fucking ridiculous they are, and are fine with it, as long as they get the rest of us rational people mad with their nonsensical bullshit.
They started small with their ‘alternative-facts’ horseshit, and this is just the logical progression of ‘reality-optional’ thinking they’ve convinced themselves is the way forward.
Fuck you Matthew, and here’s hoping there’s a covid molecule flying around with your name on it. I can only hope next time, the first responders just say fuck it and let you guys get your medicines from the local farm & tractor like you wanted.
You goddamn idiots are still bitching about not getting to read bullshit ‘advice’ from quacks on Twitter for a day on a pandemic that was supposedly ‘just the flu’ anyways, right?
Get a fucking life, you pathetic shitbag.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
This is great.
The “pandemic” didn’t go on for two years. Lockdowns did. Depending on your definitions the pandemic actually became endemic a few months in or is still going.
None of which lockdowns affected, at all, as scientifically proven. I mean that was obvious a short time in, but it’s scientifically proven, now.
The Science (TM) in on my side, it was never on yours, though the propaganda of a few government officials was.
People didn’t get to see their grandparents for the last few months of their lives because shitheads like you really feel good about telling others what to do.
Yes, this is the typical hateful liberal in action.
Don’t worry about me, tho, I’ve had covid 3 times now, (once before vaccines were available, twice after getting vaccinated, thanks for asking) I’ll be fine. Have to wait to die in a BLM riot, or something.
Re: Re: Re:5
“If you actually think that then you are an enemy of free people.”
And you are the enema of free thought.
Re: Re: Re:3
Great logic there, bucko. Should Twitter also let racists make comments about the inferiority of other ethnicities because it is “known to them”?
Bhattacharya said things that went against what basically every medical organization were saying at the time, including the WHO if memory serves. That’s why Twitter reacted.
The warnings attached to those kinds of messages didn’t even say “This is wrong”, making it sound like Twitter was making a judgement call on objective truth as you mistakenly(again) believe. They said “Some of the content in this tweet conflicts with guidance from public health experts regarding COVID-19”. That’s completely accurate.
The reason you think this is ideologically or politically motivated is that you’re a biased nutjob.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes. And he was right and those orgs were wrong. (WHO is not a serious medical org btw, and everyone pretended it was during the pandemic and it was super dumb.) There was considerable collusion in those orgs messages, btw, and it wasn’t AT ALL a unified consensus like they pretended. WHICH IS PART OF WHY YOU CAN’T HAVE SOMEONE PRETENDING THERE IS ONLY ONE “TRUTH”, YOU FUCKING DUMB SHIT.
We are Americans (I know you aren’t, but fuck you we do it right and you don’t), and we do not just accept that those who are “in charge” have the right of it, because newsflash, they often do not. That is why a free and open debate must be possible, and it was not, here.
Oh, no you dumb fuck, that’s not what happened AT ALL. You just couldn’t find him. Searching his name directly would get you nothing. If you retweeted him no one would ever see it. A direct link would still work but no one would see anything he wrote ever without one. It was as if they had suspended his account, but when he logged in he wouldn’t realize anything was wrong, so he’d have nothing to protest. I don’t think they DID slap labels on his messages, that would be too honest. (still wrong) They just made him disappear.
So not only do you not know why a ministry of truth is a bad idea but you don’t even understand what happened. Perf, you couldn’t be more your ignorant self right now.
Re: Re: Re:5
That’s irrelevant. He was considered wrong at the time, which was the reason for the blacklisting.
Where did they pretend that?
The only one I’m seeing pretending that at the moment is you.
Laughs in public healthcare
Except that people were still discussing measures on Twitter, engaging on open debate. But by all means, keep lying.
You’re either lying(again) or badly informed. According to Battacharya himself, he was told by an engineer that his tweets were extremely limited in reach, so that only people who already followed him would see them. Nothing about his account effectively not existing.
Except that Twitter also consulted with independent organization and not just the government. You’re lying again.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Oh, god, you absolute dumbfuck. There is nothing here you didn’t get wrong.
Oh sweet jesus. Actually people who followed him mostly couldn’t see his tweets either (it just depends on how far you push the lever, and they pushed it far), but how do you not understand this is what I just said? People couldn’t find him and wouldn’t see his tweets. His account effectively didn’t exist. Do you not understand how algos work?
HOW, how are you this fucking dumb?!?
