Why Is The Washington Post Publishing Blatantly False Propaganda About Section 230?

from the the-view-from-nowhere dept

One of the big points we keep making about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is that we totally get it when grandstanding politicians or online trolls misrepresent the law. But the media should not be complicit in pumping blatantly false statements. While I may disagree with them personally, there are intellectually honest arguments for why Section 230 should be amended or changed. I'm happy to debate those arguments. What's ridiculous, however, is when the arguments are based on a completely false reading of the law. And no upstanding news organization should allow blatant misinformation like that. However, with all the misguided screaming about "liberal bias" in the media, newspapers like the Washington Post and the NY Times seem to feel like they need to publish blatant disinformation, to avoid having trolls and idiots accuse them of bias.

Even so, the Washington Post's decision to publish this op-ed by Charlie Kirk attacking Section 230 may be the worst we've seen. It is so full of factually false information, misleading spin, and just downright disinformation that no respectable publication should have allowed it to be published. And yet, there it is in the Washington Post -- one of the major news organizations that Donald Trump likes to declare "fake news." If you're unaware of Kirk, he's a vocal Trump supporter, who runs an organization called Turning Point USA that appears to specialize in playing the victim in all sorts of ridiculous conspiracies... all while (hypocritically) arguing that his political opponents ("the libs") are always acting as victims and are "training a generation of victims who are being trained to be offended by something." And yet, it seems that it's really Kirk who is always offended.

This Washington Post op-ed is just one example. Here, Kirk is playing the victim of (as of yet, still unproven) anti-conservative bias on social media.

By now, most conservatives are convinced that our voices are being shadow-banned, throttled, muted and outright censored online. In fact, amid protestations by groups including the Internet Association, which claims Facebook, Google and Twitter are bias free, it’s an open fact that Big Tech is run predominantly by those on the ideological left. Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter’s chief executive Jack Dorsey even admitted this before Congress, and footage of Google’s leadership consoling one another after President Trump’s victory in 2016 indicates the same is true for them.

Many on the right have complained loudly and often of anti-conservative bias online. Unfortunately, all too often this is where our efforts stop. Once we’re ignored or dismissed long enough, conservatives seem to just shrug our collective shoulders and accept defeat. It’s this type of passivity that has allowed progressives to dominate film and television, universities and large swaths of the mainstream news media. How did they accomplish that? By fighting tooth and nail for what they believe in every vertical.

While it is true that many people who work in the big internet companies probably lean towards the Democratic side of the aisle (though not nearly as far as some make it out to be), that's different than proving that they have put in place policies that are biased against "conservatives" (and I use that term loosely). Again, nearly every example that people trot out actually involves trolling, harassment, actual Nazis or other violations of terms of service. And while these companies sometimes make mistakes, they seem to do so pretty much across the board -- which is the very nature of moderating so much content.

Separately, many of the links in Kirk's opening above don't actually say what he pretends they say. Professor Matthew Boedy went through the above links and put together a great Twitter thread unpacking how he misrespresents nearly everything:

The thread is a lot longer and covers many more examples. Either way, Charlie needs to play the victim, and he's decided that the culprit is Section 230. Because he either doesn't understand Section 230, or is deliberately misrepresenting it.

The second obstacle to the free market is Big Tech’s exploitation of preexisting laws, namely Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that was passed by Congress in the '90s. Social media companies have leveraged Section 230 to great effect, and astounding profits, by claiming they are platforms — not publishers — thereby avoiding under the law billions of dollars in potential copyright infringement and libel lawsuits. YouTube, for example, advertises itself as an open platform “committed to fostering a community where everyone’s voice can be heard.” Facebook and Twitter make similar claims. Let’s be clear, when these companies censor or suppress conservative content, they are behaving as publishers, and they should be held legally responsible for the all the content they publish. If they want to continue hiding behind Section 230 and avoid legal and financial calamity, they must reform.

And here's where an editor totally should have stepped in, because almost all of this is wrong or gibberish. First off, even a cursory glance at the text of CDA 230 shows that it excludes intellectual property, such as copyright. Section (e)(2) literally says: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property." So what the fuck is Kirk talking about when he says that they used this law to avoid "billions of dollars in potential copyright infringement... lawsuits." The answer is that Kirk has no idea what he's talking about, and now seems to be repeating propaganda pushed out by "liberal" Hollywood.

As for it allowing them to avoid "libel lawsuits," well, yes. But that's because Section 230 is about properly applying liability to those who make the statements. We don't blame AT&T when someone uses a phone to make a bomb threat. We don't blame Ford when someone gets into a car accident. And we don't blame Facebook when someone posts defamatory content. It's kind of straightforward.

Still, where it's really egregious is that Kirk continues to push the total myth that Section 230 allows companies to hide if they just claim they're a "platform" rather than "a publisher." That's not how the law works at all. It doesn't make any such distinction.

And here's the really crazy thing: if Kirk got his "wish" and actually got rid of CDA 230 and made internet companies liable, his own content would likely be at the top of the chopping block. Remember, one of Kirk's claims to fame was when he published a "Professor Watchlist" calling out allegedly "left-leaning academics" who he feels discriminate against conservatives. He can do that because that's 1st Amendment protected speech (opinion). But if 230 is amended to require "neutrality," well, such a list is anything but neutral. Furthermore, the risk of liability of hosting such a list would be high. Even though I'd argue that it's protected speech, you can bet that someone might find some of the claims on the list defamatory -- and thus there would be strong pressure for sites to pull it down to avoid liability.

As radio host Dennis Prager often says, if an airline permitted only those passengers holding the New York Times to board but then denied Wall Street Journal readers, we would all rightly call this discrimination and demand the airline change its policy.

This is dumb for a huge number of reasons. First of all, I don't think we'd all rightly call it discrimination. We'd call it a business decision. Probably a bad one. Which is why no airline would ever do such a thing. Second, where exactly is the social media platform that is banning people for subscribing to the WSJ, but not the NYT? It doesn't exist. This is such a hyperbolic, misleading example. People are being banned for harassment and trolling. Not for holding conservative viewpoints. No one's being kicked off of platforms for calling for lower taxes, less government, or other traditionally "conservative" ideas.

In the same way, conservatives cannot win the battle of ideas if we’re marginalized or removed from mainstream culture and mainstream platforms.

This, also, is laughable. Remember, "right wing" media dominates both radio and cable television. I don't see Kirk demanding that Fox News host more liberal viewpoints to balance out Hannity. And, once again, even in the supposedly "liberal" Washington Post, he's allowed to post this blatantly false nonsense.

Again, the Washington Post should absolutely be willing to post different points of view, including those of Kirk and his allies. But they shouldn't allow him to blatantly spread disinformation about what the law says and what it does. That's just... as Kirk would say, "fake news."

Filed Under: anti-conservative bias, bias, cda 230, charlie kirk, fake news, op-ed, platform, publisher, section 230
Companies: washington post


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    hij (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:04pm

    When will they get it?

    Some news organizations still have not figured out the difference between sharing a different point of view and an outright lie. It will probably take a generation before media organizations get over the idea that they are there to simply repeat the lies from two different partisans.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:15pm

    Taking a generation

    It took a generation after Hearst and Pulitzer to get past the notion that the news could be something other than tabloid journalism. So yeah.

    The thing is, the instant access to curated news that is provided by the internet comes with the risk of being fed propaganda that the reader wants to hear or believe. Newsreading should be interpreted as a hygienic process of searching for multiple interpretations of the same story to extract the known facts from the interpretations. (X said Y in Z firefight to open mic T down at Q station), and from there, we each make our own opinion, rather than accepting what someone else tells us to think.

    Joining a cult is easy. Thinking for ourselves takes practice.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:26pm

    YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Amendment.

    THAT'S the argument, sonny. You always twist and elide to show only the good side of The Public benefitting (from our own laws!) without ever mentioning that you wish to empower corporations: Section 230 has an explicit UN-Constitutional clause which you claim gives corporations arbitrary power to suppress even The Public's constitutionally acceptable speech.

    YOU are just flat lying that you're for The Public. You are for the corporations controlling ALL speech on platforms.

    Now, yes, they're private corporations, but the only power that have in the area is government-conferred -- which makes it verge on actual government censorship, and corporations are ready to LEAP over that verge.

    Otherwise they'd be as print publishers, subject to traditional rules. You / they keep claiming immunity AND to retain FULL editorial control. That's not right by the bulk of American law and principles, which you ALWAYS omit, simply pretend Section 230 is the whole law.

    Section 230 is a deal in which corporations are to be shielded for hosting, NOT outright grant of total immunity and power to censor. It cannot be as that's repugnant to the Constitution, in direct conflict by 230's very words.

    By short logical extension of YOUR corporatist notions, ISPs don't have to be neutral carriers, either, but through "association" and the "private company" notions, can control ALL access, snoop on opinions and suppress those that don't like. I'm sure you'd agree that's simply not right with ISPs, but you still do want "platforms" to have that power!

    Platforms are to be neutral hosts, "electronic printers" rather than editors and publishers.

    Section 230 is made to give The Public EASY to use outlets, NOT to empower corporations to control The Public's speech.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. icon
    Thad (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:30pm

    Re: When will they get it?

    What's the old saw about how if someone says it's raining and someone else says it isn't, a journalist's job isn't to report both sides, it's to look out the window?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:31pm

    Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Amendment.

    As usual, nearly everything you publish is false.

    However, I'll just call out this, because it's phenomenally backwards:

    Platforms are to be neutral hosts, "electronic printers" rather than editors and publishers.

    Section 230 is made to give The Public EASY to use outlets, NOT to empower corporations to control The Public's speech.

