Matt Bennett 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2814) comment rss

  • On the post: Setting 1st Amendment Myths On Fire In A Crowded Theater

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 03:32pm

    https://reason.com/2023/03/10/twitter-files-hearing-weaponization-matt-taibbi-democrats-elon/ "The Twitter Files, which show that multiple arms of the federal government—including the FBI, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department, and the White House under both Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden—pressured social media companies to restrict speech"

  • On the post: Setting 1st Amendment Myths On Fire In A Crowded Theater

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 03:28pm

    "Censor" DOES NOT mean "cannot say it anywhere". Yes removing a tweet is censorship. The word has a meaning.

  • On the post: Setting 1st Amendment Myths On Fire In A Crowded Theater

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 03:27pm

    Those sure are words. But you're right, let us disband the FBI. Well, not "us", it apparently isn't your country.

  • On the post: Setting 1st Amendment Myths On Fire In A Crowded Theater

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 03:25pm

    Evidence pleads, such as the posts of your that got taken down or got you banned.
    Why would they have to be MY posts, exactly? I got a ton of stuff taken down on FB, actually. Most notably a meme defending Rittenhouse. But why the F does it have to be mine? Jay Bhattacharya, an actual doctor of some note got shadow-banned for saying things that all turned out to be true, in the end.

  • On the post: Setting 1st Amendment Myths On Fire In A Crowded Theater

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 03:22pm

    You can think it all you want⁠—that doesn’t make it the law. The First Amendment gives platforms the right to “exert editorial control” by way of moderation and 230 protects platforms from lawsuits over how they moderate third party speech
    Fully incorrect.
    The Ninth Circuit held that "Publication involves reviewing, editing, and deciding whether to publish or to withdraw from publication third-party content."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Application_and_limits By exerting editorial control they effectively become the publisher. Various courts ruled that a platform could take down porn and actual hate speech (i.e. using the N word and the like, what's actually mentioned in the statute) and that anything else made the platform the and thus liable. 20 years later those early precedents just seem to be ignored.....certainly most of what Old Twitter did would make them the effective publisher under early precedents. So I repeat, exerting editorial control should make you liable for the content. 1st amendment has nothing to do with it, btw, that's just dumbshit Masnick says sometimes.
    For what reason should platforms ignore (or even encourage) the posting of hateful speech
    I'm honestly more concerned about attempts to quash "misinformation" when they don't know what is "True" any more than I do and often it winds up just enforcing gov propaganda. But as to "hate speech"? How about being able to discuss honestly that a "transwoman" is NOT indistinguishable from a real woman and that has certain safety and competitive ramifications? As a country we need to have a real discussion about that and policies like Old Twitter actually block such. More importantly? "Hate speech" as a label becomes a weapon. You just label whatever you disagree with "Hate speech" and then listen blissfully to only those you agree with. We have seen this extensively lately.
    [explicit and specific citations needed]
    Here you go! Can't wait to hear you ad hominem this one! https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610394284867436547
    You haven’t proven that anyone who has contradicted your claims or criticized your lack of proof is lying.
    https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter https://public.substack.com/p/exposed-americas-secret-censorship https://reason.com/2023/03/10/twitter-files-hearing-weaponization-matt-taibbi-democrats-elon/ "The Twitter Files, which show that multiple arms of the federal government—including the FBI, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department, and the White House under both Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden—pressured social media companies to restrict speech"

  • On the post: Setting 1st Amendment Myths On Fire In A Crowded Theater

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 12:33pm

    But the government can't censor speech, not even by proxy

    No one said a private company can't censor their own site. (I do think if they exert editorial control they lose 230 protections, but that's a separate matter) That's just a fucking strawman. We DID say that the censorship was ideologically and politically based, which it very clearly was, and that was a bad idea and they shouldn't. And then of course it was revealed that the government was telling the SM companies who to censor, which is very clearly a 1A violation, despite your claims to the contrary. Spend several hundred million dollars on it, in fact. And you just continue to lie on the subject, lie about the clear evidence, lie about the 1A. And then you write articles attempting to lecture people on how the 1A works. What a fraud.

  • On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 12:25pm

    They refuse to carry a legal drug.
    Not even vaguely true. They are refusing to carry the drug in states where it is illegal. That's it.

  • On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 12:24pm

    Contracts are contracts. You're just lying about Newsom's motivations.

  • On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 12:23pm

    Oh, so you're just a nazi then, who doesn't believe in free speech. Cool.

  • On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 12:21pm

    Newsom has made clear that what he is looking for is that Walgreens will continue to provide contracted health care in CA
    So THAT's a lie. A contract is a contract, of course they would. He is 100% asking them to break the law in other states.

  • On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 12:20pm

    Because many of the points are split between a series of tweets. (they're numbered) If share one tweet you'll pick apart half a thought, which is really the only reason you're asking, anyway. You KNOW the evidence is there, you just want to pretend it doesn't say what it does. It's really quite easy to scroll down a little bit. Do some work or STFU.

  • On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 12:17pm

    I kinda doubt it. A lot of almonds and figs, very little wheat, corn, potatoes. WA and OR would be OK, but not CA.

  • On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 12:15pm

    Why am I not surprised that Matthew also supports a second Civil War.
    I actually live in a Blue state, I was just laughing at how dumb Stephen's comment was. But good job misreading!

  • On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 12:13pm

    That you would laugh at the theoretical suffering of millions of people, especially because they happen to live in states with Democrat-controlled legislatures, says nothing good about you.
    I'm amused by this attempt to paint me as the bad guy, but I was laughing at your ignorance, dumbass.

  • On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 11:30am

    What does it say about those states if they would willingly refuse to accept money that would help prevent their citizens from dying of starvation?
    1. I think it's real silly you think that's what that money actually does.
    2. in the case of "national divorce" you think it's gonna be the red states that have trouble feeding themselves? giggle

  • On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 11:29am

    Here's your proof! https://twitter.com/mtaibbi You're gonna get the same link each time, chief. It's all there.

  • On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 11:26am

    I guarantee you if a government openly awarded contracts based on speech and solely that speech that would be seen as 1A violation. Of course, what Newson is doing is worse, he's literally punishing a company for not breaking the law.

  • On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 11:24am

    That article has been widely debunked. It includes things like military bases and national parks that don't at all go TO a state nor it's residents, just are spent there. It also includes a lot of mandates that the red states never wanted. At least that money is spent ON them. But it's a little like the liberal argument that because we pay for your healthcare (which we didn't want) we know get to decide what you eat, smoke, etc to reduce costs.

  • On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 11:18am

    He's literally punishing the company for following the law.

    In the the states where you say "it's legal but AGs object" you're lying, again. It's expressly illegal to distribute the drug through the mail, anywhere in the US. There are also sate laws against it separate from abortion and there is the issue of medical licensing. | So no, Newson isn't punishing them for speech, it's way worse. He's literally punishing them for just not breaking the law in other states. DeSantis did punish Disney for speech, and that's wrong on principal, but he also threatened to take away (and DID modify) a special exemption that I don't really should exist to start with. The whole thing had me very conflicted. Now, admit that the federal government engineered a censorship by proxy scheme, you fucking asshat.

  • On the post: Colorado Catholic Group Spent Millions On Sensitive Grindr Data To Shame Priests

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 07:57am

    Sure man, whatever you want to read into that, I guess. I'm secretly gay for Elon, dontcha know?

Next >>