“Considered” wrong? By who? A small cabal of scientists, some of whom were actually lying? What the fucking fuck is wrong with you? This isn’t a thing and should not be a thing.
….so you argument is that they weren’t 100% successful? Cuz they WERE trying to suppress, and did suppress a whole lot of that. Whole topics were shadowbanned. People were using code words to not say “covid” or “vax” so that the algo wouldn’t suppress their tweets (this happened on FB) too.
That wouldn’t keep it from being a “ministry of truth”, but the funny bit is that it turns out a most of not all of those “independent organizations” were actually paid by the government.
I say this honestly: I’m not, but you aren’t smart enough to know if I were. You posted as evidence I was “lying” Battacharya being told about the shadowban well after Musk took over Twitter and then repeated all the things I just said, you fucking donkey.
Re: Re: Re:7
That wouldn’t keep it from being a “ministry of truth”, but the funny bit is that it turns out a most of not all of those “independent organizations” were actually paid by the government.
Who would you consider a trustworthy funder then?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Where’s all this research and funding supposed to come from? Or do we just let people loose in Agway to self-medicate?
Re:
The whole point of Section 230 is the opposite of this: to make sure that websites don’t face liability for exercising their editorial control.
If exercising editorial control took away your protections there would be no reason for 230 in the first place, because 230 was passed, explicitly after a court ruled that exercising editorial control meant no protections.
Of course, if that were the case, you would never be allowed to post anywhere as you’d be a liability.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Incorrect. The reason it exists is to make you’re not liable for hosting other people’s content.
Specific exemptions were written in to allow very limited content moderation (while still retaining those protections) but NOTHING like the grand scale of viewpoint filtering old twitter engaged in.
You are just dramatically misunderstanding the situation. In the late 90’s were claiming that AOL was responsible for what a newspaper wrote on it’s website. (so basically, the whole internet, which was much smaller, but still big enough) It was a crazy time with all these matters of settled law being brought up again “Ok, but on the internet” Forums barely existed (like, hundreds of users!) and nothing like the big social media companies did.
Re: Re: Re:
We get it that you think being moderated because you are acting as an aggressive arsehole who thinks they have the God given right to tell other people how wrong they are is not reason for other people to tell you to fuck off. When they do they are not censoring your viewpoint, but telling you that you are not welcome because of your behavior.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I do. I literally think that.
Never said that. You’re literally just making shit up.
I am, however, explaining how the law works. No, I don’t particular care if you think I am “welcome” or not.
Re: Re: Re:3
So, no respect for other people and their rights….
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Definitely, absolutely, without question, not a “right”.
k, thx, glad we cleared that up.
Re:
Oh, like how J Edgar Hoover had so much blackmail material that he used it to force EVERYONE to do his whims?
Like how Fox News was set up to ensure that a second Nixon would be able to do his crimes with excellent PR and astroturfing?
Like how the Telcos tried to astroturf the debate regarding Net Neutrality?
Like how an FBI informant tried to use Twitter to radicalize a BLM movement?
Like how social media companies bent over backwards to not offend politicians of all stripes?
Like how Facebook took Republican slush money to promote disinformation, accepted Russian money to push Russian propaganda, and even went so far as to let a government look into a “private post” to aid in ACTUAL FUCKING CENSORSHIP? (The last one is Singapore, btw.)
Matthew, you fucking terrorist.
There’s ideologically and politically motivated censorship? It’s called the “right-wing” internet space. It’s called Fox News. It’s called OAN, Breitbart, and all the wonderful alt-right conspiracy rags AND I’ll even throw in Kiwifarms for good measure.
Oh, and I’m very well aware that even the Dems want to emulate my shithole country. Because it is successful.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Those sure are words.
But you’re right, let us disband the FBI. Well, not “us”, it apparently isn’t your country.
Re: Re: Re:
“I don’t want to engage in your argument”
Sir, you did not need to actually respond, you know. Unless you actually WANT to harass people here…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
It wasn’t a logical train of thinking with anything to “engage” with. But don’t paraphrase me, you don’t do it very well.
I’ll reply or “harass” who I please, k thx.
Re:
you can’t even get close to wrong
The internet is impossible to censor. USENET still works if someone has to say something. That no one cares what’s on USENET says no one cares about free speech.
Even without USENET there’s plenty of ways to get a message out this is more about controlling narratives and audiences than any censorship.