    This is literally the opposite of the intent behind CDA 230, which was originally written by Republican Chris Cox as a way to encourage more moderation -- in particular a desire for internet websites to further moderate content to create "family friendly" spaces online.

    Your historical revisionism is not just incorrect, it's completely backwards.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:33pm

    No one's being kicked off of platforms for calling for lower taxes, less government, or other traditionally "conservative" ideas.

    It does you no credit when you disingenuously treat "traditionally conservative ideas" as meaning exactly the same thing as "economically conservative ideas," when it's well-understood that what's actually being discussed is "morally conservative ideas."

    People are getting kicked off platforms for voicing opposition to abortion, affirming the sanctity of traditional marriage, and similar moral viewpoints which are still held even today by a majority of Americans.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    Thad (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:39pm

    Re:

    People are getting kicked off platforms for voicing opposition to abortion, affirming the sanctity of traditional marriage, and similar moral viewpoints which are still held even today by a majority of Americans.

    1. [citation needed]

    2. The majority of Americans support same-sex marriage and access to abortion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:42pm

    Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Amendment.

    Section 230 has an explicit UN-Constitutional clause which you claim gives corporations arbitrary power to suppress even The Public's constitutionally acceptable speech.

    Cite the law that says any corporation has to publish any constitutionally protected speech submitted to them.

    All freedom of speech guarantees is that you can publish your speech at your own expense. As that is not difficult on the Internet, as services offering free blogging accounts exist. What is more difficult is attracting an audience. If you cannot be bothered to set up your own blog, or fail to attract an audience, that is your problem, and forcing other to publish your speech because that is where the audience is is not a desirable solution, especially if the result is likely to be one of driving an audience away from a platform because of abusive speech and behaviour.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:43pm

    Conservatism, like religion and for many of the same reasons, is dying. Because they, as a group, have self-marginalized they became the "underdog" they portray themselves as. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Soon they'll be relegated to the history books alongside the Whigs.

    It's a shame, really. If we lose the conservative party as a major player then all we're left with is the liberal party which is arguably just as bad. The reasonable viewpoint lies somewhere in between the extremists both parties have become. It's as if we can only now choose between pure socialism and pure corporatism with no sane options.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:44pm

    Re:

    People are getting kicked off platforms for voicing opposition to abortion, affirming the sanctity of traditional marriage, and similar moral viewpoints which are still held even today by a majority of Americans.

    And all this time I thought it was just people being assholes that get them kicked off a platform, regardless of the content of said assholery.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:45pm

    Plus the social media summit that Trump’s hosting is a complete and utter joke.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:47pm

    YOU have ZERO credibility: omitted the "in good faith" clause!

    In arguing with me here, you pretended to quote the law and SIMPLY DELETED the
    "in good faith" requirement!
    -- And when I caught that LIE, blew it off as not important:

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190201/00025041506/us-newspapers-now-salivating-over- bringing-google-snippet-tax-stateside.shtml#c530

    The reduced text appears nowhere else. Masnick intentionally omitted those characters. He's a LIAR, and sunk to that just trying to win an argument on this tiny little site. Imagine what he'll do when important!

    It's a material omission -- indeed, since The Public's benefit is always to be the primary goal of American law, your omitting the KEY requirement -- and doing so blatantly -- is just astounding.

    If did that in a court, you'd be jailed for perjury. If did that on a site you don't control, without your rabid fanboys to support, you'd be hooted roundly and shunned.

    Yet you still have the chutzpah to keep claiming others mis-represent the law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:51pm

    Re: Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Amendm

    originally written by Republican Chris Cox as a way to encourage more moderation

    You state opinion as if fact. Even if true, that doesn't matter if the RESULT NOW is to stifle political views. -- We The People aren't forever subject to bad laws! Again, by your view, Dred Scott should have forever settled the slavery question.

    You take no notice at all of the body of law, just focus on ONE statute and claim it gives corporations total arbitrary immunity without ANY drawback.

    See my post below for YOUR credibility, sonny.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:53pm

    Re: YOU have ZERO credibility: it’s like projection is your on

    Remember when you promised to leave forever bro?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Amendm

    Cite the law that says any corporation has to publish any constitutionally protected speech submitted to them.

    Corporations are NOT the publishers of what's on "platforms". That's what 230 frees them from, more or less rightly (they still must monitor for illegal content).

    They're otherwise to be mere neutral hosts.

    Wrong premise. Try again.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:55pm

    Re: Citation needed bro

    Oh who are we kidding. We all know that little wannabe Proud Boy will fuck off for a day or two than provide any evidence that might endanger his world view.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:56pm

    Re: What a fresh hot take bro!

    Both sides are bad so vote Republican.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re:

    Puh-leeze. Have you seen the methodology behind those? That's "Lying With Statistics 101" material.

    But why even ask? Of course an SJW bigot isn't going to take anything that might challenge his worldview seriously.

    "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re:

    An argument is a series of connected statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 12:58pm

    Re: YOU have ZERO credibility: omitted the "in good faith" claus

    I often wonder if Mike pissed in your coffee at some point in the past as you seem to have the biggest hate boner for him and this site. At some point you must realize that is bad for your mental health to be SOOOOO obsessed over one person and one site.

    And when you're on your last breath on this big rock, I bet it's going to be something like "Damn that Mike Masnick and his Techdirt site."

    My question to you, why do you do it and what is it that you expect to gain by coming here and repeating the same debunked lines every day on just about every article?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Re: YOU have ZERO credibility: it’s like projection is

    "AC" reveals is long-time reader and a simple off-topic diverter. Anything so long as NOT on-topic, that's what the fanboy-trolls do. -- While not even giving their screen name, 'cause they're chicken! BAWK! BAWK! (That's just to humor this "AC" with more diversion.)

    Now, NO, again, I contrived a bit of text to make you clowns go into ecstasy at thought that I would quit commenting here, and you FELL for it. You can't let go of your first impression, even though wrong.

    That joke becomes more dismaying to me as goes. But it does illustrate Techdirt just perfectly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:02pm

    Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Amendment.

    Your President was for free exchange so much he blocked his critics.
    Twitter did a better job for free speech allowing him then he did anyone who ever disagreed with him in his life.
    Techdirt still allows you to post even though it’s just spam and bad faith. I consider them better for democracy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Am

    You state opinion as if fact

    It's hard to call it an opinion when the actual author of the bill was the one who originally stated that was his intent in writing the bill.

    Even if true, that doesn't matter if the RESULT NOW is to stifle political views.

    Brushing aside your unwilling acceptance of it being true, I have yet to see one political view stifled? Can you show me some examples as all I see are people being kicked off of platforms for being complete assholes.

    And the funny thing is, without section 230, sites like this will close their comments section to avoid the liability and you will be left with no place to spew your drivel. What you are advocating for is something that will ultimately silence you!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:05pm

    Re: Re: YOU have ZERO credibility: omitted the "in good fai

    Your hate-filled obsessive rant is OFF-TOPIC.

    And demand of me what you don't state. You too are obviously a regular, TOO CHICKEN to use your account name.

    Try again. Focus, sonny. You're not helping the site.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: YOU have ZERO credibility: it’s like projectio

    cause they're chicken! BAWK! BAWK!

    What grade are you in?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Am

    Oh look, you're still just flat-out lying.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:06pm

    Tories and Republicans

    The current Democratic party is actually neo-conservative: pro-corporate, copyright maximalist and not really all that behind egalitarianism. We have some candidates making big reform promises, but remember that Obama was all Hope and Change until he got elected, so we have good cause to be skeptical.

    Unless the Democrats go fascist and use the surveillance state to route out dissenters then other parties might try to fill in the gaps. (That would be extreme for them, but they're half-way there by supporting the surveillance state.) I could see the Peace and Freedom party trying to turn into something with mass appeal that stands to the left of the DNP, and I can see the Libertarians trying to go moderate-rightish.

    First-Past-The-Post elections will still assure that one competing party will prevail, and until we reform our election system that won't change.

    But that's all far-future thinking. Like after the apocalypse.

    For now, we have nothing stopping parties from cheating their way into power as the GOP has systematically done. (Certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States.) In fact, I expect the GOP to stay entrenched for a while even if they can't get ten percent of the population to vote for them. If the Federalist Society plants were feeling particularly dispensational, they could decide that an enablement bill was Constitutional. (They'd lose faith of the people in the Supreme Court, but after RUCHO ET AL. v. COMMON CAUSE ET AL. I'd be surprised if there's much faith left.

    After that Democracy would be dead and the GOP would prevail until the nation fell apart.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: YOU have ZERO credibility: omitted the "in good

    Why don't you answer the question?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Am

    Mike in the quote you use presents the well documented facts of the history of SEC 230, preserved in the public record, including the congressional debate around the addition of the amendment that became SEC 230 to the CDA. It is not opinion.

    You are moving the goal posts. You started arguing about what the law was "made to" do. Now you are arguing what the law needs to be because of its results. Given that Mike noted that concerns about the effects of the law could be debated, you had to score points by starting at a lie and then claim you were actually talking about its effects all along. You are not arguing in good faith.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: YOU have ZERO credibility: omitted the "in good

    And demand of me what you don't state. You too are obviously a regular, TOO CHICKEN to use your account name.

    You're a regular, why don't you create an account and use it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:08pm

    Re: YOU have ZERO credibility: omitted the "in good faith" claus

    See? NON can even quote the laws he knows he would break if 230 was destroyed if he even had a shroud of good faith left in his body and not just snakes blood.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: YOU have ZERO credibility: omitted the "in good

    Your hate-filled obsessive rant is OFF-TOPIC.

    Please point to the hate in my original comment as you have some strong projects there buddy boy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:10pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Masons hardly a little SJW. And I’ve read Hamlet too so unless you something actually relevant to say...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over Firs

    What you are advocating for is something that will ultimately silence you!

