TheLizard’s Techdirt Profile


About TheLizard

TheLizard’s Comments comment rss

  • May 15th, 2019 @ 9:44am

    Private organizations

    Well, they are a private organization, so they can do what they want with their material.

    Right? RIGHT?

    Just like FB, Twitter, and YouTube. They don't have to let you see their own private stuff, or host anyone's comments on their platform. RIGHT?

    That's the stand now, right?

    Oh, also, it's not censorship, because that's only the government restricting free speech.

  • May 9th, 2019 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Why are you arguing the point? It's simple just to ban the user and delete their account for wrongthink!

  • May 9th, 2019 @ 12:12pm


    That's why it's needed.

    And we have case law in the real world that supports it. Ralphs Grocery v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union specified that labor union speech trumps the private property rights of companies in some cases.

    Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins established that private shopping malls are public squares, and upheld the free speech rights of citizens to protest there even over the objections of the property owners.

    There are numerous others. But without specific rules allowing private right of action, such as the civil rights act enables, it's impossible for private citizens to take on multi-billion dollar corporations in law suits of this kind.

  • May 9th, 2019 @ 11:53am

    Re: The real problem

    But it's actually worse than that. The mainstream media news stories are often by and large GENERATED from social media. This has been going on for quite a while.

    It's why Twitter is so very protective of the mainstream media reporters on their platform. It's why people are there.

    So when outlets started laying off journalists, and users started reminding the journalists of the stories they wrote during the mass layoffs in the rust belt, Twitter decided they needed to BAN users posting the #LearnToCode hashtag.

    Silencing conservatives is one thing, but it's not just conservatives, it's anyone that challenges the corporate / globalist / capitalist system that SV relies on for their fat paychecks. They banned the Anti-Media and the Free Thought Project a while back, for example, and many other far-left publications that challenged the narrative of the corporate hegemony.

  • May 9th, 2019 @ 11:43am



    So we need anti-discrimination rules for Internet companies that claim Section 230 protections as a platform.

  • May 9th, 2019 @ 10:46am


    You're using exactly the same arguments that racists used in the 1960's to oppose civil rights legislation.

  • May 9th, 2019 @ 10:13am

    Civil Right

    This is a stunningly ignorant take on the situation. We've gone way beyond the point where we can just say "these private companies can do anything they want." These are powerful, global corporations, they collude with each other on silencing certain opinions, and, no, there really is no alternative.

    "Build your own website" as a response is not even viable, since, when you become popular but undesirable, the SV giants have your hosting provider kicked you off, your payment provider ban you, your bank close your account, etc., etc. That's happening RIGHT NOW.

    Lyndon Johnson realized in the 1950's that his black assistants did not want to drive his dog to Texas because, in the south, they would end up sleeping in their car and having no place they could stop to eat and would have to go to the bathroom with the dog. The public accommodations used by most people on road trips were not available to blacks. It had to change.

    The same situation is happening in the digital space. It's time to realize that access to the platforms everyone uses to communicate is a civil right. Government doesn't need to regulate these wealthy and powerful corporations, but they do need to give our citizens a private right of action when they are treated unfairly.

    Just like the Civil Rights law did for blacks in America.

  • Apr 2nd, 2019 @ 7:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That's not how peering agreements work tho.

  • Mar 27th, 2019 @ 4:37am

    Re: Re: The Censorious crowd

    Look again. They are all over the comments on this article, you've done it yourself, and go back and check the article on the Laura Loomer lawsuit and see how many people praising all the SV tech companies for censorship.

  • Mar 27th, 2019 @ 4:32am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Thanks for providing an obvious example of what I'm talking about.

    "Oh, there's no censorship, but [whatever corporate entity] isn't government, so they can censor whatever they like."

    And when these big multinational corporations (FB, Google, Twitter, YouTube, Apple, etc.) collude on stuff they want to censor (like they have multiple times) they actually have MORE power than government to silence voices and people and promote the narrative they want.

    I'm not saying governments should step in to regulate that behavior, I'm saying we shouldn't be giving them a free pass and just waving our hands with "well it's their platform so whatever they want" either. We should be calling them out and admonishing them that such behavior is NOT okay. They have Section 230 protections, after all, but the more they act like publishers and not platforms for OTHER publishers to use, the less it makes sense for them to have those protections.

    And the crowd here commenting on TechDirt, bhull242 as the instance example, seem very quick to dismiss censorious behavior of these tech companies as perfectly ok.

    It's NOT.

  • Mar 26th, 2019 @ 4:41am

    The Censorious crowd

    TechDirt commenters seem especially censorious. Since the US government is forbidden from being censors by the First Amendment, they just go along with corporate censorship from Silicon Valley billionaires.

