bhull242’s Techdirt Profile

bhull242

About bhull242




bhull242’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 21st, 2020 @ 11:30am

    Re: We get it!

    That has nothing to do with this article at all.

  • Oct 20th, 2020 @ 5:34pm

    Re: Re: What the hell happened to Techdirt

    NY Post, not NY Times

  • Oct 20th, 2020 @ 3:40pm

    Re:

    You can’t say you’re being censored if one platform blocks your speech but all other platforms allow it.

    Help! I’m being repressed!

  • Oct 20th, 2020 @ 2:45pm

    Re: Re: Worth reading the complaint - up-front costs of BILLIONS

    “No competitors”? You do realize that Bing still exists, right?

  • Oct 20th, 2020 @ 2:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Pretty Clear

    I do because it’s dumb. The complaint is severely lacking in good antitrust arguments and actually is self-refuting.

  • Oct 20th, 2020 @ 6:28am

    Re: Re: "room-temperature IQ"...

    Regarding the exact number for “room temperature”, given that no one uses Kelvin every day outside of lab experiments, and given that room temperature is below 100 (average IQ) whether measured in degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit, I believe the point gets across either way. If anything, it just means that it’s even more insulting in most of the world.

    Hmmm, I "MUST be either too stupid to have an opinion worth repeating" [or...?].

    The OP said that (which continues, “or too dishonest to have an opinion that anyone OUGHT to care about,”) with regards to people complaining about social media sites having the right to moderate content on them. Unless you’re saying that making such a complaint about units/“room-temperature IQ” is equivalent to complaints about the right to moderate, I’m not sure why you’d (sarcastically) apply that descriptor to yourself.

    C'mon Guys, get with the SI (International Units) completely! Even your own industry and manufacturing uses these in various areas!

    I actually agree with that, but standards are slow to change, especially in the US (remember how long it took to ban lead in paint, plumbing, and gasoline and to regulate cigarettes), and I personally like Fahrenheit when discussing the weather simply because of how well it fits everyday temperatures (which rarely exceed 110°F or go below, like, –30°F; 75°F or higher = hot; less than 75°F but at least 65°F = warm; 50 to 65°F = cool; less than 50°F = cold) and the amount of precision you get without using decimal places. I do acknowledge that its logic makes no sense (180°F between freezing and boiling point I can understand, but why is 0°F set where it is?), but it works fine.

    Oh, I forgot... the Internet is heavily USA-influenced, and also northern-hemisphere-influenced.

    Well, it’s also partly because most English-speakers are in the northwestern quadrant, and the Internet was essentially invented and initially popularized in the US. Also, I think the phrase “room-temperature IQ” was created independently of the internet.

    It's sad to see snow themes all over Christmas paraphernalia, when sometimes the temperature in my location exceeds 37 degrees C on the day...

    That has nothing to do with the internet, really. That’s just because of how those Christmas traditions migrated from Europe to Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and South America (whichever you are from), and Europe is firmly in the Northern Hemisphere.

    It's sad to see local culture being steadily eroded

    I’m sorry, but what local culture is being eroded, exactly?

    To end this, I’d like to ask again: what does this have to do with the article or the comment you’re replying to?

  • Oct 20th, 2020 @ 5:55am

    Re: And I repeat: Techdirt is so small that EVERY comment counts

    You’re not being blocked or censored. Your comments are being hidden (but still viewable) by the community.

    Also, this comment of yours is hard to understand because of the atrocious grammar and bad syntax. “[A]fter sees first”? “[B]esides that I'll point up why”? What do these mean? Also, what do you mean by “effective”, what are “still as effective”, and what exactly “can hardly help [their] ‘free speech’ façade”? You need to offer more clarity.

  • Oct 20th, 2020 @ 5:46am

    Re: How are ISPs different? Can't they exert control TOO?

    Here’s a basic overview: ISPs (or IAPs) are like telephone companies or cable (or satellite TV) companies that just provide the communication lines, not the content or services that go over those lines; services like Twitter or Facebook are privately owned, publicly accessible/viewable bulletin boards/billboards.

    You seem to want social media to operate like the former, but that’s not what they do (unless you’re talking about private DMs like in Facebook Messenger, but that’s another topic entirely), nor are they required to. Social media companies and such are “edge providers” that use the internet to provide a service; the internet itself is not the service provided.

    Furthermore, people generally can only have, at most, one ISP for the home/WiFi and one for cellular service, and switching is fairly difficult and potentially expensive. If an ISP blocks something from going through, its customers become incapable of accessing what was blocked at all. By contrast, people can have as many social media or social media-like accounts as there are social media(-like) providers (or freely switch between search engines or browsers), and the sites and accounts themselves are completely free to use/create; if an edge provider blocks something, there are still many options available to users to get the data. That’s not even getting into the fact that ISPs are limited to specific areas (having Verizon won’t help me if I move to Japan), and many ISPs don’t directly compete with each other (most locations can only access one or two players), but that’s (mostly) not the case with websites like Twitter or Google (and even for the exceptions, a VPN can get around geoblocks pretty easily).

    Basically, ISPs are completely different from social media companies and other edge providers (both fundamentally and as applied), and the principles behind supporting net neutrality is very different from those involved in being anti-§230.

  • Oct 20th, 2020 @ 5:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    1. Where exactly does Twitter claim to be unbiased specifically?

    2. I believe that, under the current case law, claims that someone is “unbiased” is far too subjective to be taken literally or be considered “puffery” and thus nonbinding. In fact, I think there was a case mentioned on this site where YouTube or Facebook or Twitter was specifically held to not have to be unbiased just because of supposed promises to uphold free speech and such.

    3. The McDonald’s comparison is inapt. The existence/nonexistence of meat in a burger is something that can be objectively and readily determined. Bias or lack thereof is nowhere near as straightforward and is highly subjective as to where the line is to be drawn.

    4. Section 230 specifically exempts ISPs like Twitter from being held liable for moderating decisions for most situations, not just under defamation.
  • Oct 19th, 2020 @ 6:37pm

    Re: Re:

    “Bias” is subjective, which therefore means that no court would take it as a promise that can be enforced in court.

  • Oct 19th, 2020 @ 1:09pm

    Re:

    Just to clarify, the ruling could apply to other government officials’ accounts, but not Twitter itself or private accounts, and only to the people running those accounts.

  • Oct 19th, 2020 @ 12:18pm

    Re: WSJ states it's CENSORSHIP, refuting anti-American PUNK MM.

    TD already said they disagree with the original policy reasons behind that decision from the start.

  • Oct 19th, 2020 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: And now the censoring sets in to HIDE what you can't

    I don’t think the admins have that data. It’s probably kept hidden from them, too, to help preserve anonymity and other reasons.

  • Oct 19th, 2020 @ 12:11pm

    Re: Re: So Ignore "Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown" HEADLINE?

    How was it incorrect?

  • Oct 19th, 2020 @ 12:09pm

    Re:

    First off, most people of any political leaning know that NYP in general is sketchy, like the National Enquirer.

    Second, if you read the previous article, you’d know exactly why the whole thing was sketchy.

  • Oct 19th, 2020 @ 12:06pm

    Re:

    The “Russian Hoax” part was not connected to the Clinton part. Nor was there any limitation given. All of that info—incriminating or not—was covered by the plain language of the tweet.

  • Oct 19th, 2020 @ 11:50am

    Re: Re: "room-temperature IQ"...

    I’m sorry, but how is this relevant?

  • Oct 19th, 2020 @ 11:46am

    Re: HA! You state they're hosts! They're NOT publishers, then!

    As final proof, everyone can SEE what happens to dissent here, no matter how mild. IT'S CENSORED.

    Setting aside that hiding a post but still letting it be seen with a simple click is not censoring that post, there’s a user named eMark who has been posting multiple disagreements here. As of right now, none of their posts here have been hidden or “censored”. Clearly you’re wrong that all dissent gets “censored” no matter how you look at it.

  • Oct 19th, 2020 @ 11:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Twitter and Facebook are not moderating when REMOVE

    Whatever you call it, when an individual's communication is filtered on the basis of opinion, their 1st Amendment rights are damaged.

    Only if the government is the one doing or enforcing it.

  • Oct 19th, 2020 @ 11:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The ability for a platform to “put a finger on the scale” like that can be justified using comparable logic to the huge donations bit.

More comments from bhull242 >>


This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it