Former Content Moderator Explains How Josh Hawley's Bill Would Grant Government Control Over Online Speech
from the not-a-good-idea dept
Daisy Soderberg-Rivkin, who used to work at Google as an in-house content moderator, has written a fascinating piece for the Washington Times, explaining just what a disaster Josh Hawley’s anti-Section 230 bill would be for the internet. As we’ve discussed, Hawley’s bill would require large internet companies to beg the FTC every two years to get a “certificate” granting them Section 230 protections — and they’d only get it if they could convince 4 out of 5 of the FTC Commissioners that their content moderation efforts were “politically neutral.”
Soderberg-Rivkin points out how that will stifle the kind of “clean up” efforts that most everyone — especially folks like Senator Josh Hawley — often claim they want when they complain about all the “bad stuff” on social media. Remember, just before introducing this bill, Hawley was whining about all the bad and dangerous content on social media. Except, under his own damn bill, social media sites would be forced to keep that content up:
Under the Hawley bill, the FTC would audit major platforms? moderation practices every two years to determine whether those practices were ?biased against a political party, political candidate or political viewpoint.? In practice, this would look something like this: A few FTC auditors would walk into a technology company and declare the beginning of the audit. They would comb through tens thousands of removals decisions, looking for those that are ?politically biased? ? a process that could take, at minimum, weeks to complete.
In the meantime, content moderators would hold back on their take down procedures because no one could really tell them how ?politically biased? is interpreted. In other words, disinformation, Nazi propaganda and white supremacist videos would fester on the Internet. If a moderator fails this test, not only would they be fired, but thousands of lawsuits and fines would come tumbling down on the company.
At my former job, I tried to keep in mind that while I had to look at horrific content, thanks to my efforts, many others would not have to. Yet in a world where this bill passes, I would sit down at my same desk, take a deep breath and prepare myself to look at terrorist executions, aftermaths of mass shootings and hatred-motivated violence ? but this time, with full knowledge that I had absolutely no control over its distribution.
To some extent, this gets at the weird mental pretzel logic Senators like Hawley keep twisting themselves into. They complain about all the bad stuff online… and think that the way to deal with that is to remove the one law that makes it possible for companies to design plans to moderate away that bad stuff.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, free speech, government control, josh hawley
Companies: facebook, google, twitter
Comments on “Former Content Moderator Explains How Josh Hawley's Bill Would Grant Government Control Over Online Speech”
It's easy to hide anti-consersative bias among obviously wrong.
That’s why Google / Facebook have been getting away with political bias, slowly and sneakily disadvantaging opponents.
Here’s an executive at Google showing how they don’t want Trump to win again and scheme to bring it about: it’s not even "dog whistle" code, that’s just how liberals talk, rarely direct, so that even they don’t fully grasp the horror of their censoring and trying to control all thought.
https://gohmert.house.gov/uploadedfiles/google.mp4
(Hope it’s still up. If not, can be found.)
Re: It's easy to hide anti-consersative bias among obviously wro
Some anecdotal evidence of apparent bias from the last few days…
Canadian free speech activist Lindsay Shepherd was permanently banned from Twitter for the crime of returning an insult to a transgender troll. Considering that other people have been previously banned from Twitter for also saying some version of "men are not women", she should have seen that ban coming. (some advice: never argue –and especially never trade insults– with someone in the "protected class" because you will lose every time)
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/breaking-twitter-silences-canadian-free-speech-activist-lindsay-shepherd/
At the same time, Twitter apparently has no problem with far-left activists who condoned the armed firebombing attack on the Tacoma ICE compound last weekend by a self-professed Antifa menber, such as BLM activist Shaun King, who called the attacker a "martyr" — as did several Antifa organizations, all of which (so far) remain unsuspended and unbanned.
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/07/16/fraudster-shaun-king-calls-antifa-firebomber-martyr-encouraging-violence/
And two weeks ago, when Antifa violently attacked journalist Andy Ngo (which started with milkshakes and ended in a hospital bed) Twitter didn’t seem to care much about the people who condoned that violence, or had previously incited it, such as Carlos Maza (another "protected class" person that must not be offended)
But of course, we keep being told that there is absolutely no political bias on social media, and all the many examples we keep seeing occur day after day are all just coincidences and anomalies.
Re: Re:
Even if this proves a pattern of political bias — and it doesn’t — Twitter is under no legal obligation to remain “unbiased” or “neutral” in its moderation. Until and unless you can show me a law or court ruling that says otherwise…well, to quote a certain right-wing asshole, facts don’t care about your feelings.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not currently, of course, but isn’t that exactly what Senator Josh Hawley’s bill will do if it becomes law? (which I thought was the main topic of this article)
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Perhaps you could explain exactly what is meant by neutral and unbiased, providing examples would be helpful.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’d start with the proposal that stating scientific facts, such as "men are not women" should not be a bannable offense from social media, especially when probably the vast majority of people on the planet would wholeheartedly agree with that assessment.