Re:
Or maybe it says “USENET is outdated and largely unmoderated, and the vast majority of Internet users would rather not have to wade through that swamp of sadness so they can see some content they might like”. Y’know, just a hunch.
Re:
How many times to I have to tell you people that USENET could easily be censored!!
I actively blocked any CSAM group that had images. As the administrator, I could have blocked access to any arbitrary group I wanted to. Since this was my ISP business, it would have only affected my customer base, but it’s still blocking USENET.
Re: Re:
Yes, you can block access to USENET, but anyone who wants to post there can, even anonymously. Free speech exists there. Even without it, the internet can’t be censored as it was designed to survive a nuclear war through decentralization.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the infrastructure was designed to withstand things like total war.
Meanwhile, there’s countries that censor on the infrastructure level and have laws on paper that punish unauthorized VPN usage.
Russia and China have effectively mastered information control, no thanks to successful nationstates that use it AND the profitability of Fox News and Murdoch’s yellow journalism rags.
And most people would prefer to survive and act against their interests than to act in their interests and die.
Re:
USENET is still a thing, like IRC.
The funnier thing? USENET still needs a token fee to access from what I know.
I don’t even bring up IRC and even I know it’s as moderated as the server admins/operators want it to be. Which is to say, at worst, enough moderation to NOT get a visit from the FBI.
Re: Re:
ChatGPT will be next-level internet as it will aggregate all the conversations then cross-reference everything.
If “they” go that route with it it’ll be the ultimate SnitchBot.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
“Censor” DOES NOT mean “cannot say it anywhere”.
Yes removing a tweet is censorship. The word has a meaning.
Re: Re:
And you’re intent on applying it to actions that don’t actually censor people. Are you doing this so you can build up an argument that any kind of online moderation is censorship and thus deserves to be strictly regulated, if not wholly outlawed, under U.S. federal law?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Fucking dumbass, explained this at least 20 times now. It IS cesnorship. No, that doesn’t mean it violates the 1A. But it does as soon as the government gets involved.
These are 3 separate issues that you appear intent on conflating for some reason.
Re: Re: Re:2
Whose rights are violated when Twitter kicks someone off the platform for violating the Terms of Service?
And as soon as you prove that Twitter was acting on orders from the government (or a government proxy), that might mean something.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
You’re strawmanning again. No one’s “rights” have to be violated for it to be censorship.
I did! You pretended it wasn’t a direct link for some reason? It was super weird, almost like yo didn’t know how twitter works.
Re: Re: Re:4
Then it’s not really censorship, is it? I mean, going on every other platform on the Internet to whine about how one platform “censored” you doesn’t exactly sound like you’ve been censored, my good bitch.
You didn’t, at least not in that comment. You did elsewhere, and I commend you for finally doing the fucking legwork, but that seems more like an aberration rather than a sign that you learned a lesson.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Yes, it is. This definition you want to use is not what the fucking definition is.
Pretend it’s the gov. (this is going to aid you conflating gov vs private censorship but stick with me it makes it obvious) Is it a 1A violation if the government prevents you from saying something they don’t like in just one specific manner (say, on your T-shirt) or only a 1A violation if they keep you from saying that thing EVERYWHERE including your own home? No it’s the former, of course. The government has no right to control what you wear on your shirt, even if it’s some really bad word. It’s still censorship. |
Now, censorship has nothing to do with the government, it’s just that the gov is banned from doing it. So yes, you employer saying you can’t wear the T-shirt with the bad word to work is censorship. I’d argue it’s perfectly justifiable censorship and I have no problem with it, but it’s still censorship. It doesn’t matter that you can wear the tshirt at home.
And so yes, it’s censorship when twitter bans you. Legal censorship if they did it on their own, but still censorship. And very often the government is involved, which no, is NOT legal.
So please, for the love of god, stop using the word wrong. That is simply not what it means.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Also:
I did. I feel under no obligation to repeat myself, especially when you ignore the first few examples because apparently you don’t know how twitter works.
Re: Re: Re:6
And yet, you repeat yourself every single day.
Re: Re:
Sure, Matthew, we’ll believe you.
Once you show us Twitter suing you to not say that elsewhere.
There’s a certain paper trail for these things…
Like a Lawyer’s letter, for one. Oh, and a court docket, though that might not exist if you chose to settle.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s not how this works, that’s not how any of this works,
Re: Re: Re:2
We’ll reply or “harass” who we please, kthx.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
OK? Wut?