    It's the one thing those multinational corporations are consistently praised fro doing around here.

  • Mar 18th, 2019 @ 3:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh

    <quote>Only the tiniest fraction of people get banned; I'm surprised, given your phrasing, that you're more concerned about that than about how, for instance, YouTube decides what video it's going to push to you next.</quote>
    <p>Well, I'm not, really. Face it, YouTube will decide to promote stuff that's advertiser friendly and makes them money. Full Stop. </p>

    More concerning is the deplatforming.

    The "tiniest fraction" is just the most unpopular voices that they know no one will defend (a.k.a Alex Jones and Laura Loomer). They are testing how many folks they can ban. Several very popular folks (Jack Posobiac comes to mind) have been banned but when the outrage was too much they were like "oh, oh, yea, that was a mistake, sorry, their back," but it won't work forever and the bans you don't hear about are the ones you'll never hear about.

    Very popular publishers on both sides have been banned, like the Free Thought Project and the Anti-Media, both push out of FB and Twitter on the same day.

    But, you know, keep thinking it's just Nazis. Maybe they'll never ban anyone you follow, but I doubt it.

  • Mar 18th, 2019 @ 2:54pm


    EASY! Every other publisher that controls its content is subject to liability for what it publishes. Twitter gets protection from that via section 230 of the CDA.

    Remove that, and then they have a right to first amendment protection. Are they a platform for user content, or are they a publisher?

    I would argue if they are promoting specific ideologies, they are not a platform, they are a publisher.

  • Mar 18th, 2019 @ 2:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh

    How about at least no government protection, ala section 230 of the CDA?

    If publishers have to be responsible for their content without protection from liability for their message, why should these platform companies be given special protection from liability for their narrative?

  • Mar 18th, 2019 @ 2:47pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Why do you think you won't be targeted next?

    Your whataboutism isn't convincing. I'm not a conservative, I'm a liberal, one of those (apparently rare these days) that support free speech absolutism. No threats of violence, doxxing (which encourages threats of violence), no slader / libel. Otherwise, let the radical voices have their say so that people can see what bad ideas look like.

    This censorship and the Kevin Bacon arguments used to justify them, does not work. Those people don't go away. They gather in dark places complaining about the "others", in echo chambers, while people that don't agree with them do the same in their echo chambers, each demonizing and dehumanizing the other.

    Eventually "punch a Nazi" becomes "punch a Republican" and "punch a Marxist" becomes "punch a Democrats", and there's real violence and it doesn't end well.

    As a bisexual, I've seen my share of discrimination, and it's like water off a duck's back to me. And I get it from straights AND gays who claim I'm just pretending because everybody is either straight or gay.

    But you can't say "learn to code" on Twitter, and you can't say "men aren't women tho" without a ban.

    And it really has nothing to do with conservative or liberal, it has to do with being corporate narrative advertiser friendly, and having section 230 government protection in order to promote that narrative.

  • Mar 18th, 2019 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Re: Ugh

    How about Twitter banning people posting the #LearnToCode hashtag? After journalists wrote all those articles telling middle-aged coal miners and steel workers they should Learn To Code, but when Twitter users told laid-off journalists the same thing, they were banned.

    Does that fit?

    Yea, I'm not standing up for Laura Loomer, or Alex Jones, here.

    But I don't think they're finished.

  • Mar 18th, 2019 @ 12:10pm

    Re: Re: Ugh

    Who said anything about prioritization algorithms? The discussion is about people being forcefully de-platformed from all the Silicon Valley platforms where 95% of the audience are.

    If you don't think it's a slippery slope, I hereby refer you to ... tada! Data Society's "Alternative Information Network" report. Where they use the Kevin Bacon argument (6-degress of separation) to connection mainstream, even left-of-center broadcasters with white supremacists and neo-nazis in a campaign to get YouTube to ban them all. Yes, including Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, and Tim Pool.

  • Mar 18th, 2019 @ 12:02pm


    How about, follow the US jurisprudence for free speech. That's what Jack Dorsey claims he wants Twitter to be, a place where everyone has a platform.

    Threats of violence, doxing, other unprotected speech can be banned, just like it is everywhere else.

    But people should be allowed to post "Learn to Code" memes without running afoul of Twitter's "Trust and Safety" department because they want to have safe space for so-called journalists.

  • Mar 18th, 2019 @ 11:31am


    These comments suck.

    Klayman is an idiot, and will likely not get any further with this.

    But there is something disturbing seeing the TechDirt crowd get all rah-rah cheers about all these Silicon Valley billionaires and their offshore tax havens deciding what kind of narrative the vast majority of people on the Internet get to consume.

    Somehow when unaccountable corporations do it, it's okay, okay?