Re: Re: Re:4
No one ethnic group is inherently superior to all others. That is a scientific fact. Should a social media service dedicated to White supremacy be forced by law to host a view that runs contrary to its specific ideology? If so, should a service dedicated to the Black Lives Matter movement also be forced to host White supremacist propaganda?
I’ll remind you that both scientific facts and White supremacist propaganda are legally protected speech. You can’t say one shouldn’t be a bannable offense and the other one should be without explaining why one particular subset of protected speech deserves more protection (i.e., special rights) under the law.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
No one ethnic group is inherently superior to all others. That is a scientific fact.
dis not be true but if yous says its true yous get banned lose yous job and get yo’ ass beat by Antifa
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Most people would believe a scientist over some random hack.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
especially when probably the vast majority of people on the planet would wholeheartedly agree with that assessment.
There is such overwhelming support of your shitty opinions about white power that sites such as the Daily Stormer and Gab exist. Knock yourself out but don’t pretend you aren’t just spouting hate because it makes you feel superior.
Re: Re: Re:4 I’d start with not making idiotic logical fallacies
Argumentum ad populum springs to mind for some reason.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
So, by "neutral", you mean "my anti-trans attacks should be equal to support to that community", and you wonder why this isn’t a popular opinion?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Is he gonna pull a Zof next, and male the laughable claim that there’s no issues with the "Learn to code" dogwhistle?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
To which dogs is that whistle calling?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
The problem with playing stupid is people will take it at face value.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
So no answer, then?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
If you want to look like you are too stupid to use google, that’s your problem bro, not mine.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
So still no answer. Gotcha.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
As I understand it, the "learn to code" thing was initially in reference to the last election where Hillary stated a (shock, horror!) true fact that coal was dying not just because it’s a shitty job that destroys the environment, but because the rise of natural gas and renewable energy meant that it was no longer a long-term viable industry. She offered retraining, among which coding was mentioned as a possible option for people unable to relocate.
Of course, right-wing morons immediately latched on to that as some kind of insult, and along with Trump’s obviously empty promises to magically rebuild the coal industry outside of the reach of market forces rejected the offer. Now, the same idiots seem to be repeating that line as some kind of insult whenever unemployment among ethnic minorities is raised.
In other words, like most Trumper "insults", it’s a lazy attempt at recycling an old meme toward racism while missing that actual point of the original meme.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
No, it was famously used (and suppressed as ‘hateful’ by Twitter) when it was thrown back at journalists who were being laid off because they were the ones who picked up Hillary’s mantra and wrote condescending think-pieces and hot takes advising the coal miners and other blue collar workers whose jobs were disappearing that they should just learn to code. When they ended up losing their own jobs and people told them to follow their own advice and learn to code, it suddenly became hateful and harassing to say that to someone who lost a job and Twitter started suspending the accounts of anyone who told a journalist to learn to code.
Journalists are hardly ‘ethnic minorities’ so there’s no actual racial element to it whatsoever, hence my question about which dogs this whistle is supposed to be calling.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
So, you agree that coal miners need to be retrained out of their dying industry and are morons for voting for the easy lie that’s killing them rather than admitting that their jobs are disappearing due to natural forces?
I may be mistaken as to the target of the dog whistle, but the origin seems to be correct.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Something that is not even under discussion here.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
For the benefit of those for whom ignorance is genuine amd innocent, rather than deliberate or a pretense:
It’s something vaguely similar to the mailing of five orange pips.
"Learn to code" is meant as a thinly vailed threat aimed at the journalist it’s sent to; that they should now be afraid that if they say something they alt-right doesn’t like, they might find themselves in the crosshairs of their next targeted harassment/smear campaign.
I.e.: "You should learn to code, because you won’t have your job as as a journalist much longer."
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Cool – Donald is going to code! Can’t wait to see that.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I have a hard time understanding how the simple (and factual) statement "men are not women" is an "anti-trans attack".
Re: Re: Re:6 Congrats???
When people lose a debate they usually try to forget or minimise it. Not you, your post practically screams “Hey remember that time I spent a whole day bulldozing my reputation to the point, that people told me to just log off and stop hitting myself!?!” It takes a real masochist to rub other people’s faces in your failure.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
our founding fathers said the least popular speech needs the most protection.
There are "trans women" with child sex convictions being housed with biologically born women and their children in prisons.
Women are leading this charge.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
That is hardly what I would consider a scientific fact.
I am looking for something that could be used in the determination of what is neutral and unbiased versus what is not.
It seems to be such a simple task until one attempts to write it down, quantify a measurement technique, test the accuracy of that technique and provide exact and thorough procedures for the populace to implement. But then, that is not what these people are intending to do is it?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
stating scientific facts … probably the vast majority of people on the planet would wholeheartedly agree with that assessment
So wait which thing matters? Science or popular opinion? Weird how you think they are connected.