    Wrong. We somehow got by before teh internets.

    What's different now, THE RESULT, is that anyone's opinion can be arbitrarily suppressed.

    You just like the current because believe YOUR opinions are in favor, but corporations are amoral. Tomorrow they may -- almost certainly will -- turn "conservative" or some other authoritarian and you've given up all your philosophical basis to oppose.

    What you advocate is that a handful of boy billionaires effectively control the entire US so that ONLY their opinions are allowed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:11pm

    Re:

    People are getting kicked off platforms for voicing opposition to abortion, affirming the sanctity of traditional marriage, and similar moral viewpoints which are still held even today by a majority of Americans.

    Where? Show me the evidence that anyone is being kicked off for expressing "morally conservative" views.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:12pm

    Re:

    Hey blue balls why didn’t you cite your source when you “stole” that quote you filthy pirate.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:13pm

    Re: Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Amendm

    What you are advocating for is something that will ultimately silence you!

    Wrong. We somehow got by before teh internets.

    What's different now, THE RESULT, is that anyone's opinion can be arbitrarily suppressed.

    You just like the current because believe YOUR opinions are in favor, but corporations are amoral. Tomorrow they may -- almost certainly will -- turn "conservative" or some other authoritarian and you've given up all your philosophical basis to oppose.

    What you advocate is that a handful of boy billionaires effectively control the entire US so that ONLY their opinions are allowed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Am

    Again my browser sessions stop working, though the exact text, which I've saved, gets through after re-start. Just coincidence for a dozen times now, eh?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:16pm

    Re: You put the ignorant in ignorant motherfucker

    Just admit you’re a liar bro. The truth will set you free.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Am

    What specific law requires them to remain neutral hosts?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. icon
    crade (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:17pm

    You know the end is nigh when the cons are trying to get the government to force the libs to share.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42. identicon
    Glen, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over Firs

    No coincidence. Your computer is as broken as you are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:19pm

    Re:

    You’re the only person I’ve ever met who complained that the spam filters were working as intended.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re:

    He meant to say "people are getting booted for calling gay people f-gs". Because the "morally conservative" belief most often punished by social media companies is "gay people aren't people".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re: But MM, you advocate that CAN be at whim:

    Where? Show me the evidence that anyone is being kicked off for expressing "morally conservative" views.

    Show me evidence from 1935 that Nazis would kill Jews.

    The demand for "proof" is just a dodge.

    Anyone honest sees the trend.

    When people have power, it'll be abused.

    YOU are an enabler of arbitrary "de-platforming".

    If are WORSE results in future, are you going to step up and admit responsibility? No, you're going to ignore at best.

    And even if you did accept that you're wrong, that won't in any way reverse the problem which will be fully entrenched in all society.

    We must believe what proto-Nazi-corporatists say NOW about their POWER, just as everyone should have foreseen what prior Nazis were going to do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over Firs

    Again my browser sessions stop working

    You really should invest in a decent virus / malware scanner for your computer. I would hate to see how badly compromised it is by now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:22pm

    Re: Re: But MM, you advocate that CAN be at whim:

    Where? Show me the evidence that anyone is being kicked off for expressing "morally conservative" views.

    Show me evidence from 1935 that Nazis would kill Jews.

    The demand for "proof" is just a dodge.

    Anyone honest sees the trend.

    When people have power, it'll be abused.

    YOU are an enabler of arbitrary "de-platforming".

    If are WORSE results in future, are you going to step up and admit responsibility? No, you're going to ignore at best.

    And even if you did accept that you're wrong, that won't in any way reverse the problem which will be fully entrenched in all society.

    We must believe what proto-Nazi-corporatists say NOW about their POWER, just as everyone should have foreseen what prior Nazis were going to do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:24pm

    I’m not liking this at all, At this rate YouTube will be nothing but hateful content in at least 2 years.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: YOU have ZERO credibility: omitted the &quot

    Please point to the hate in my original comment as you have some strong projects there buddy boy.

    Its mere existence is the proof.

    Techdirt fanboys go about twice before dissolving into sheer off-topic back-and-forth.

    It's USELESS as forum / convincing thanks to YOUR efforts, sonny, not my opinions.

    You keep going on, obviously obsessing!

    But I'm out.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: YOU have ZERO credibility: omitted the &

    Why don't you answer my question? Here it is again:

    My question to you, why do you do it and what is it that you expect to gain by coming here and repeating the same debunked lines every day on just about every article?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: YOU have ZERO credibility: omitted the &

    It's USELESS as forum

    If it's so useless, why do you come here? (still waiting for an answer to my simple question.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:34pm

    Because WaPo is a shitlib rag.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53. identicon
    Glen, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: But MM, you advocate that CAN be at whim:

    I've never seen such a twist in logic to avoid answering a question. Bravo.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54. identicon
    bob, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: But MM, you advocate that CAN be at whim:

    When YOU make a claim, YOU are responsible to show evidence supporting YOUR claim. Everyone else can laugh you off until you do.

    Also good job bringing up Nazis there, I needed Godwin for my internet law bingo card.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    TDR, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:51pm

    Re: Re:

    [citation needed] for Claim #2

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56. icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, that is not what I meant to say, and I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. Particularly when those words are ugly ones. I meant to say exactly what I said.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Never said he was; I said Thad is. Grow some reading comprehension already...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 1:55pm

    Re:

    Looks to me like a false dichotomy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 2:00pm

    anyone's opinion can be arbitrarily suppressed

    On a single platform, yes. You mistake being silenced on Twitter with being silence everywhere on the Internet. You look like a fool in doing so.

    What you advocate is that a handful of boy billionaires effectively control the entire US so that ONLY their opinions are allowed.

    You advocate for a handful of boy billionaires being able to silence someone else’s legally protected speech via copyright. What’s the difference?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 2:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, that is not what I meant to say

    Then what you meant to say has no basis in reality. Show us some proof of what you say in terms of:

    People are getting kicked off platforms for voicing opposition to abortion, affirming the sanctity of traditional marriage, and similar moral viewpoints which are still held even today by a majority of Americans.

    and not just because they were being assholes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 2:07pm

    Anyone honest sees the trend.

    What trend — that people who espouse racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and xenophobic views are being told “we don’t do that here” by any major Internet platform that doesn’t want to host that speech? Because that’s the trend. Rather than asking if conservatives are being banned, consider the reason for their bans.

    YOU are an enabler of arbitrary "de-platforming".

    No law, statute, or “common law” court ruling entitles anyone to the use of someone else’s platform, not even for legally protected speech. Techdirt could ban you and you would have no legal options to overturn that ban.

    We must believe what proto-Nazi-corporatists say NOW about their POWER

    I’m more interested in the displays of proto-Nazi power by the Trump administration, what with the concentration camps and the painting of Hispanic immigrants as the scapegoat for America’s problems and the nationalist rhetoric that regularly veers into stochastic terrorism. In comparison to all that, Twitter booting someone for saying foul things about trans people is nothing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 2:12pm

    you pretended to quote the law and SIMPLY DELETED the
    "in good faith" requirement

    Here’s a question: What does “in good faith” mean in the context of the actual text of 47 U.S.C. § 230 and the intent of the lawmaker who wrote and championed the bill? Because from where I sit, it means “the platform has a reason to moderate bullshit content”. Spam is protected speech, but plenty of websites filter it “in good faith” — that is, they filter it to prevent spam from overrunning the service and driving away actual users. What makes any other legally protected speech more deserving of staying up than spam?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 2:13pm

    I'm out

    Oh, how I wish we could all believe that — especially you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64. icon
    Gwiz (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 2:30pm

    Re:

    ...you pretended to quote the law and SIMPLY DELETED the
    "in good faith" requirement!

     

    Blue, your lack of intelligence is showing again.

    "Good faith" is a legal term with a specific definition:

    good faith - n. honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fulfill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. The term is applied to all kinds of transactions.

    47 U.S. Code § 230 says:

    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of [...] any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected...

    Taken in the context of this law, "good faith" simply means that the service provider must have honest intentions when removing speech they find to be objectionable. Intentions like keeping their site free from antisemitism or pornography or whatever they else they don't want on their site.

    Once again you have read a legal term, didn't bother to look up the definition and have made yourself look foolish. Just like you did when you were spouting off how Techdirt's comment submission widget equates to a "form contract".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 2:33pm

    Re:

    They're all shit rags regardless of their political leaning. There is no news, only entertainment and pandering.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 2:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ever notice how the only people actually using words like that these days are the SJW bigots accusing people they disagree with of "really meaning" this ugly language?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 2:37pm

    Re:

    concentration camps

    Found the bigot.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 2:48pm

    Lemme guess: You just watched Sean Hannity?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 2:52pm

    If you think the only people who use slurs are the people who call out that language, you’re not looking hard enough for the people who use those slurs as slurs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 3:17pm

    SJWs

    You're going to lose a lot of people with SJW. Social injustice is a thing that runs epidemic in our world, whether or not you accept a given form is a problem.

    Maybe rather than lumping people into a generalization, Anonymous Coward, you should regard persons, and specific arguments on a case by case basis.

    Otherwise, by name calling, you're just making a poor ad-hominem attack, from which some of us will infer you can't collect your thoughts enough to make an actual argument.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 3:37pm

    Re:

    Because WaPo is a shitlib rag.

    A "shitlib rag" posting factually lacking right wing propaganda? Do tell me more...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 3:38pm

    "WaPo is a shitlib rag"

    WaPo is a shit-moderate rag. Contrast Huffington, which will make make a grotesque from a gaff by a conservative, or FOX which won't mention conservative gaffs at all but will suggest public medical care is the worst thing a state could inflict on its people, also detention camps are like hotels or camping trips.