Re: Re: Re:4
You heard me.
Straight white scum like you need to be harassed to the fucking ground before we can start over as a truly progressive society.
If you thought the BLM riots were bad your sad pathetic little fuckboy pucker has no idea what’s coming next.
Re: Re: Re:2
Actually, yes, that is how the legal process works.
Even for civil cases.
So pony up the evidence that a Social Media company (or Mike or any “leftist”) actively sued you for exercising your 1A rights. All I’m asking for is a a lawyer’s letter, addressed to you, from a social media company telling you to shut the fuck up or they’ll see you in court. Or something like that.
If you do have a case pending, please do tell us the case, so we can examine the paperwork for ourselves.
Re: Re: Re:3
No, dumbass. Twitter doesn’t ahve to sue anyone for it to be censorship. That’s just … completely made up and nonsensical.
Re: Re: Re:4
Starting to make a lot of spelling errors aren’t you. It must be hard to type with your nose because your dick is so hard that you have use both hands in excitement. Hope you keep a big jar of soothing burn cream handy in case you start blistering your little brain.
Re: Re: Re:2
Unfortunately, here in reality, that IS indeed how it works.
So, please, show us the evidence that Twitter wants you to stop saying stuff they don’t like to hear or they’ll see you in court.
Because, remember, even in Elon’s hot mess he calls Twitter, he IS allowed to kick anyone out for any excuse. And as I seem to remember, he thought YOU were harassing Mike on Twitter.
Now cones the fun part: was that followed up by a letter from Elon’s legal team? That is all I ask.
(This is for everyone playing at home, folks! A corp can only engage in censorship not through moderation of their sites, but by silencing people through coercion, ala Kotick’s banning of Blitzchung, or through a civil suit, usually defamation. Though some creative shark might try to worm in a case based on the ToS being a binding contract…)
Re: Re: Re:3
Massively incorrect. “Censorship” does not mean “stop from talking everywhere”. Not at all, never has.
I honestly have no idea where you retards got the impression a lawsuit would have to be involved.
That would be censorship. Also legal, unless government asked him to do it.
I have no idea why you think Musk knows who I am. Pretty sure he doesn’t know who Masnick or Techdirt is, either. What the fuck is this shit?
That is just massively, totally incorrect. I have no idea where this notion came from beyond totalitarian liberals wanting to pretend their censorship is not, in fact, censorship. I think what Blizzard did was VERY wrong (I deleted my account over it) but it is not materially different than Twitter banning someone. (also at government coercion, just the CCP rather than FBI)
Actually rereading it now it’s very clear you’re just trying to narrowly craft a definition that makes the censorship you agree with “not censorship” for…..”reasons” while everything you disagree with is still censorship for some reason.
But that’s not how words work, and that’s not what the definition of censorship is. Now, please stop lying to people, “Playing at home” or not.
That is a pretty deranged post, dude.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
I hope this helps you educated yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
Re: Re: Re:4
I don’t need to be educated about censorship when I already live in a country that does it all the fucking time, aided by Nazis like you.
You’ve never had to watch what you say lest you get assreamed by the government, society, law enforcement AND even your own family.
I bet you also get free reign to spit out nasty things about minorities, something you seem to do with regularity here.
Something I don’t have the luxury, let alone the right, to do.
In fact, I bet your response is to tel;l me I deserve it for going against your ilk and that I should accept the eventual bullet to my head.
I know I can’t stop you from being a brownshirt, but please, I do know what censorship is.
I LIVE IN IT. AND TAKE HARASSMENT FROM PEOPLE SIMILAR TO YOU.
Re: Re:
You are just sore that people do not want your company due to your aggressive, angry rants.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t want the company of a constant abuser, harasser and stalker either.
But sometimes, that’s the cards we’re dealt with. Especially when their stated goal is to force Techdirt to shut down through this constant barrage of harassment.
Re: Re:
Yes removing a tweet is censorship.
Yeah, we know.
You couldn’t read your tweets for 5 minutes about how a doctor working with feral pigs in Khazakhastan found a covid treatment using diesel fuel and brake fluid, and you’re mad that the government is deliberately covering it up because of Hunter Biden’s laptop.
A fairly common ‘conservative viewpoint’ that is being censored, and it’s inexcusable.
I read you have standing to sue. There’s this Chozen person who can let you in on the law. Something about prunes or railroads or something.
“Is settled law that won’t be overturned anytime soon.”