Re: Re: It's easy when you don’t have to provide actual eviden
I love that the best you have is the Right Wing Nut Job equivalent of “My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it’s pretty serious.” That and enough strawmen to outfit a largish wheat farm.
Re: Re: It's easy to proclaim white power
Some anecdotal evidence of apparent bias from the last few days…
So your "evidence" is only anecdotal. And you are butt-hurt because people agree with like your "scientific" proclamation about racial superiority?
And your fix is to made the government protect you from those lesser races?
Sounds legit!
Moderators shouldn't be making close calls on "hate speech"...
as internally defined by a corporation.
When Godwin was last here, he refused to go along with even Brandenburg definitions! That’s because he and Masnick want corporate definitions so can control ALL speech to their bias.
Alex Jones should not have been "deplatformed". Certainly no nuttier, more lying, or more hateful than Masnick, especially with politically-motivated smear jobs on his chosen political and corporate foes — such as Shiva Ayyadurai, who’s apparently "Republican".
But here’s the GREAT thing: I don’t want Masnick, or "the squad", say, Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, other two, to EVER not be spewing! It’s truly helpful to The Republic that we know the REAL nuts.
The recent flap is mis-characterized as "racism", which is typical of "liberals", when problem is that people who were elected to Congress not only don’t think it’s a GREAT country that does that for them, but wish to destroy America. They will lose more further that goes.
Re: Re:
We get it, Shiva Ayyadurai’s loss against your hated foe Techdirt makes you wet your pants at night.
Get over yourself.
The American tradition is that VIEWS -- not actions, mere VIEWS
— are all protected except for 5 specific categories — which include "commercial speech", because businesses are NOT persons with Rights.
In contrast, Masnick, who’s been claiming for two decades how much he loves "free speech", down to that meaning links to infringed content, has recently (June 19) stated that he doesn’t mind if "literal Nazis" are censored. He’s crossed the line to dividing into those who are allowed speech, and those not.
Masnick never goes on any site or venue where he’s not in control or allied with those who do control it. He’s a CHICKEN.
Oh, and final proof is that after a few minutes, you had to click to see my mild comments here on false-advertising Techdirt.
Re: The American Alt Right
false-advertising Techdirt.
Oh please – balls up and file a police report. What false advertising law does TD violate?
Go melt somewhere else snowflake. And go google the word "Proof" I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Re:
If you can so easily conflate conservative beliefs with the “obviously wrong”, the issue is less with content moderation and more with those beliefs.
If you had it your way, they wouldn’t be making any calls at all.
He was “deplatformed” from third party platforms. He is not entitled to their use. He also has a platform of his own through which he can express himself. If the audience for that platform is lesser than his audience on other platforms, too bad. The law doesn’t guarantee him an audience.
No. No, it is not.
True patriotism is not “my country, right or wrong”. It is “if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right”. Criticism of the nation and its leaders is a fundamental right. It is also the height of patriotism.
Yes, and the law prevents the government from censoring someone for their views, no matter how heinous. Now show me how a social media service banning someone for using racial slurs is government censorship.
Moderation is a platform operator saying “we don’t do that here”. Discretion is you saying “I won’t do that there”. Censorship is someone saying “you can’t do that anywhere” before or after threats of either violence or government intervention. Now, can you pick out the one that best describes the actions taken by social media services against “literal Nazis”?
As opposed to you, who will keep hatereading this site for another decade because…reasons.
Re: The American tradition is that VIEWS -- not actions, mere VI
Bawk bawk. Why do you run away when we ask you questions?
Re: Re:
He knows he can’t deliver a straight answer, never mind an answer that doesn’t have an insult in it.
Re: The American tradition is that VIEWS -- not actions, mere VI
Wrong. Commercial speech has enjoyed 1st Amendment protection– by law and custom– since the founding of the Republic.
'... why else do you think I proposed it?'
In the meantime, content moderators would hold back on their take down procedures because no one could really tell them how “politically biased” is interpreted. In other words, disinformation, Nazi propaganda and white supremacist videos would fester on the Internet.
Depending on who you are, ‘that’s a feature, not a bug.’
At my former job, I tried to keep in mind that while I had to look at horrific content, thanks to my efforts, many others would not have to. Yet in a world where this bill passes, I would sit down at my same desk, take a deep breath and prepare myself to look at terrorist executions, aftermaths of mass shootings and hatred-motivated violence — but this time, with full knowledge that I had absolutely no control over its distribution.
At which point I imagine many a moderator will simply quit the job entirely, because why even bother if you’re not able to do anything?
If the idiots in politics think the problem is bad now just wait, should they ‘win’ this fight it will be much, much worse both for those demanding less moderation and those demanding more.
Government Control Over Online Speech
well, it should be obvious by now that there is always strong pressure/tendency for "Government Control Over Speech" — it was obvious in 1789 with the 1st Amendment origin.
‘Online’ speech is just the latest variation of the government vs. liberty battle.