    Granted some of WaPo's columned editorialists are obvious GOP shills (I'm looking at you Marc A. Thiessan) and I wonder if they're kept on the payroll just to let WaPo claim it reports both sides, but it also features a handful of self-identified conservatives I tend to agree with as often as not.

    But even before the Trump era which has taken a wrecking-ball to both Republicanism and conservatism, both sectors have regarded facts to be anti-conservative, let alone the media, and we're moving towards an era where extreme changes will have to be made and extreme consequences faced.

    Natural disasters and food crises are commanded by neither elected officials nor sovereign kings no matter their opinions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 3:43pm

    Not physically possible, it would have exploded, melted down, or done both were that the case.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74. icon
    Thad (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 3:43pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    On the Web, blue text is typically used to indicate something called a "hyperlink", or simply "link" for short.

    A hyperlink is something that you can click on with your mouse pointer, tap on a touchscreen, or interact with through various other possible means. It takes you away from the webpage you are currently on and displays a different webpage.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 4:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ever notice how the only people actually using SJW as a slur these days are the actual bigots.

    FTFY bro

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 4:11pm

    The boy who cried wolf called, something about 'learn from me'

    By now, most conservatives are convinced that our voices are being shadow-banned, throttled, muted and outright censored online.

    Thanks to repeated assertions like yours telling them that, yes I imagine they are. However being convinced of something does not mean that thing is true, so ultimately it wouldn't matter how many 'conservatives think they're being treated unfairly, all that matters is whether they can prove it.

    In fact, amid protestations by groups including the Internet Association, which claims Facebook, Google and Twitter are bias free, it’s an open fact that Big Tech is run predominantly by those on the ideological left

    Which has fuck all to do with whether or not they are treating conservatives 'unfairly' on their platforms.

    Many on the right have complained loudly and often of anti-conservative bias online. Unfortunately, all too often this is where our efforts stop. Once we’re ignored or dismissed long enough, conservatives seem to just shrug our collective shoulders and accept defeat.

    Yes, funny thing that, if you run around claiming to be victims without backing it up with evidence people tend to ignore and dismiss you.

    It is so full of factually false information, misleading spin, and just downright disinformation that no respectable publication should have allowed it to be published. And yet, there it is in the Washington Post -- one of the major news organizations that Donald Trump likes to declare "fake news."

    Which, funnily enough, they actually are in this case by making the monumentally stupid decision to publish this tripe. Stopped clocks and own-goals I suppose.

    If they keep publishing garbage like this they won't have to worry about the 'no respectable publication' problem, because they will no longer qualify.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 4:18pm

    Re: Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Amendm

    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist

    "Privately owned" is not necessarily solely private control.

    Directly as to whether statute authorizing "platforms" (the buzzword will do here) and yet authorizes them to total arbitrary editorial control:

    Before the Internet, it was envisioned privately-owned cable TV companies would make air time available to the public as "the video equivalent of the speaker's soapbox." Even though the channel and equipment used to produce the programming was privately owned, the programming fell under the 1A. The Court concluded "public access channels constituted a public forum, notwithstanding that they were operated by a private company".

    https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-4155/16-4155-2018-02-09 .html

    And:

    The policy Congress established when passing the CDA was to ensure "a forum for a true diversity of political discourse." 47 U.S.C. S: 230(a)(3).

    Masnick lures in by saying that Section 230 is to promote "free speech" then asserts that corporations get to CONTROL all access. -- That's my summary. Here are his own words:

    "And, I think it's fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content -free-speech.shtml

    No hedges, just FLAT statement, which is RARE for Masnick. He really does mean exactly arbitrary and total control of The Public's outlets that Section 230 was expressly made to create so we could Publish without interference!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    NON-Corporate-Funded Public Interest Technologist, 11 Jul 2019 @ 4:22pm

    Re: Re: @"Gwiz": MM simply DELETED THE WORDS "in good faith".

    "Good faith" is a legal term with a specific definition:

    SO? What's that got to do with Masnick DELETING THE VERY CHARACTERS OF THE LAW HE PRETENDED TO QUOTE?

    You're just trying to muddy up this cesspit -- which is impossible.

    Here again is what YOU are trying to delete:

    Masnick simply DELETES the "in good faith" requirement -- and then blows off it being important:

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190201/00025041506/us-newspapers-now-salivating-over- bringing-google-snippet-tax-stateside.shtml#c530

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 4:53pm

    That clause isn’t important, though. It only means “the platform has a reason to moderate bullshit content”, to put it in layman’s terms. Now show me the law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that says a platform must be neutral towards all legally protected speech — including spam, White supremacist propaganda, and clips from that new Lion King movie.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 4:59pm

    230 was enacted to ensure platforms had a right to moderate content without facing legal liability for doing so. The lawmaker who wrote the bill said so. Your saying it was made to provide platforms for speech is you spouting bullshit.

    Incidentally, you have yet to provide a citation for any law, statute, or court ruling that says a privately-owned platform/interactive service must allow all legally protected speech. I wonder why that is. 🤔

    Oh, and one more thing: “Private” is not the same as “privately owned”, and Twitter, Facebook, etc. are not “public access channels”.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81. identicon
    Glenn, 11 Jul 2019 @ 5:21pm

    Why? ...because WaPo allows op-eds. Truth and fact have nothing to do with op-eds, as evidenced by the pro-Trump pieces allowed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 5:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Am

    I knew your "I'm out" comment was just pure bullshit!! Just like everything else you say!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 5:35pm

    Re:

    Lemme guess: you've been taking AOC's deranged rantings at face value, and never noticed the actual holocaust survivors who came out and said that what's going on at the border bears zero resemblance to what they went through in the real concentration camps? Or how even leftists like MSNBC journalists and Governor Andrew Cuomo have called her on her crap?

    No... then again, you probably haven't. Never listen to any viewpoint that might interfere with The Narrative, afterall. It's great to talk about having an open mind, but SJWs know better: if it's actually open, unwanted ideas might make their way inside!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 5:42pm

    Just becaues you can, doesn't mean you should

    That they allow op-eds does not mean they have to print any and all that are submitted to them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 5:48pm

    Re: I don’t care it they bought tickets for the show sir

    I’m sorry sir but HOA rules specifically exclude screens larger than 25 feet per side. I’m afraid you’re going to have to take down your little backyard projection theatre down and put all those nice strawmen back in the fields where you’ve found them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 5:48pm

    No, seriously, where is Poochie?

    I was wondering where the meltdown was over John Steele's arrest. Turns out blue has been holding out.

    Still no sign of John Herrick Poochie Section 230 Stole My Mailing Lists Smith. He's taking Hansmeier's jail term a lot harder than I thought. I'd feel sorry for him, but I'd literally have to break my ribcage in two just to eke out a modicum of sympathy for the Steele-loving shitstain.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 5:51pm

    Re: Re:

    what's going on at the border bears zero resemblance to what they went through in the real concentration camps?

    Just because they are not gassing people (and other atrocities), doesn't mean it's not a concentration camp:

    concentration camp
    n.

    1. A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group the government has identified as dangerous or undesirable.
    2. A place or situation in which extremely harsh conditions are imposed by those in authority.

    Source: American Heritage Dictionary

    I think that definition is quite fitting as to what is happening at the border. Also, if you say you agree with their treatment because they entered illegally, then maybe you should go have a humanity check. I for one am ashamed at the way our country are treating these people, especially the innocent children who had no choice.

    So if you don't like the definition of "concentration camp", then go complain to the dictionary people.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 5:54pm

    Re: Re: When will they get it?

    Now if they would actually start doing that rather than just parroting whatever anyone says, that'd be great...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 5:56pm

    Re: Re:

    Where? Show me the evidence that anyone is being kicked off for expressing "morally conservative" views.

    ...seriously, Mike?

    Asking for proof of things that are common knowledge is beneath you. That's a classic troll tactic, used all the time to derail a conversation into pedantic bickering--especially when you don't provide any sort of standard of evidence--and you're better than that.

    But since you asked:

    Facebook (directly this time!) tampered with democracy by banning pro-life ads ahead of critical Irish vote, at the behest of pro-abortion politicians.

    Pro-life group Live Action falsely reclassified as "pornography" on Pinterest (effectively censoring them entirely, if you know how Pinterest works), before being shut down entirely, for telling the uncomfortable truth about abortion.

    Pro-life film "Unplanned" blocked from Twitter for its honest criticism of Planned Parenthood; only reinstated after massive backlash from decent, moral Americans.

    It took about 2 minutes of Googling to find that, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. None of this is hate, bullying, trolling, or whatever excuse they want to call it these days; people are being censored and deplatformed for holding conservative moral opinions and spreading facts that support them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 5:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Mason, you are as bad as jhon, blue balls and the other trolls when it comes to making these grand proclamations, but once you are called out and asked to show some concrete examples confirming your statements, you tuck tail and run, just like the rest of the trolls.

    But the funny thing is, in other articles, you have some very insightful comments.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 6:01pm

    A Holocaust survivor’s words carry weight. But so do the words of over 140 experts on genocide in general and the Holocaust in particular:

    Scholars in the humanities and social sciences rely on careful and responsible analysis, contextualization, comparison, and argumentation to answer questions about the past and the present. By “unequivocally rejecting efforts to create analogies between the Holocaust and other events, whether historical or contemporary,” the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is taking a radical position that is far removed from mainstream scholarship on the Holocaust and genocide. And it makes learning from the past almost impossible.

    And here is a quote from one of the signatories of that letter, Waitman Wade Beorn:

    Things can be concentration camps without being Dachau or Auschwitz. Concentration camps in general have always been designed—at the most basic level—to separate one group of people from another group. Usually, because the majority group, or the creators of the camp, deem the people they’re putting in it to be dangerous or undesirable in some way.

    A refusal to acknowledge the incidental steps that led to the Holocaust — the Nazis didn’t start with death camps, after all — is a refusal to acknowledge someone repeating those steps in the here and now.

    And besides, this isn’t even the first instance of concentration camps in the United States. One of the facilities reportedly being used by the Trump administration to hold detainee children was a internment camp for Japanese Americans during World War II.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 6:06pm

    I have two questions.

    1. Was the content of those ads graphic enough that they would count as violations of the terms of service on Facebook and Pinterest?

    2. What was the reported violation that got the Unplanned account suspended on Twitter?

    You want to harp on and on about who is getting banned. A better thing to provide would be the actual reason why they were banned. (“Being ‘pro-life’ ” is not a valid reason unless you can definitively prove it.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 6:11pm

    Re: Better luck next time

    If you would have spent just 2 1/3 minutes using the googles you might have figured out lifenews.com is hardly an unbiased source and avoided making a fool of yourself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94. icon
    Gwiz (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 6:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You're just trying to muddy up this cesspit -- which is impossible.

     

    Yep. That's me alright. Trying to "muddy up this cesspit" by quoting exact definitions and quoting actual statutes......

    It sometimes amazes me that you still have the ability make me laugh after all these years, Blue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 6:19pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Life-news? They block people they disagree with.
    We should totally sue them lol

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 6:23pm

    Re: Re: Better luck next time

    If you're gonna post on Techdirt, it might help by being aware of the ground rules.
    We don't actually believe in "unbiased news" around here. It simply does not and can not exist, therefore claiming that a news site is not unbiased is meaningless.

    A better question to ask is, is their reporting true? Are the claims they make factually accurate? Because the ones I posted are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 6:24pm

    Re:

    Yup, as I said,

    Never listen to any viewpoint that might interfere with The Narrative

    Called it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 6:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wow, it's almost as if he's an actual, real human being with complex and nuanced opinions, and not some mindless automaton who's going to automatically agree or disagree with everything that's written here.

    Who'da thunk it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 6:34pm

    Re:

    Wow. Just... wow.

    If you honestly believe that the stated reason is the real reason and not the excuse, I have a bridge to sell you...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 7:39pm

    Re: Yup as I’ve said “douchecanoe” called it

    So that’s what your going with? Acting like repeating a half assed quote, you took from someone smarter than you, somehow magically makes you right. As opposed to making you look more like the smug, entitled, douchecanoe than you are. It’s a bold move, I’ll grant.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 7:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Better luck next time

    Well aren’t we in the TD community so blessed to have you explain the rules to us mere groundlings Otherwise someone might notice how absolutely full of shit you are. But hey if you want to double down on the stupid feel free.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 8:01pm

    Re:

    "Being ‘pro-life’ ” is not a valid reason unless you can definitively prove it.

    Just like I predicted: playing the "proof" game is a fool's errand because the trolls come and quibble about the proof, without ever establishing a proper standard of evidence.

    Tell me, what constitutes "definitively proving it"? What would you be convinced by? (Sure, we all know that the true answer is "nothing," because as you've demonstrated over and over again on here, you're a closed-minded bigot who refuses to acknowledge anything that contradicts your narrow SJW worldview, but what are you going to claim you would be convinced by, for the sake of keeping up appearances?)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 8:13pm

    Re: Re:

    “you're a closed-minded bigot who refuses to acknowledge anything that contradicts your narrow SJW worldview,“

    Bro that kind of lame ass trash talk might rate you King Shit Of Edgelord Mountain back in whatever godforsaken chan you fell out of. Here it just makes you look like an emotionally stunted child who already knows he’s lost the argument, bar a few more lame insults.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 8:25pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    What's that got to do with Masnick DELETING THE VERY CHARACTERS OF THE LAW HE PRETENDED TO QUOTE?

    He didn't. He quoted a different paragraph of the law. A fact you conveniently continue to ignore or too illiterate enough to understand.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 8:26pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Dude, you're an AC too. Putting random shit-post text in the name field doesn't magically make you non-anonymous. You have to sign up for an account to do that. But you're too scared to do that, aren't you?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 8:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wow, it's almost as if he's an actual, real human being with complex and nuanced opinions, and not some mindless automaton who's going to automatically agree or disagree with everything that's written here.

    Which has what to do with making claims and not backing them up? 'They're only human' does not a shield from Hitchen's Razor make.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 8:37pm

    Re:

    In arguing with me here, you pretended to quote the law and SIMPLY DELETED the "in good faith" requirement!

    He didn't. He quoted a different paragraph of the law. A fact you conveniently continue to ignore or too illiterate enough to understand.

    And when I caught that LIE, blew it off as not important:

    The only one lying here is you as anyone who actually bothers to read the text of Section 230 would see that you and Mike quoted different sections of the same law. You quoted section c2a and Mike quoted section c2b. He didn't delete anything.

    He's a LIAR, and sunk to that just trying to win an argument on this tiny little site

    As stated and proved, you are the liar, not Mike.

    Yet you still have the chutzpah to keep claiming others mis-represent the law.

    Pot. Kettle. Black. Hypocrite. Liar. Moron.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 8:41pm

    Re:

    opposition to abortion, affirming the sanctity of traditional marriage

    moral viewpoints

    ERROR: MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 9:35pm

    I “listened” (read, in this case) to the alternative viewpoint. I considered it. And I decided that, while compelling, it was ultimately not convincing enough for me to ignore all the human rights abuses and all the dead children.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 9:37pm

    Unless and until you can prove the “real” reason is the reason you think those actions happened, you’re shit out of luck. How much you want for that bridge?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 9:44pm

    playing the "proof" game is a fool's errand

    You made a factual claim (“people are being censored and deplatformed for holding conservative moral opinions and spreading facts that support them”). You offered up a few stories to back up the claim. But when asked to offer any proof that the reason you can make the claim (“people are being censored and deplatformed”) was the reason you gave (“for holding conservative moral opinions and spreading facts that support them”), you balk. Does that make you a fool, a coward, or both?

    what constitutes "definitively proving it"? What would you be convinced by?

    Show me a pattern of social media accounts run by anti-abortion groups being punished in some way. Show me the stated reasons for that punishment. If you can connect the dots between the anti-abortion nature of those accounts and the reasons they were punished to definitively show that the punishment was motivated by politics rather than TOS violations, I might at least think you had some credibility. Until then, I choose to believe the most reasonable explanation for their punishments: They violated the TOS in some way and got dinged for it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2019 @ 9:51pm

    claiming that a news site is not unbiased is meaningless

    Claiming the site is biased in favor of a specific political viewpoint, however, is. And make no mistake, lifenews.com is biased in favor of anti-abortion activists and groups. It reports favorably on those groups in a way that makes its bias undeniable. So denying that bias, or downplaying it to make your argument look better, does nothing to help your argument.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 10:17pm

    Re: Re:

    you've been taking AOC's deranged rantings at face value, and never noticed the actual holocaust survivors who came out and said that what's going on at the border bears zero resemblance to what they went through in the real concentration camps?

    You mean like this actual holocaust survivor who came out said they are absolutely like what she went through in the "real" concentration camps?

    Never listen to any viewpoint that might interfere with The Narrative, afterall.

    That's what you do, apparently.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2019 @ 11:16pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    We somehow got by before teh internets.

    Well that's a pretty dumb statement to make. No one is saying we didn't. Besides that, we wouldn't even be talking about this "before teh internets", BECAUSE it's all happening on the internet.

    For some reason, people get all confused and think that because it's "on a computer" or "on the internet" that it's somehow different than IRL, when it's really not. Social media platforms are no different than restaurants, cafes, meeting rooms, or conference centers.

    What's different now, THE RESULT, is that anyone's opinion can be arbitrarily suppressed.

    I have yet to see a case where someone who was banned from one or more social media sites was not able to subsequently join a different social media site, start their own, start a free blog, or find some other way to speak online. Saying their speech was suppressed entirely when it very obviously wasn't is just disingenuous.

    You just like the current because believe YOUR opinions are in favor

    Well no, not actually. The First Amendment and Section 230 says that's the law of the land, in favor or not. And I dare you to look at all the calls politicians are making to do away with Section 230 and say our view is still "in favor". Lol.

    corporations are amoral

    So? Your point is? Being morally neutral is not necessarily a bad thing.

    Tomorrow they may -- almost certainly will -- turn "conservative" or some other authoritarian and you've given up all your philosophical basis to oppose.

    Nice of you to finally admit that conservatives aren't interested in freedom of speech and are instead trying to impose an authoritarian censorship regime on individuals and private companies.

    What you advocate is that a handful of boy billionaires effectively control the entire US so that ONLY their opinions are allowed.

    Well Trump was elected President of the US and he is trying to shut down any speech that disagrees with him so that statement is actually true. Oh did you mean Mark Zuckerburg, Sundar Pichai, and whoever owns/runs Twitter? Last time I checked they weren't elected government officials and the only thing they control is what happens on their specific platforms, not the country or internet at large.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115. icon
    PaulT (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 12:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Social media platforms are no different than restaurants, cafes, meeting rooms, or conference centers."

    Well, they are, but only because your physical location doesn't matter in order to meet with people there, and that some people show their raging asshole side easier when not faced with physical consequences.