Has he seen SCOTUS?
So I guess my weekend plans…
…involve scrawling hate-speech on an American flag, then setting it on fire in a crowded theater, while loudly yelling “FIRE!” followed by a string of profanity, and finally complain when the private theater kicks me out? 😉
ofc.they are, but whether government is allowed to push for it, is something entirely else. that’s what we are discussing in the light of the twitter files, for example https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610394232832905216/photo/1
Re:
So..one picture out of context proves..what?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I have a life beside. If you care about freedom of speech, you can look into it yourself. I don’t have time to make it easily digestible and sum everything up because there is a lot of material, and much of it has already been shown here. But honestly, too many right-wingers waste their time here proving things down to primary sources. They can just quote Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, etc. They have won many prizes and are highly credible journalists. We are already used to quote articles as sources written by journalists with far less authority, but you need to spell it out down to the tiniest detail when you are confronted by the American left-liberals. But next thing, you have to spell the tiniest details down to even “tiniestier” detail. That’s not a game I want to play. But you can read an article by Michael Shellenberger here https://www.dailynews.com/2023/03/12/censorship-industrial-complex-must-be-broken/ .
Re: Re:
I can see that the context wasn’t clear though. It suggests that government-funded “NGO’s” pushed mainstream news media on social media companies to censor voices without giving them time to review.
Re: Re: Re:
Were the NGO’s actually made/told to do this by the government? Because “government-funded” and “government-directed” are not the same thing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Actually, yes, they are. Those grants come with mission statements. And there are usually handlers after the grant also.
Re: Re: Re:3
Then show us the missions statements that directly call for Twitter to “censor”.
I’ll wait…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
They’re a little more sophisticated than that.
“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
Re: Re: Re:5
Translation:
I ain’t got shit so I just make things up willy nilly to sound smart.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
When a mobster says “take care of him” that does not, in fact, absolve him of conspiracy to commit murder. It’s an attempt to hide it though.
Re: Re: Re:3
There you go, lying again to suit your agenda. Getting funding from the government isn’t the same as getting a grant.
Government funding can be as simple as “We like what you do in your organization, here’s some money to keep doing that”, so unless you have evidence of grants with mission statements(implied or otherwise), kindly stick a sock in it.
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, thanks for clearing that up, it doesn’t actually prove anything then – just like I thought.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m not here to spell things out for you or to run a suitcase, lol. I’m here to add pieces to the puzzle in a problem which is recognized by some of world’s most credible journalists. The pieace in question missed in this debate, so it was a good contribution.
Anyway, since you’re asking https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1607383214452080647
Apparently the Biden administration stilled “tough questions” which were met. No, that doesn’t prove that the White House forced them systematically. One single tweet doesn’t. Perhaps any tweet doesn’t because that’s not the original document. These things are to be settled in the legal system with testimonies, etc.
But one thing seems sure which is that many taxpayers’ money go to assist the social media companies with removing/deamplifying voices that somewhat goes against status quo through a network of NGO’s and american intelligencies
Re: Re: Re:3
a tough question* (not plural, my bad)
Re: Re: Re:3
Correction, one tough question. Don’t embellish facts.
There’s no evidence of force anywhere in what you linked. Don’t embellish facts.
This is the problem, you are embellishing facts – who to say that David Zweig isn’t doing the same by selecting specific information that tells the story as he wants it to be?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
You realize that people can and are convicted multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence all the time, right?
This is not a court of law and we don’t need “beyond a reasonable doubt” but enough circumstantial evidence can lead to something being proved beyond a reasonable doubt…and there is a fucking lot.
Re: Re: Re:3
Evidence is evidence even if it’s circumstantial, a suggestion is a suggestion. There is a difference between the two that escapes you.
When out in the wild, there are two reasons why I’ll inject myself into the conversation you’re having with someone else:
I’m glad that Legal Eagle has done a video on this, because I’m sick of hearing it myself.
Good Video
The video was very well done and accurate. Everyone should watch it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The techdirt American left-liberals are complete idiots. According to the this group of people everything on Wikipedia is complete bullshit because it only refers to second-hand sources and thus doesn’t “prove anything”. I have never entered a debate before where people are demanded to post primary sources, yet they did, and did it very well. Gratz guys, keep fighting for freedom of speech, also when the speech if left-liberal-oriented (I use the word “left-liberal” since I’m an European … “liberal” means something different here, lol)