In this case, as usual, some Congressman sees the overall power of Congress as unfettered, so he feels free to pursue whatever he wants.
His proposal that "would require large internet companies to beg the FTC every two years to get a "certificate" " is hardly an outrageous or unprecedented exercise/abuse of Federal regulatory power — every commercial radio and TV station in America is required to beg the FCC for a temporary certiification/license to operate and exist. Stations must also comply with extensive FCC rules on content.
Nobody seems to object to that FCC speech control — so what’s the basic legal difference with the internet regulation?
Re:
It would regulate online services based on the actions and speech of third parties, not the actions and speech of the services themselves.
Re: Re: Re:
but radio and TV stations also routinely broadcast much 3rd party content that those stations did not produce nor directly control
what’s the legal principle in play here that permits the FCC to control radio/TV content — but forbids similar Federal regulatory control of internet content ??
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Radio and TV stations pre-approve most of the programming that it airs. (Live television is a bit of a different beast, but not by much.) Social media sites such as Twitter, however, do not pre-approve posts by third parties.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
… so what’s the legal/constitutional principle that grants authority to the Federal government to control "any" content on radio/TV — but forbids Internet content control ?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The FCC was founded in an era of "big government" and hands-on government control and centralization (FDR was perhaps America’s closest thing ever to a communist). Perhaps through inertia, the FCC’s regulation footprint largely remained that way.
In contrast, the internet started in an era of extreme de-regulation and corporate freedom. (As well as the ideal of freedom of speech, but that’s steadily been slipping away almost from the beginning)
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
so what’s the legal/constitutional principle that grants authority to the Federal government to control "any" content on radio/TV
The airwaves belong to the public and are licensed for use by the Feds, for the public good. Just like the DMV can fine you or take your license for speeding, the Feds can fine you or yank your broadcasting permit. So that thing.
Also, everything a TV show broadcasts is their speech, not someone else’s. A letter to the editor may not be the newspaper’s speech, but the editor has to read and approve it.
The Post Office can’t – and shouldn’t – read my mail, they just need to deliver it as is. And that is how ISP’s should work….
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"… so what’s the legal/constitutional principle that grants authority to the Federal government to control "any" content on radio/TV — but forbids Internet content control ?"
They don’t, but let’s split it up for you.
The FCC only controls the content on the public airwaves. That is, they control access to the "real estate" that free to air TV / radio operate on. The price for this is that the FCC gets to have a say in what is broadcast on the real estate.
Cable & internet radio/TV are not subject to the same FCC regulations because they’re on private property, not public. HBO can broadcast things that cannot be legally aired on a public free to air station, because it’s not controlled by the FCC due to it being private property.
Therefore, Twitter et al should be controlled like the latter, not the former, even if some people dislike the fact that they’re choosing not to do business with them. Is that too difficult for you to understand, or are you being wilfully ignorant again?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Also – don’t forget that the Federal Government enforces a strict policy of what can and can’t be transmitted over the internet. Only material that the media companies approve of. Some call it "Copyright" and it is an absolute censorship tool…
Re: Government Control Over Online Speech
The broadcast license is only required for media broadcast over public airwaves. The licensing scheme is mostly focused on apportioning the limited spectrum available for OTA television, providing in theory that as many broadcasts were as free of interference as possible.
I disagree with the FCC content rules, but they do not apply to cable, only broadcast network television. I would be willing to see them done away with. But I imagine the justification is that content restrictions are based on obscenity standards of the time they were last challenged in court and so are a legal basis for discrimination on the basis of speech when attempting to choose to renew a license or auction the license to a new owner.
Facebook does not need to license spectrum for broadcast and is not trying to access any other narrow transmission medium for which the government could conceivably license the operation of Facebook at this point.
Re: Re: Government Control Over Online Speech
"apportioning the limited spectrum available"
so if some economic resource is "limited" — the Federal government has automatic authority to regulate ownership and use of such resources ?
the land in your home town is very very limited — guess there would be chaos if the Federal government did not closely license and regulate the potential landowners?
The RF spectrum is the same thing conceptually, but much easier to coordinate among competing private owners
Re: Re: Re: Government Control Over Online Speech
The rf spectrum is not owned.
Perhaps the word allocated would be more appropriate here.
Re: Re: Re: Government Control Over Online Speech
Couldn’t the same thing be said about IP addresses, particularly the scarcity of open IPv4 address blocks?
Re: Re: Re:2 Government Control Over Online Speech
It sure is a good thing you can’t update the protocol behind IP addresses, and that therefore, makes them exactly as limited a resource as the RF spectrum. Otherwise you would sound really, really stupid.
Re: Re: Re:3 Government Control Over Online Speech
But my ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge and experience you big headed elite lefty lib.
/s
Re: Re: Re:4 Government Control Over Online Speech
I’m glad you used the /s because these numptys are legit that dumb.