    Apart from that, there's not much difference, and that should include the ability to kick disruptive patrons out of the room.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116. icon
    PaulT (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 12:48am

    Re:

    On a side note, a couple of talented horror filmmakers recently got banned from Twitter for a week because filters caused images promoting their latest film to be flagged as graphic (real) content.

    https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3572129/soska-sisters-got-banned-twitter-promoting-rabi d-remake/

    There was some uproar about that, of course and people campaigning to get the Soskas back on the site ASAP. But, I don't recall anybody whining about it being because Twitter have an anti-horror bias, because they're paid off by Hollywood to destroy independent filmmaking or because they want to purge Canadians from debate or anything like that. Strange. Almost as though we're not whiny children.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 3:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I have yet to see a case where someone who was banned from one or more social media sites was not able to subsequently join a different social media site, start their own, start a free blog, or find some other way to speak online.

    Here's an interesting thought experiment: if there was such a case... how would you know about it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 3:50am

    Re:

    And now you're flat-out lying. Again. As expected. At no point did I deny the bias; I said it's inevitable and not particularly relevant.

    How exactly do you expect the asked-for evidence to appear? If, as Mike has repeatedly asserted, bias in media is inevitable, it defies reason to expect that news of abuses against anti-abortion activists will be published by someone with a liberal bias; that undermines The Narrative. Therefore, the only place you'd be likely to find this news is in a place with a conservative bias, ideally one that specializes in reporting on abortion-related issues. Which is exactly what happened.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119. icon
    PaulT (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 5:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Here's an interesting thought experiment: if there was such a case... how would you know about it?'

    Through the many ways and millions of websites that are available to everybody outside of the handful of sites these people are bitching about.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120. icon
    Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 5:29am

    Re:

    People are getting kicked off platforms for voicing opposition to abortion, affirming the sanctity of traditional marriage, and similar moral viewpoints which are still held even today by a majority of Americans.

    If that were true how come National Review's David French is still on Twitter?

    Whether you're right or wrong about the number of people who hold those opinions, people get booted for being abusive, not for sharing unfashionable viewpoints. I'm conservative and only ever got into trouble for my decidedly moderate views with one or two militant progressives. I generally try to get along with everyone and that means not being an obnoxious toad when sharing my opinions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121. icon
    PaulT (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 5:33am

    Re: Re:

    Counterpoint: the reason you're not reading it outside of that echo chamber is because it didn't happen, it's taken wildly out of context or is such a non-issue in reality that nobody outside of that particular single-issue group would notice it.

    Now, I'm not saying this is definitely the case here, but in my experience when only one "side" of the media is covering a particular story, it's not because something is being covered up. I've seen enough braying fools whining about a particular story not being covered by the "mainstream" media, only for a basic fact check to prove it was based on a parody article or movie footage or other fiction, not to be highly suspicious of such claims.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122. identicon
    Glenn, 12 Jul 2019 @ 7:20am

    Re: Just becaues you can, doesn't mean you should

    But apparently, they do [for a price?]. There's no other way to explain Trump-hole Marc Thiessen being able to turn WaPo into his personal blog space.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 7:55am

    At no point did I deny the bias; I said it's inevitable and not particularly relevant.

    But it is relevant. How can we expect a site biased in favor of the anti-abortion movement to report on anti-abortion groups with anything resembling fairness to “the other side”? Lifenews.com will always paint anti-abortion groups as being on the “right” side of the abortion argument. It will always treat those groups being victims whenever one of them suffers some sort of setback or legal defeat. For what reason, if any, can we trust their reporting if their reporting is so heavily biased?

    the only place you'd be likely to find this news is in a place with a conservative bias

    Or, as the other reply to you pointed out, the only reason you’d find such “news” on a site like lifenews.com is that such sites are the only ones who give a shit about that “news”. If an anti-abortion group getting dinged on Facebook, Twitter, etc. for (assumedly) violating the TOS¹ was actual important news to anyone but that group and its allies, you would’ve seen that shit on a site other than lifenews.com. But since TOS violations are rarely newsworthy, even when celebrities happen to commit them, nobody else gives a shit.


    ¹ — Show me how the groups mentioned in those posts to which you linked were punished for anything other than violating the TOS, and I will stop assuming that. Until then, too bad so sad buh-bye.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 7:57am

    Re: Re:

    that undermines The Narrative.

    This assumes there is a capital N "Narrative" to begin with.

    I find that usually people who believe this have drunk the conspiracy theory kool-aid (to some extent at least) and have a really hard time doing proper fact checking and simply take whatever their told as gospel truth without really checking it out.

    The fact that you believe this is rather telling.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 7:58am

    Hell, I’m liberal, and I once got dinged by Twitter for using an anti-gay slur in a discussion about anti-gay attitudes. (I also got dinged once for tweeting a curse word at a Verified Account™!)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 8:00am

    Re: Re:

    What would you be convinced by?

    Actual facts that don't contradict reality. You've yet to provide any.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 8:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's always amusing when folks like him or Jhon get so mad that nobody else acknowledges the existence of things they hallucinate.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 8:29am

    Re: YOUR view is 230 empowers corporations over First Amendment.

    So by your logic if I have a host box in my residence which has say a blogging app running I have to let you use it? Buzz off that nonsense, my physical host box is my property, not yours. Wake me up when you understand property rights then get back to me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 8:35am

    Re: Re:

    Let's take this as face value as true, is it even illegal? Like I'll get an example, a friend of mine was a moderator on an phpBB (web forum) site where there were a couple trolls that loved pushing the limits of the rules that were set down by the site owners. In particular, one of the trolls tried to post child porn on the forums along with other horrible garbage. Needless to say, the troll was permanently banned many times (tried to use different IPs and the like). So by the logic of these 230 trolls that are saying "platforms" have to be neutral does that mean a web forum has to host child porn or lurid pictures of other kinds? Obviously, the answer is no but these clown shoes think that Twitter is magically different from a self-hosted web forum when in effect they're the same it's just they have different amounts of users (hundreds or thousands at the best for a web forums versus tens to hundreds of millions for a site like Twitter). And in this context of section 230, size doesn't matter either.

    If these 230 trolls had their way, then every person who has a personal blog with a comment section then MUST allow everyone to post anything on that comment section rather than having any moderation rights (removing spammers, trolls, and the like). It's something that bothers me greatly because I sometimes open up a VPS account to run a mud or a personal blog from time to time. If 230 gets nixed or otherwise changed to force me to let any comer post garbage on my apps/sites then I guess I won't be putting any up then. I hope they'll be happy with a relatively sterile and dead Internet as a result.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130. icon
    PaulT (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 9:01am

    Re:

    "Lifenews.com will always paint anti-abortion groups as being on the “right” side of the abortion argument. It will always treat those groups being victims whenever one of them suffers some sort of setback or legal defeat. For what reason, if any, can we trust their reporting if their reporting is so heavily biased?"

    You can likely "trust" it to the degree that it may give some insights into what is driving those people, so long as you can corroborate the claims with other sources to understand what is bias and what is not. But if they're the only source, they can be rejected.

    I got quite practiced at this with UK tabloids growing up. It's interesting to see different viewpoints on different subjects. But, if the subject is something to do with immigrants (as an example) and the only ones reporting are the Daily Mail and the Express, you can probably assume it's bull.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131. identicon
    bob, 12 Jul 2019 @ 9:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: YOU have ZERO credibility: omitted the "in

    Plausible deniability?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 9:21am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Show me evidence from 1935 that Nazis would kill Jews.

    You have heard of the holocaust right? That major thing that a happened during that time period, where Nazis killed over 6 million Jews? I'd say that's evidence enough.

    The demand for "proof" is just a dodge.

    Well if it didn't happen then you're wrong and we're right. We don't see it happening, therefore for us to believe you, you have to provide proof, or at least evidence of the veracity of your claims. You can scream all you want that the sky is red but if other people don't see it, you have to provide some evidence to show that you aren't the crazy one.

    When people have power, it'll be abused.

    Not always but sometimes.

    YOU are an enabler of arbitrary "de-platforming".

    How?

    If are WORSE results in future, are you going to step up and admit responsibility? No, you're going to ignore at best.

    Define worse results. Because from where we stand, the potential worse results from leaving the status quo will be FAR better than best outcomes from the options you propose.

    And even if you did accept that you're wrong, that won't in any way reverse the problem which will be fully entrenched in all society.

    Nothing is ever set in stone. You are naive to believe otherwise. The Roman empire last for hundreds of years yet still fell. I'm sure everyone living during that time thought it would go on forever too.

    We must believe what proto-Nazi-corporatists say NOW about their POWER

    Um, they're banning the Nazis, how does that make them Nazis?

    just as everyone should have foreseen what prior Nazis were going to do.

    Oh? So now you admit Nazis killed Jews? I thought you needed proof?

    You're a moron. Nobody can tell the future. Some people are better at guessing it than others, but that's all it is, a guess. And even if someone does guess correctly, how do they convince everyone else they are right and to take action?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 9:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Except he doesn't deny it. He's owned it multiple times and even linked to past posts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 10:14am

    Re: Re:

    Deliberately indifferent denial of basic hygiene items (and if it takes a Congresscritter showing up to prompt a change in the situation, I'd call it "deliberately indifferent" on the jailer's part) is a likely Eighth Amendment violation. See Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2006).

    So, I ask: why are we subjecting people who have immigration proceedings pending against them to conditions that are likely illegal when inflicted upon a Supermax inmate?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 10:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, as PaulT said, there's this thing called the internet and it would likely be reported on and posted online, at which point I would know about it.

    But, my bigger point was that it's near impossible for there to actually be any cases of this because of the requirements that would have to be met in order for it to happen. Let's consider:

    Here's the end scenario you and others are proposing: a user of a social media platform is banned and is therefore prevented from speaking online in any way shape or form. He is permanently excluded from all online discussions and speech. (We'll ignore for the moment the fact that he would still have many OFFLINE speech avenues available to him.)

    In order for this person to not be able to speak online in this scenario requires that the following things MUST be true:

    1. One social media platform has control over every single other social media platform, as a ban from one platform would mean he is banned from all platforms. Otherwise, if one single platform didn't control all the others, he could just go sign up for an account on a different platform.
    2. One social media platforms has control over ALL other internet sites, domain registrars, webhosts, and blog sites. If they don't, then there is nothing preventing him from speaking on any of those other sites.

    (For the sake of argument, let's say that for some reason point 2 is just so far beyond reason as to be insane. The following would then also need to be true.)

    1. The banned person would have to be prevented from signing up for any free blog services. Otherwise they could speak online from their blog.
    2. The banned person would have to be prevented from purchasing web hosting space to either create their own social media site or host their own blog.
    3. The banned person would have to be prevented from installing and running their own social media site or their own blog on their home PC or server, which may or may not include his ISPs refusing to serve him internet access.
    4. The banned person would have to be prevented from submitting a story/comment/article/post/etc... to a third party and have them upload it to an online web site or host it.
    5. The banned person would have to be prevented from signing up to comment on any blog or forum.
    6. The banned person would have to be prevented from commenting on sites (such as TD) that allow anonymous commenting.

    The likelihood of all of the above being true and someone being actively prevented from having ANY outlet online in which to speak is about as likely as a bunch of monkeys cobbling together a functioning spaceship and flying to the moon.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Vanna T. Webb-Sight, 12 Jul 2019 @ 12:43pm

    Is Section 230 CDA to benefit The Public or corporations?

    Obviously The Public by providing speech outlets. You could not find a single politician who'd say it's to benefit corporations. -- Though it's entirely possible that was and is the intent: a stealthy form of censorship.

    Corporations have PR departments with large budgets to get their message out. It's only individual "natural" persons who need outlets for their views.

    CDA 230 provides a new form of immunity that allows corporations to HOST content without the full liability of PUBLISHING it as still true for print outlets.

    Section 230 REQUIRES that "platforms" police the sites for The Public:

    "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-

    (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected..."

    That just states causes valid in common law. It's a requirement for simple decency -- the "D" in CDA. Not controversial so far...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137. icon
    Igualmente69 (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 2:06pm

    Re: SJWs

    Your point is true to an extent, but in general, when someone who has ethical fiber pejoratively uses the term Social Justice Warrior, they aren't criticizing the concept of advocating for equality, but opposing people who think that because certain classes of people have been or are being oppressed means that concepts like freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process of law, objective truth, etc, cease to exist. Such people call themselves "liberal" but are actually the exact opposite of liberal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 2:14pm

    Hey Blue, I have a question for you.

    You express a hatred for corporate censorship via moderation enabled by CDA 230. You also express a love of copyright, such that you believe even corporations can enforce it to its fullest extent.

    But how can you believe both “corporations can enforce copyright” and “corporations shouldn’t be able to censor legal speech” when copyright itself can be used by corporations to censor legally protected speech?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 2:23pm

    when someone who has ethical fiber pejoratively uses the term Social Justice Warrior, they aren't criticizing the concept of advocating for equality, but

    …using an incredibly vague term that can mean whatever the insulting party wants it to mean for the sake of argument. Call me an SJW (and I have been called that before), and I would ask what specific part of my ideology makes me an SJW. Is it my disdain for copyright? How about my wish to see ICE (and the Department of Homeland Security) abolished? Maybe it’s my desire to see billionaires taxed on 99% of their wealth instead of sitting on it like a bunch of greedy dragons while poor people die all around them? Or did you have some other position of mine that you would consider “SJW-ish” in your head?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 4:23pm

    Borrowing from Good Omens again...

    Vague terms (such as Libtard or SJW or snowflake) to deride a demographic are much like a winked signal between Chattering Nuns of St. Beryl. They change drastically in meaning between sending sister and receiving sister.

    They not only change meanings between those who use the terms but also those who hear (read) them. Those who are particularly self-critical will assume it applies to them, while others will dismiss such terms as nonsense (revealing more about the speaker than his targets) or presume themselves an exception to who the malice does not apply. As a result such terms of contempt cast a wide but scattershot field, generally hurt only those who are already self-conscious.

    The term SJW applies to those who speak to issues of social injustice and social inequality. But the term (like many alt-right terms of disregard) suggest those who profess for social issues are insincere regarding those positions, or they express such positions due to ulterior motives or they are inconsistent in acting on the behaviors they endorse (or are guilty of engaging in the behaviors they admonish). Hence, SJWs are not to be taken seriously.

    These terms are thought-stopping clichés that allow the user to dismiss a given person (and what she says) without further consideration.

    So when someone calls me an SJW, I figure they've already dismissed me as subhuman. If they criticize SJWs the implication is that person uses such terms to dehumanize those that disagree with them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 4:42pm

    See also: “virtue signaling”. It is an accusation that someone expresses a moral or ideological position only to improve their social standing. But the accusation attacks the character of a person instead of their viewpoint. If the idea is sound, the reason for expressing it doesn’t matter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 6:29pm

    Re:

    There's Poochie!

    Here Poochie! Get the DMCA vote, that's a good corporate lapdog.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  143. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 8:28pm

    Re: Re: SJWs

    someone who has ethical fiber

    pejoratively uses the term Social Justice Warrior

    ERROR: TYPE MISMATCH

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  144. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Reinforced Gusset, 13 Jul 2019 @ 2:15pm

    Top Assange Defense Account Deleted By Twitter

    One of the biggest Twitter accounts dedicated to circulating information and advocacy for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, @Unity4J, has been completely removed from the site. The operators of the account report that they have been given no reason for its removal by Twitter staff, and have received no response to their appeals.

    https://www.activistpost.com/2019/07/top-assange-defense-account-deleted-by-twitter.html

    S ee, kids? Twitter has its own -- unaccountable -- agenda that doesn't fit with yours.

    Do you really want a few white male boy (and older) billionaires controlling ALL access to teh internets?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  145. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2019 @ 3:31pm

    Re: Top Assange Defense Account Deleted By Twitter

    What is not wanted is spammers, scammers and political extremists, whether Nazi, ISIS or Marxist etc. infesting every site on the Internet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  146. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 13 Jul 2019 @ 9:02pm

    Do you really want a few white male boy (and older) billionaires controlling ALL access to teh internets?

    No, I don’t. So let’s bust up the Internet Access Provider monopolies — you know, Charter, Comcast, what have you.

    Oh wait is that not what you meant?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  147. icon
    PaulT (profile), 13 Jul 2019 @ 11:30pm

    Re: Top Assange Defense Account Deleted By Twitter

    "S ee, kids? Twitter has its own -- unaccountable -- agenda that doesn't fit with yours."

    No, Twitter's agenda of being able to kick assholes off their site fits with mine.

    "Do you really want a few white male boy (and older) billionaires controlling ALL access to teh internets?"

    No. Luckily, there are millions of other websites out there, plus the ability for you to set up your own any time you want.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  148. identicon
    Gaza Observer, 14 Jul 2019 @ 7:47am

    Re: Re: Re: that Israel problem

    ...you peeple arguing about the US border should look at your own definition of concentration camp, and apply it in Israel/Gaza.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  149. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Freud Ian Slip, 14 Jul 2019 @ 2:00pm

    Corporations get a DEAL: immunity IN EXCHANGE FOR opportunity.

    The deal of CDA 230 is to be NEUTRAL HOSTS for The Public's speech.

    Otherwise, corporations MUST obey the traditional laws of publishing and be responsible for EVERY BIT on the "platform".

    The deal was granted BY The Public (through our representatives) and clearly meant as a convenience to allow The Public to use the Internet without having to manage technical details. PERIOD.

    "Platforms" are NOT like accepting paid advertising / freedom of association, but an entirely NEW way for The Public to publish without "a priori" editorial interference of any kind. Host corporations are only authorized to act AFTER an offense and for THAT offense only, NOT to arbitrarily totally and forever ban "natural" persons.

    CDA 230 NEVER in least authorizes corporations to discriminate for their own purposes as to WHO and WHAT is published. That's controlled by common law.

    You cannot claim The Public's protection by way of statute AND assert that then have power OVER The Public. The power was/is not granted. The Public is primary and supreme: corporations are mere permitted fictional entities.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  150. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2019 @ 8:01pm

    Re:

    Damn, blue, give your Tor browser a break! It's not a hooker.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  151. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2019 @ 12:37am

    Re: Re:

    Never mind that he literally wants Trump and other members of a small set of white male boy billionaires to give him the Internet he wants, but honestly at this point it'd be easier to list all the times when blue wasn't being a hypocritical sack of dogshit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  152. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Flash N. Cutlass, 16 Jul 2019 @ 8:38pm

    Corporatists try to twist CDA into control of OUR PUBLISHING!

    First, We The People don't have to allow the hosting corporations to exist at all! It's entirely our option. They're to SERVE The Public or be broken up.

    Of course, GREEDY GRASPING corporatists soon found a loophole that they claim allows them POWER OVER THE PUBLIC.

    How did "Communications Decency Act" get twisted into authorizing complete corporate control of The Public's new forums?

    "Immunize platforms so The Public can make use of the new medium for almost unlimited speech!", is what They SAID to LURE us into a trap. And now that they've obtained power, masnicks STATE that corporations have an absolute and pre-emptive "First Amendment right" to CONTROL.

    No one thinks that "natural" persons on a "platform" have endorsement by the corporation. No one is mistaking the speech of "natural" persons for the corporation's. The corporation is not in least impaired in getting its message out. -- But what the corporatists want is to CONTROL "natural" persons.

    The ultimate purpose of Masnick / EFF blather (both funded by Google) is to sweep on to:

    They claim that corporations can use that "restrict access or availability of" clause to, whenever wish -- even explicitly over YOUR First Amendment Rights -- step in and EDIT comments by their own arbitrary standard, to point of becoming THE publisher, even to PREVENT we "natural" persons from publishing on "their" platforms at all!

