Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism

from the these-things-might-be-connected dept

Everything is bigger in Texas, even the act of unconstitutional spitting on the 1st Amendment. We’ve already talked about the blatantly unconstitutional bill, HB20, that picks up where Florida’s already-declared-unconstitutional bill leaves off, and makes it even worse. Well, that bill was voted on Friday and Texas Republicans approved it by a vote of 76 to 44.

But, as Adam Kovacevich noted on Twitter, some Democratic legislators wanted to make sure that the Republicans supporting such a gross infringement of the 1st Amendment were on the record for what they supported. So they introduced amendments to carve out the “must carry” rules for Holocaust denialism, terrorist content, and vaccine disinformation. And Republicans made sure to reject all three amendments, thereby explicitly admitting that with their bill they want to make sure that websites are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism.

Now, to be clear, all three of those things are (mostly) protected under the 1st Amendment. But so is the right for a website to remove them and not be associated with them. Anyway, 73 Texas legislators said that websites should not be able to takedown “vaccine misinformation.” Literally, that’s what they voted against:

And, reading the amendment on terrorist content, it appears that no website will be allowed to remove ISIS-promoting content any more, which is an interesting choice by Texas Republicans.

And then there’s the Holocaust denialism bit. Social media sites will have to include it as well. I’m kind of surprised that the legislators introducing this amendment didn’t also do one explicitly about “critical race theory.” Now that really would have tested things. After all, this very same Texas legislature that, earlier this year, passed an equally unconstitutional bill that says teachers in Texas can’t openly talk about America’s racist past.

And, I guess that is at least consistent. You must post stuff denying the holocaust, but suggesting that there is systemic bigotry? Well, that’s beyond the pale.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
692 Comments
Stephen T. Stonesays:

Republicans made sure to reject all three amendments, thereby explicitly admitting that with their bill they want to make sure that websites are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism.

These must be some of those ?censored conservative opinions? that certain commenters keep yammering on about.

Stephen T. Stonesays:

Re:

Hey, Koby??are vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism some of those ?conservative opinions? you keep saying are being censored from social media? Because actual conservatives seem to think so, given the article.

If those aren?t the ?conservative opinions? you keep saying are being censored, what are those opinions? Be specific.

Kobysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

Yet neither has to do with this bill.

But it was right there in the title, and talked about in the second to last paragraph. It was designed as a counter argument to the bill, so it’s okay for us to talk about it. Determining classroom curriculum is not an attack on free speech, while mandating must-carry provisions is an extension of free speech. Many states currently provide for greater protections than those listed in the constitution.

why is your right to speech more important than my right not to associate with your speech?

One of the nifty things about social media is that you get to choose who you follow on social media. If you don’t like what someone is saying, you can choose not to listen to it. On the other hand, deplatforming is about preventing others who DO want to associate with a speaker from being able to associate. Censorship still interferes with the association aspect.

Stephen T. Stonesays:

Re: Re: Re:

deplatforming is about preventing others who DO want to associate with a speaker from being able to associate

Those people can still associate with that speaker??somewhere else. For what reason should the law force a privately owned interactive web service to host legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don?t want to host?

Censorship still interferes with the association aspect.

And if being booted from Twitter for vaccine disinformation/terrorist content/Holocaust denialism was censorship, you might have a point.

But it?s not.

So you don?t.

Also: What specific opinions are you worried about being censored from social media? Be specific.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

On the other hand, deplatforming is about preventing others who DO want to associate with a speaker from being able to associate.

You’re a one-trick pony with this bullshit, aren’t you?

Same bullshit argument. Every. Fucking. Time. It’s as if you’re not programmed to say anything else.

Let me predict what you’ll do next, asshole…

Not answer Stephen. Again.

Go silent when confronted with the fact that what you’re saying is bullshit.

Continue to whine like the bitch you are about being kicked off private property for your ‘conservative views,’ which we’ve already surmised is a metaphor for ‘being a fucking asshole.’

Sound about right?

Let me tell you, no matter how many times you repeat it, you’re still getting kicked off Facebook and Twitter, to which I say "Great! Don’t let the door hit you on your entitled ass on the way out!"

Parler, Gettr, and Frankspeech (someday) do the same thing to liberal thoughts on their platform. Which is both hypocritical and kind of an oxymoron, since any non-conservative’ on those platforms is only there to get your panties in a wad. You know, to own you simple-minded little snowflakes.

So enjoy this article that has the balls to answer the question you won’t.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

… deplatforming is about preventing others who DO want to associate with a speaker from being able to associate. Censorship still interferes with the association aspect.

Wrong again!!

Alex Jones has been banned from Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. But guess what, he still has followers. He has his own site and the fucking fools who want to follow him are more than able to do so.

Just because he’s not on social media, doesn’t mean people can associate with him.

So are you really this fucking stupid, or do your Russian handlers provide you with these comments to post?

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

Jones is always a fun example when people try bringing him up about "deplatforming". