Hyman Rosen 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1141)

• On the post: Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers And Deeply Unfunny ‘Satirist’ Seek To Remove Website 1st Amendment Rights To ‘Protect Free Speech’

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2022 @ 06:47am

  The large generic speech platforms are using their own free speech rights to censor the speech of their users. That they are private merely means that they are allowed to do this. That does not make their censorship any more moral or correct, not does it immunize them from criticism for their behavior.

• On the post: Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers And Deeply Unfunny ‘Satirist’ Seek To Remove Website 1st Amendment Rights To ‘Protect Free Speech’

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2022 @ 06:44am

  Censorship is the act of the censor, silencing speech based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls. Because you like this censorship, you want to apply a false definition of censorship so that you can say that the platforms are not censoring. But they are.

• On the post: Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers And Deeply Unfunny ‘Satirist’ Seek To Remove Website 1st Amendment Rights To ‘Protect Free Speech’

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2022 @ 06:42am

  The castle doctrine also allows store owners to shoot looters, rioters, and arsonists. But Democratic shills get members of the press fired for saying "buildings matter too." The large generic speech platforms are practicing viewpoint-based censorship, silencing opinions you happen to dislike. They are allowed to do that because they are private entities, but that does not make their actions any less censorship, more moral, or less violative of free-speech principles.

• On the post: Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers And Deeply Unfunny ‘Satirist’ Seek To Remove Website 1st Amendment Rights To ‘Protect Free Speech’

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2022 @ 06:37am

  No.

• On the post: Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers And Deeply Unfunny ‘Satirist’ Seek To Remove Website 1st Amendment Rights To ‘Protect Free Speech’

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2022 @ 06:28am

  You would like your false definition of censorship to hold because you like the viewpoint-based censorship the large generic platforms provide for you and you would prefer that it not be called censorship. But censorship is the act of the censor, the silencing of speech on platforms controlled by the censor on the basis of viewpoint, regardless of the ability to speak elsewhere.

• On the post: Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2022 @ 06:22am

  Yes. That is viewpoint-based censorship.

• On the post: Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2022 @ 12:58pm

  The point of the discussion is that the large generic speech platforms are engaging in viewpoint-based censorship, and they should be criticized for that, and convinced to stop. That other newer and smaller platforms do the same is evidence that the "go elsewhere" nonsense promulgated by people here because they like that censorship is useless; those platforms are even less likely to support free speech. Even the TechDirt comment section is censored for me personally by Masnick, whose free speech principles fall by the wayside when he encounters opinions that he both hates and are not so out of the mainstream that few would accept them. Then they're "hate speech".

• On the post: Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2022 @ 12:52pm

  "Why" is because Amazon wishes to engage in viewpoint-based censorship. They should be criticized until they decide to behave better.

• On the post: Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2022 @ 12:50pm

  Correct, which is why I have never asked for anyone to be forced to allow speech. Criticism is not force. But silencing people is censorship, whether or not they can speak elsewhere.

• On the post: Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers And Deeply Unfunny ‘Satirist’ Seek To Remove Website 1st Amendment Rights To ‘Protect Free Speech’

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2022 @ 12:44pm

  The 1st Amendment is not synonymous with free speech. The 1st Amendment is a partial implementation of free speech against the government. Because you like the viewpoint-based censorship that the large generic speech platforms are providing for you, you hide behind legalisms to try to claim that they are not censoring their users. But they are. The Babylon Bee was censored. They posted satire about a political figure, and Twitter stopped them from posting anything else until they took their post down. (The "apology" the Bee then issued was hilarious.) It makes no difference that Twitter was legally allowed to do this. Legal behavior and moral behavior are not the same thing.

• On the post: Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2022 @ 08:36am

  Amazon has specifically banned that book. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/amazon-breaks-silence

• On the post: Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2022 @ 08:34am

  Censorship is the act of the censor. When the large generic speech platforms ban certain viewpoints, they are committing censorship regardless of the availability of other places to speak. It is obviously false for the same actions to not be considered censorship as long as those actions are not carried out in the very last place to speak. You would like to have that be otherwise because you enjoy the censorship the large generic platforms are providing for you.

• On the post: Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2022 @ 01:23am

  It's very easy to show how it's done. Barnes & Noble sells When Harry Became Sally. Amazon does not. Amazon should sell that book too.

• On the post: Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2022 @ 01:22am

  It is characteristic of a failure to adhere to the principles of free speech, which should come as no surprise to anyone, given that Republicans have been advocates of censorship for far longer than Democrats.

• On the post: Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2022 @ 01:19am

  The principle of free speech is that people who do not like an opinion do not get to silence the speakers of those opinions. Popularity is irrelevant. Numbers are irrelevant.

• On the post: Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2022 @ 01:18am

  No, I do not, and have not, demanded that anyone be forced to carry anything. I merely criticize large generic speech platforms for carrying out viewpoint-based censorship, and I hope that with sufficient criticism, they will see the error of their ways and change. Size and specificity matter. A bookstore that styles itself as Christian is expected by everyone to mostly carry books for that specific demographic. A huge bookseller like Amazon, on the other hand, should not be refusing to sell books because of the viewpoint expressed by those books.

• On the post: Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2022 @ 01:11am

  As you people like to say, "assumes facts not in evidence". I do not scream obscenities in raging fury at the people who are wrong on this platform. I simply point out the errors, and am met by rage in response, because when you have neither facts nor law on your side, you pound the table.

• On the post: Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2022 @ 01:07am

  As always, because you like the viewpoint-based censorship the large generic speech platforms are providing, you speak of force even though I have not suggested anything of the sort. Those platforms are behaving badly, contrary to the principles of free speech that are a foundational stance of the US. They should be convinced, not forced, to do better.

• On the post: Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2022 @ 05:59am

  Screaming obscenities in raging fury because you hate having your errors pointed out to you is not going to help your cause (which is good, I suppose). Truth Social, Parler, Gab, DailyKos, Talking Points Memo, and the like have all constituted themselves as platforms with built-in bias and viewpoint-based censorship. They're are not, ab initio, places people can go to in order to have free, wide-ranging discussions. The large generic speech platforms, meanwhile, have snuck in their viewpoint-based censorship while pretending to offer such opportunities for discussion. It is those platforms that need to be chastised, corrected, and convinced to stop their censorship. The smaller biased platforms are unlikely to want to stop being echo chambers for their target demographic.

• On the post: Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

  

  Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2022 @ 07:13pm

  You seem very confused. The notion that one must shop around for places to speak depending on what one wants to say is ridiculous, and violates the principles of free speech. And trying to replicate monstrously huge generic speech platforms simply to set different speech rules is almost guaranteed to fail; if it were doable, it would already be in progress simply as a way to make money. The solution to viewpoint-based censorship is to convince the large generic speech platforms to stop doing it.

Next >>