    But those are OUR platforms, The Public's, NOT theirs.

    Corporations are allowed (by The Public) merely to operate the machinery which is to convey The Public's views. Corporations are NOT to control who gets on, nor WHAT The Public publishes, except under OUR common law terms.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  153. icon
    PaulT (profile), 17 Jul 2019 @ 12:15am

    Re: Corporatists try to twist CDA into control of OUR PUBLISHING

    "But those are OUR platforms, The Public's, NOT theirs."

    So, you're a communist. Nice of you to admit it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  154. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Jul 2019 @ 9:08am

    "Immunize platforms so The Public can make use of the new medium for almost unlimited speech!", is what They SAID to LURE us into a trap.

    You have been told, time and time again, that 47 U.S.C. § 230 was not written with the intent of allowing “almost unlimited speech”. It was written with the intent of allowing interactive computer services to moderate content without facing legal liability for doing so. You could at least admit that you’re ignoring the facts that were presented to you in support of those statements.

    corporations have an absolute and pre-emptive "First Amendment right" to CONTROL

    A corporation has every right to control speech on any platform it owns and operates. Those platforms may be open to the public, but they are still privately owned. And much like a privately-owned brick’n’mortar business has the right to boot people from the business for being assholes, those platforms have every right to do the same.

    No one thinks that "natural" persons on a "platform" have endorsement by the corporation. No one is mistaking the speech of "natural" persons for the corporation's.

    Doesn’t matter. Without Section 230, a person (and their respective individual¹) could sue a platform for something a third party said or did on that platform. 230 immunizes platforms in that regard. It’s why no one can sue Techdirt when you slander them in the comments.

    They claim that corporations can use that "restrict access or availability of" clause to, whenever wish -- even explicitly over YOUR First Amendment Rights -- step in and EDIT comments by their own arbitrary standard, to point of becoming THE publisher, even to PREVENT we "natural" persons from publishing on "their" platforms at all!

    And those claims are correct on every count. No law, statute, or “common law” court ruling says any privately owned platform must allow all protected speech without moderation. Nothing on the books says such platforms must remain “neutral” in their moderation of content, either. Even the First Amendment protects the right of association — that is, the right of a platform’s owner(s) to choose whether they want someone else’s speech associated with their platform.²

    You’re not entitled to use someone else’s platform. If Techdirt banned you today, you would have no legal recourse — none whatsoever! — in either overturning that ban or forcing Techdirt to host your speech. Don’t say otherwise if you can’t prove otherwise.

    Corporations are NOT to control who gets on, nor WHAT The Public publishes, except under OUR common law terms.

    I’ll ask you this question again, even though I know you’ll never give a direct answer to it: For what reason should a platform be forced to host White supremacist propaganda, which is legally protected speech in the United States, if that platform’s admins do not want it to host such speech?²


    ¹ — If you keep using SovCit language, I will keep mocking it.

    ² — This applies equally to corporate-owned services such as Twitter and non-corporate services such as individual Mastodon instances.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  155. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Shiny Red MAGA Hat, 17 Jul 2019 @ 10:16am

    Oh, YES: corporations CAN violate your First Amendment Right!

    In fact, that's the KEY point of contention. Masnick says "platforms" are authorized to control speech regardless whether it's Constitutionally protected!

    Masnick is for corporations CONTROLLING the speech and outlets of "natural" persons. He repeats it often, can't be mistaken. From last year:

    "And, I think it's fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content -free-speech.shtml

    Masnick is not hedging "lawyers say and I don't entirely agree", or "that isn't what I call serving The Public", but as VERY RARE for him STATES FLATLY. By deeming it a fundamental "Right", Masnick STATES that he wants a few corporations to have absolute and arbitrary control of ALL MAJOR outlets for The Public! He claims that YOUR Constitutional First Amendment Right in Public Forums are over-arched by what MERE STATUTE lays out!

    This is the vital point for Masnick. He doesn't even mention The Public's right to publish in new way, ONLY states flatly the alleged right of corporations to control speech there.

    Masnick flips the First Amendment from protection for "natural" persons into a POWER for use by corporations!

    Such control (by ANY entity) to remove First Amendment Rights from The Public CANNOT be purpose of ANY statute. It'd be null and void because directly UN-Constitutional.

    It's NOT law, only the assertion of corporatists. No court has yet supported what Masnick claims. Corporatists are reaching for the moon without even a step-ladder. It's simply a trick the New Fascists are trying to pull.

    By the way: IF Section 230 law is so clear and good for The Public as Masnick claims, why is "deplatforming" being reviewed by even "Democrats", and why does he keep running these pieces?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  156. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Jul 2019 @ 10:41am

    Please show me the law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that entitles you to the use of a third party platform, regardless of who owns that platform.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  157. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Cylinder-Shaped Object emits energy beam, 17 Jul 2019 @ 2:19pm

    The KEY trick: assert "editorial" control yet keep immunity:

    Here it is cleverly worked in:

    On Friday, libertarian-leaning groups including FreedomWorks and the American Legislative Exchange Council sent a letter to Sessions expressing "fear" that his "inquiry will be to accomplish through intimidation what the First Amendment bars: interference with editorial judgment."

    https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/2018/09/22/draft-order-for-trump-would-crac k-down-on-google-facebook

    NO! Totally negates the whole "platform" premise and asserts that hosting mechanisms are the actual editors!

    Section 230 establishes The Public as Editors! "Platforms" are to be ONLY the technical means for conveying The Public's Editorial choices.

    CONVEYING, NOT CONTROLLING.

    Section 230 is not difficult to understand. The content of a magazine IS the magazine, and can be mechanically printed on any number of presses, without the owner of the press being liable for the content. PERIOD.

    Corporations which host "platforms" are exactly analogous to owners of a mechanical printing press. Printers do not have liability for what's printed -- within BROAD common law terms, and especially relevant on Techdirt: enforcing copyright law when obviously violated.

    It's ridiculous to hold a mechanism responsible: that's what Section 230 immunizes against. But it's even more ridiculous to hold that the owner of a printing press has total editorial control over magazine content.

    But because The Internet blurs the line between mechanical and editorial, the corporate fiends now claim that owning the printing press DOES give them TOTAL editorial control over what WE want to publish!

    Summary to here: For Section 230 immunity to be valid: 1) hosts must act in "good faith" according to common law standards, and 2) "platforms" are NOT to act as editors or publishers, are NEUTRAL / hands-off (again, by common law standards) with regard to persons and content.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  158. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2019 @ 2:50pm

    Re: The KEY trick: assert "editorial" control yet keep immunity:

    Did you go to some sort of troll school where they told you if you just keep repeating blatantly false information, maybe someone will start believing you?

    Literally nothing you say is accurate or truthful.

    NO! Totally negates the whole "platform" premise and asserts that hosting mechanisms are the actual editors!

    Section 230 makes no distinction for "platforms"

    Section 230 establishes The Public as Editors!

    No, it literally does not. It says that moderation is encouraged in order to create diverse parts of the internet, such as "family friendly" sites. It does nothing to establish "The Public" as editors.

    "Platforms" are to be ONLY the technical means for conveying The Public's Editorial choices.

    Again, the law literally says the opposite of this.

    You should stop misrepresenting the law.

    Summary to here: For Section 230 immunity to be valid: 1) hosts must act in "good faith" according to common law standards, and 2) "platforms" are NOT to act as editors or publishers, are NEUTRAL / hands-off (again, by common law standards) with regard to persons and content.

    Again, this is literally the opposite of what the law says, how the law was described when it was debated in Congress, and how the law has been talked about by those who wrote it and by the courts who have interpreted it.

    It's one thing to argue that you want the law to be read this way-though even that would be silly. It's another altogether to pretend the law says the opposite of what it says.

    This has been explained to you dozens of times.

    Yet you keep repeating it.

    Because you are a troll. You are not a serious person. You have no serious input. You are a gnat on the side of a site that you yourself insist no one reads.

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  159. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Jul 2019 @ 2:54pm

    Please show me the law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that says an interactive computer service is required to allow all legally protected speech.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  160. identicon
    Ceci est ne pas mon nom en l'ecran pour l'instant., 18 Jul 2019 @ 1:25pm

    To "offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse."

    Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a sacred privilege for social media companies. This law protects Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms from liability over the material published on their websites. One of the reasons these services are granted this privilege is the Congressional finding, embodied in legislation, that they "offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse." [47 U.S. Code S: 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material] In contrast, newspapers are subject to libel actions over Letters to the Editor, because they are assumed to have exercised editorial judgement in publishing them.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-12/google-vs-trump-good-censor-collision-course-patrio t-president

    Link to US code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  161. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 18 Jul 2019 @ 10:08pm

    And your point is…what, exactly? 47 U.S.C. § 230 doesn’t say any “interactive computer service” must offer “true diversity of political discourse” (i.e., stay “neutral”) to retain Section 230 protections.

    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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  162. icon
    PaulT (profile), 19 Jul 2019 @ 12:00am

    Re: To "offer a forum for a true diversity of political discours

    "This law protects Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms from liability over the material published on their websites"

    BY OTHER PEOPLE. You idiots always miss that part out. They're perfectly liable for things they themselves post, just not those of other people.

    "In contrast, newspapers are subject to libel actions over Letters to the Editor, because they are assumed to have exercised editorial judgement in publishing them."

    Not because they're assumed to. Because they DO have direct editorial control. Unless you're demanding that those other sites manually go through every post that's on their site (and even someone as stupid as you can see how that's not realistic), it's clearly a very different situation.

    "Link to US code"

    You might want to actually read that at some point instead of having notoriously bad right-wing propaganda sites filter it for you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.