Re: Re: Re: Government Control Over Online Speech
The difference is that land doesn’t exactly go every-which-a-way the way an RF signal is wont to do, ignoring lines drawn on maps in the process 😉 Hence, we closely track landownership at the local level, while leaving spectrum regulation to a federal authority.
Re: Government Control Over Online Speech
One difference is most of the license applications are handled by FCC minions, not the actual Commissioners. Even a lot of enforcement actions are never seen by Commissioners.
Since 3 of the 5 (by either law or custom) are from the same party as the person in the White House, getting 4 to agree that a tech company is being neutral may be difficult. And that is assuming you have a full 5 person commission. And once one is denied, lawsuits are sure to follow and those could take years if not decades since both parties to the suit would likely have very deep pockets.
Re: Government Control Over Online Speech
Re: Re: Government Control Over Online Speech
I postulate that everyone objects to FCC control over what is transmitted over the internet, they do however disagree with what is considered to be objectionable.
Re: Government Control Over Online Speech
I bet both he and you will suddenly find it outrageous the moment a left-leaning Democrat wins the presidency and starts stacking the FCC with commissioners who don’t support your views.
Re: Re: Government Control Over Online Speech
Didn’t that already happen?
Re: Re: Government Control Over Online Speech
Are you addicted to embarrassing yourself? Or is it just a bonus?
To make the distinction:
Right now, Sentor Hawley suggests assigning liability for user content on the host if the host fails to meet some vague ‘neutrality’ threshold in moderation. The argument being made in opposition is that hosts will err on the side of undermoderating to avoid liability. The best way to avoid being found to be biased is to not moderate at all.
But Senator Hawley also doesn’t want ‘bad’ speech online. So to make sure the host continues to moderate he will take the route of our trolls – we then establish vague standards for bad content that MUST be taken down and if you let too much bad content through you become liable for the "bad" content.
This is the intimidation approach to encouraging moderation. Moderate in the way I want you to moderate or I hurt you. Its a bit authoritarian – it relies on a central authority with the power to punish to get moderation, and moderation on the terms of said authority. This can lead to censorship if and when bad actors get the reigns of that authority, and clear regulatory capture issues.
The framers of SEC 230 wanted the exact opposite: a cultivation approach to moderation. SEC 230 first assigns liability on the conduit standard. And then cultivates moderation by instituting a Good Samaratan standard – expressing that a host can moderate user content without being held responsible for bad content they do not moderate or for good content that is mistakenly moderated. This can lead to issues when a few dominant hosts control the general moderation discussion and hosts with different moderation priorities are unable to materialize due to economic or social pressure.
While some might take an eagle eye view and assume that its the same result from 2 different directions, I disagree. The intimidation approach can not be attacked when bad actors gain hold. It relies on central authority, criticism of that authority is likely to meet that ban hammer. The cultivation approach can however cultivate alternative guerilla moderation spaces. Mastadon is a recentyl featured one, which seems to now have an instance to replace Gab in a coup for free speech (speech I expect I disagree with). Further decentralized systems may improve on this dynamic in the future, asuming we retain the cultivation approach.
This is, yet again, the problem when those with oower but no brains or common sense are alliwed to try to interfere with something they haven’t the slightest clue about! How the fuck do these people ever get roped into sponsoring this sort of crap? Are they simply easily led or just easily ‘encouraged’? Even worse, how do they even get elected? It dont say much for their opponents!
Biased Google Doesn't Deserve Protections
There’s live video now of Google folks admitting they plan to rig the 2020 election so "trump can never happen again". Google has clearly forgotten they are just a search engine. Even a clumsy way to defang a company that gets delusional and imagines themselves a political weapon is better than nothing.
Re: Biased Google Doesn't Deserve Protections
Where?
Re: Re:
They’re referring to a recently released Project Veritas “sting” video. It claims to show a Google employee admitting that Google will work to make sure Donald Trump is not reëlected in 2020. But take that admission with a grain of salt — it likely isn’t the full context of those comments. Veritas is known to selectively edit its “sting” videos so the subjects of said videos will look worse than they would if we saw the full video. The group is also known to try planting false stories in the news as part of their “stings”. Just ask the Washington Post.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Project Veritas == bullshit, for most people.
I still do not understand the group think and brain numbing that leads to where we find ourselves today.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Simple. Theres a bunch of people who have been driven by fear to propaganda outlets and echo chambers where they’ve been trained to believe that anyone outside of their group is lying to them. Therefore, even obvious lies like PV’s videos must be truth and factual sources are the enemy.
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” -1984
Re: Re: Biased?
Where?
I think that is over at the "Daily Stormer" site where Blue hangs out.
Re: Liar Veritas Doesn't Deserve Protections
Hey liar. Why you still here?
Re: Biased Google Doesn't Deserve Protections
There’s live video now of Google folks admitting they plan to rig the 2020 election so "trump can never happen again".
No. There isn’t. There is video, shown out of context, of a mid-level employee saying (clumsily) that they’re working to avoid being used for foreign interference in an election. That’s it.
Google has clearly forgotten they are just a search engine.
Naw.
Even a clumsy way to defang a company that gets delusional and imagines themselves a political weapon is better than nothing.
"Defang." Taking away 230 wouldn’t "defang" Google, it would lead it to very quickly delete ANYTHING controversial, meaning all your ignorant nonsense. You think they moderate too much now? Ha. Just wait until they face liability for not taking down bad content.
Re: Re: Biased Google Doesn't Deserve Protections
Google was supposed to be just a search engine until the RIAA threw a whopping big tantrum to force Google to be their DMCA hit squad.
If Google went back to "being just a search engine" the RIAA would collectively shit their grandma’s panties.
Re: Biased Google Doesn't Deserve Protections
There’s live video now of Google folks admitting they plan to rig the 2020 election so "trump can never happen again".
I watched that video.
Based on what was actually said, you’re implying that Trump cannot win re-election without foreign interference. Finally glad to see some of you stepping up and coming to terms with the realization that without Russian help in duping the simple minded rubes who vote for him, he’d lose bigly.
Kudos!
/s
As for "politically biased"
The actual TechDirt articles are "politically biased" because there will be those who take a totally opposing view on the policy debate.
How do you get rid of "politically biased" and still maintain the ability to discuss policy?
No pretzel, just straight up impossible.
Re: As for "politically biased"
"How do you get rid of "politically biased" and still maintain the ability to discuss policy?"
You can’t, and that is fine with those who do not want to discuss the problems facing the human race today. These folk do not care if the entire population is wiped out because it plays into their demented religious silliness and they will all be raptured.
It’s interesting that the only examples of ‘festering’ content that this Washington Post writer and former Google employee can come up with are all right-wing in nature. It’s almost as if she doesn’t think there’s any left-wing content worthy of the ‘festering’ descriptor.
Re: Re:
Oh, I’m sure there is. Do you have examples?
Re: Re: Re:
Pretty much anything put out by Antifa social media accounts certainly qualifies.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So that’s a no then.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
That’s a yes, with an acknowledgement that you share the Google girl’s bias.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Pretty much anything put out by Antifa social media accounts certainly qualifies."
You know something? I never see anything about "antifa" except for right wingers whining about the. Do you have an example of a first hand account? I’ve seen plenty of actual right-wing fascists in the wild but never "antifa".
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.
Antifa beat the shit out of a journalist at a rally and put him in the hospital with life threatening injuries a few weeks ago.
Oh, and there’s that little incident where a member of the Portland Antifa tried to firebomb an ICE facility last week.
Re: Re: Re:3
I wonder if he’s telling the whole truth about that incident.
What proof can you offer that says this event was a coördinated attack by Portland Antifa and not the independent action of a lone person?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Sure I am. Doesn’t matter what videos Ngo makes or how he edits them. That doesn’t justify or excuse aggravated assault with intent to cause death or seriously bodily injury.
And the Mayor of Portland agrees with me. At least now he does. At the time he told his cops to stand down and not arrest anyone involved with the assault because he and other members of the government are sympathetic to Antifa. Of course after a national public outcry and rumblings that his government could be subject to an FBI civil rights investigation, he has done a 180 and decreed that the attack was unconscionable and the perpetrators will be aggressively pursued.
There would be no grounds for such a pursuit if I wasn’t telling the truth about the assault.
Why should I provide proof for something that I did not assert in the first place?
However, after the incident, Antifa social media accounts identified the perpetrator as their "fallen comrade, Willem Van Spronsen".
Before his terrorist attack, Van Spronsen expressed disdain for the U.S in a manifesto posted by him on Seattle Antifa’s Facebook page (which has since been deleted). He wrote: "I am Antifa" and referred to ICE facilities as concentration camps– language taken directly from Alexandria Occasional-Cortex’s rhetoric.
Incidentally, Van Spronsen was also a member of the John Brown Gun Club, a Marxist organization that calls itself "anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-capitalist and anti-patriarchy". The JBGC was glowingly featured in a May episode of CNN’s "United Shades of America". Host W. Kamau Bell even solicited donations from the public on the group’s behalf, so you can see where our supposedly objective mainstream media falls on the subject of Antifa.
(Oh, and I forgot to mention hard-left political operative Joseph Alcoff who is currently facing felony charges for his involvement in an Antifa mob beating of two Marines in Philadelphia. Rep. Maxine Waters was so excited to meet Alcoff, she took a selfie with him and proudly posted it to her congressional Twitter account.)
Re: Re: Re:5
Does make me wonder whether he’s telling the truth about being attacked unprovoked or whatever. If he’s willing to lie once, he’s willing to lie again — and the second time is considerably easier.
From what I’ve heard, the Portland police are more sympathetic towards White nationalists than they are towards antifascist groups.
Incidentally, how are the police coming along in arresting the White nationalists who assaulted people during those marches in Portland? Or do they get a pass because of what happened to one guy? You seem more than willing to give them one, given your lopsided criticism of antifascist groups.
This would be a fair point if the phrasing of your statement (“a member of the Portland Antifa tried to firebomb an ICE facility last week”) didn’t implicitly tie Van Spronsen’s actions to the Portland Antifa group. If his membership in the group was immaterial to his actions — if the group wasn’t involved in any way, regardless of his membership and their shared politics — what other possible reason could you have to bring it up, save for smearing the group as a whole?
So what?
Again: So what? Plenty of people declare themselves part of antifascist groups. Plenty of people (including Holocaust scholars) agree with AOC calling the concentration camps what they are. How does a person doing either or both of those things make them a violent terrorist thug?
Once more with feeling: So fucking what? I mean, if you’re gonna demonize people for being part of a gun club, you’re gonna have a lot of people who believe in “Second Amendment remedies” on that list. And if you’re gonna demonize people for sharing that particular gun club’s particular politics (in part or in whole), your list will be longer still.
So. Fucking. What?
Whatever you think of the actions of Willem Van Spronsen, his actions are his alone. As far as I am aware, nothing suggests that either Portland Antifa, the JBGC, or any other antifa group or any group that shared his political views did anything to goad him into doing what he did.
While I don’t agree with the actions he took, I do agree with his general aim of closing the concentration camps on American soil. I agree with his antifascist leanings. I even agree with the broader idea of anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-capitalist, and anti-patriarchy politics. Does any of that make me a violent terrorist thug in waiting?
And this makes all antifa groups violent…how, exactly? Not that I’m excusing the attack — they broke the law, they deserve the punishment coming to them — but it’s still not proof that antifascist groups are inherently violent or coördinating violent acts (provoked or not) either within their own groups or between other groups.
Yes. she did…in 2016 — well before the assault against those Marines occured. What, do you think she should have foreseen the future through godlike omniscient knowledge even though she’s only as human as you and I?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
He seems particularly angry that people oppose fascism.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
LOL
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Did I say they all were? You seem to really enjoy the strawman style of conversation.
However, whether they all are actually violent or not, one thing they all do share is a common philosophy that violence is acceptable to stop anyone they deem to be ‘fascist’ from even speaking in public, which in practice is anyone who isn’t a leftist ‘progressive’.
Irrelevant. The original claim was regarding ‘festering’ content on the internet and how there’s plenty of left-wing festering going on along with the right-wing festering, and Antifa’s well-documented advocation of using violence to ‘de-platform’ people who have the gall to merely have a different non-socialist political opinion more than counts as ‘festering’.
Nah, but I think she should avoid posing with guys who belong to groups that openly advocate kicking the shit out of people who disagree with them. Maybe that’s just me, though.
Yes, and those type of right-wing groups are what were cited as examples of ‘festering content’. So yeah, if right-wing gun groups make the list, so do left-wing gun groups.
Do you see how this works yet? Was that enough feeling for you?
Re: Re: Re:7
I could run down this whole comment, but I have better things to do. So I’ll leave you with this to think about.
Members of the Ku Klux Klan have killed more than 5,000 Americans since the group’s founding in 1865. White nationalists have killed more than 300 Americans since 1995 (i.e., including and since the Oklahoma City bombing). Their violence is driven, in part or in whole, by racial animus. They want to see people of color either silenced, eradicated, or otherwise gone from American society.
Neither group is recognized as “domestic terrorists” by the American government.
Antifa groups have killed precisely zero Americans. Their violence, which is often (though not entirely) carried out in either a legitimate or perceived defense of self or others, is driven by a desire to stop fascist elements within society from gaining both power and credibility. Yet the government is eager as hell to slap the “domestic terrorist” label on Antifa. (Republicans are specifically leading that charge.)
Given these facts, think about this question: For what reason is the government (and Republicans in particular) hesitant to label violent White supremacists (and the Klan in particular) as domestic terrorists despite decades of fatal terroristic violence driven by racism attributed to those groups, but eager as hell to do the opposite for an antifascist group with no killings to its name?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
How convenient. The guy who writes thousands of words a week in comments on this site suddenly has better things to do. Okay….
I don’t care what the government is eager and not eager to do. I’m only responsible for myself and I consider both the mouthbreathing, sheet-wearing Kluxers and the firebombing, speech suppressing, journalist-beating Antifers to both be domestic terror groups.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Well… I’m not totally familiar with either of those incidents. I did a little searching, and it does seem likely that in at least one the protagonist was not actually a member of "antifa", though he did hold anti fascist views, and there does appear to be more to the story in the other case.
