Matt Bennett 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2814)

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:46pm

  Well, we can expand it to the rest of the internet if you’d like.

  I get that perspective is not your strong suit but no, if we expand it to "the internet" then no, I would NOT be "pretty much the only person in the comments thinking that it happened.", not by a long shot. Holy fuck you're dumb.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:43pm

  So fucking what? They also said that they felt they couldn't ignore the gov requests anymore

  I think that statement is laughably untrue on it’s face. OF COURSE a 98% success rate means they have ceded over control of their censorship to a state agency. But this is funny for another reason, because you (and others) routinely cite a 40% rate as evidence that Twitter was not conducting gov censorship by proxy, to which my question is “At what part does it become government censorship, then?” The answer is apparently “never” because even 98% doesn’t qualify. Why bring it up, then? Why pretend the success rate is a rebuttal when according to you (and some activist judges) no rate would ever make it censorship by proxy?

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:41pm

  I ignored you the first time on purpose because it's a dumb strawman but I'll quote myself as I already addressed it.

  I think that statement is laughably untrue on it’s face. OF COURSE a 98% success rate means they have ceded over control of their censorship to a state agency. But this is funny for another reason, because you (and others) routinely cite a 40% rate as evidence that Twitter was not conducting gov censorship by proxy, to which my question is “At what part does it become government censorship, then?” The answer is apparently “never” because even 98% doesn’t qualify. Why bring it up, then? Why pretend the success rate is a rebuttal when according to you (and some activist judges) no rate would ever make it censorship by proxy?

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:38pm

  You’re free to start a “speech platform” that acts that way, Matty. Just be ready to speedrun the moderation learning curve.

  Actually I'm not free to do that. Someone tried and Big Tech killed it off over a weekend. But I think you're missing the point that you only like the censorship cuz it mostly cuts your way.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:27pm

  No they are not dumbass. They are deciding what people can say ON TWITTER YOU FUCKING MORON!!

  Yes, and?

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:26pm

  Twitter has the right to ban the dude for damn near any reason it wants.

  I think we've established you don't believe that. If they banned all support of gay marriage (which was an actual political debate just like 10 years ago?) you would reverse all your positions instantly. Now, I DO believe that...but I also think it would be very bad of them, and quite illegal for government to direct it.

  show me that the dude was banned specifically as part of a coercive order from the government

  I did.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:21pm

  Twitter is deciding what other people can say outside of Twitter?

  Not what I claimed. Also not a requirement for it to be "censorship", btw.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:20pm

  At this point you’re just making shit up for the sole purpose of being a fucking asshole.

  I think you missed the point, but that definitely wasn't an argument.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:19pm

  Yes or no, Hyman: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?

  I dunno, man, does the government have the right to make that guy bake the cake? Write the words on the cake he doesn't agree with? Not just host someone else's cake, mind you.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:17pm

  It must’ve been pretty fucking secret considering that you’re pretty much the only person in the comments thinking that it happened.

  In this one, VERY liberal echo chamber where maybe a dozen individuals actually speak? You sure owned me!

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:16pm

  Fraud and voter disenfranchisement aren’t a viewpoint based opinion

  Of course they are. VERY disputable. And a hot second ago you were arguing that Twitter should in fact try to decide what is "true" but if it got it wrong that was no big deal. You can't actually have it both ways.

  includes private platforms retaining their rights to free speech.

  Masnick claims often that "censorship is free speech" but that isn't actually true, at all. No, deleting others words is not "speech", it's the opposite of that. Twitter may be able legally to do it but doing so is NOT free speech, at all, and it's dumb to suggest it is.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:09pm

  🤣 lmao you ain’t even worth the bother now, go whine about mean ol’ Twitter somewhere else lmao 🤣

  You're saying that cuz you can't address the point. Just admit that would think all the opposite things if Twitter had been censoring opinions you hold dear. I am attempting to accept my victory with class.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:07pm

  In a society that has freedom of speech as a foundational value, large generic speech platforms should not be silencing opinions based on viewpoint. A large generic speech platform should act as a disinterested host for its users, not as an arbiter of what is true and what is acceptable. Naturally woke ideologues welcome censorship as long as it’s silencing opinions they hate, because wokeness is an enemy of freedom.

  ^^^This, this exactly.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:05pm

  Every media organization since the beginning of the media?

  They're not deciding what OTHER people can say, dumbass. Twitter is.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 03:05pm

  Probably not. But then again, that’s probably why we beat them (massively!) in covid deaths.

  You could only possibly think that if you believed China's numbers, which are very obviously fake. (of course they will persecute you for saying that) Are you a CCP apologist? It sure sounds like you are, actually.

  The CCP will ALSO kick you off social media for daring to suggest their elections are rigged. Of course, they are.

  As opposed to the Republican party telling us our elections are rigged,

  Yes, which Twitter will kick off for, as in this case. But not Stacey Abrams, who essentially said the exact same thing. I think you've made my point for me.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 02:59pm

  Not really. 230 protects Twitter for its moderation decisions in re: third-party speech.

  You just said they were the source of the information, not the accounts. And if they heavy edit so that only one type of info is available on a subject, they are!

  Prove it can’t.

  I did, Ninth circuit (ironic) 2009

  If Twitter wants to make that declaration, that’s on Twitter. Nobody has to (or should) believe their labeling of speech is The Unerring Word of God.

  They don't just label it, they delete it. Nice strawman there. And you seem awfully blasé about the prospect of someone blocking entire categories of opinion. What if Twitter decided it would suffer no gay content? That all marriage was between a man and a woman and saying anything else was a violation of TOS? By the rules you laid out, that would not only be legal, but just fine and nothing to worry about, right? RIGHT!?!

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 02:51pm

  And if you had proof that the government did a double-secret extra-coded mafia-style coercion, you would’ve shown it by now. But you don’t. So you can’t. Too sad, so sad, buh-bye. 👋

  I did. And if you knew how to read, you'd be very upset. And it wasn't that secret.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 02:50pm

  The Decider of All Facts and The Only Platform on This God Damned Internet.

  Between them and FB (which does a lot of the same things) it's legitimately is the majority of the conversation. Certainly for US citizens debating politics and public interest matters. I think Twitter trying to be The Decider of All Facts and then silencing dissent is Very Very Bad, actually. The 1A doesn't apply to Twitter (on it's own) but the principles for why it exists are exactly the same for why it's a bad thing. Once you give someone the power to shut someone up based upon the pretext of it being "Hate speech" or "disinformation" that power WILL be abused, and it has been. Sure, Twitter isn't the government and they can't shoot you. But between them and FB they can effectively shut down your ability to communicate your ideas. So it's really bad when the government is involed (and illegal) but it's pretty fucking bad without that, also.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 02:38pm

  Yes, because when I think of ways to coerce people into doing things without making threats, telling them “you don’t have to actually do anything” without any kind of wink-wink-nudge-nudge afterwards is right there at the top of the list~.

  It can be, actually, but you keep on saying that if the words were always worded that way and they most definitely were not.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 02:36pm

  Ironic, considering he supports actual totalitarians.

  Funny, I think the same of you and Masnick. Of course, your side is doing a lot of totalitarian shit, so....

Next >>