Either way, my point stands – right wing propaganda seems to be obsessed with "antifa" as a boogeyman, but they’re rarely mentioned anywhere else.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
It is typical for the local law enforcement agencies to have under cover officers attend these "rallies" with the rational that they will keep the peace, or at least that is what they tell the press. In some cases these officers are the ones who encourage violent behaviors via words and or actions. then they get to drive their military equipment all over the place – woohoooo 🙂
Re: Re:
It’s interesting that the only examples of ‘festering’ content that this Washington Post writer and former Google employee can come up with are all right-wing in nature. It’s almost as if she doesn’t think there’s any left-wing content worthy of the ‘festering’ descriptor.
She works for a very right wing think tank and it’s published in a very right wing publication.
But you are calling her a lefty.
Hilarious.
Re: Re: Re:
I suspect it’s when someone whines about things being "socialist" – they don’t know what the word actually means, but they’ve been told it should be used to describe anything they don’t like. That actual meaning of the term is secondary to the whining.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right-wing politics is founded upon fear.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not calling her anything. I just thought it was interesting that when asked to describe ‘festering’ material on the internet, nothing but right-leaning content sprung to her mind.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That perhaps says more about right-wing content than her political views. If I talk about school shootings and the only examples I give are in the US, that doesn’t mean I’m biased against America, it means you have a lot more shit going on than other places.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Which isn’t true. There is plenty of left-wing ‘festering’ going on, but she (and you) doesn’t see it for some reason.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Or… she does see it but the right wing shitheads are the ones currently causing the most damage and with the most real power in the US today. But, you carry on whining about how people aren’t pandering to your personal partisan view.
Re: Re: Re:how about infiltraitor, Mike?
Masnick, dont play lefty righty games, when you know the real issue is lovely Qwain Esther at the gate of the narrative.
From Art Buchwald and far before, we know that sextarian, tribal narratives require a variety of information /disinformation /misinformation to keep the Bnai Brith guys happy.
And poor Edward Snowden, a real journalists hero, hung out to freeze dry in Russia, because tribalist backed Woodward /Bernstein sells to the One percent.
Oh! the king wants to kill us all! !!
Nope….just a few. A very wealthy, very influential few…..according to myth, and legend.
Re: Re:
RTFA dumbass.
Re: Re: Re:
I love how he thinks proudly waving his ignorance like a Confederate Battle Flag at a NAACP meeting is a winning strategy.
meh
….this name aloe screams future -yellow journalism:
Daisy Soderberg-Rivkin
Reminds me of that other cancer in journalism, Sabrina Rubin-Erdely, the famous #fakerape hoaxer of the UVA (child porn distributing servers during an election year ) #fakerape scandal fame.
https://www.sabrinaerdely.com/
When 230 was passed, political bias was not an issue, so there was no need to codify it. Many who voted for it would have included a neutrality clause had they thought one was necessary.
The difference between platform and publisher is that a platform is a "dumb pipe" or "public square" which anyone can use. As for why one should "force" someone to host content they don’t like is that if they are a big enough platform, it should function like a public square. Constitutionality isn’t an issue because Section 230 immunity is not guaranteed by the constitution. Even if it wasn’t conditioned on political neutrality, it most certainly could be.
Hawley’s bill would turn big websites into USENET equivalents, and USENET has filters for people who don’t want to see content. It’s when people don’t want OTHERS to see content that they have an issue with Hawley’s bill.
BTW, Miss Michigan World USA just had her title stripped for saying blacks kill blacks more than whites do, and for refusing to wear a hijab in 2016 because she said Arab women get killed for refusing. You’d think a beauty queen with a platform is what they’d want but the left is definitely fascist.
Re: Re:
"Many who voted for it would have included a neutrality clause had they thought one was necessary."
"The difference between platform and publisher is that a platform is a "dumb pipe" or "public square" which anyone can use."
ISP provides access to what should be the dumb pipe, it is not a public square – it is a dumb pipe.
"As for why one should "force" someone to host content they don’t like is that if they are a big enough platform, it should function like a public square. "
You are very confused.
Re: Re:
"When 230 was passed, political bias was not an issue"
If you’re going to lie, at least make it believable.
"Constitutionality isn’t an issue because Section 230 immunity is not guaranteed by the constitution"
Not being held responsible for crimes that other people made isn’t protected? That sounds like a problem.
"USENET has filters for people who don’t want to see content"
So do Facebook and Twitter.
"Miss Michigan World USA just had her title stripped for saying blacks kill blacks more than whites do"
That sounds like something that has no place in a meat market contest, so it’s probably OK for her to be fired for doing something that negatively affects her employer.
Re:
Discussion of White supremacy is “political discourse”. A platform that disallows White supremacists from presenting their side of the discourse would be “non-neutral”. For what reason should the law force a platform to host White supremacist propaganda?
Re: Re: Re:
For the reason that white surpemacists can’t get any traction on sites popular with sane people without intervention, apparently
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yup. Why do the white supremists want to force everyone to listen to their dogma … certainly they realize most people are not interested and could become angry if forced to listen/read their bullshit.
Re: Re:
Nice try, Herrick.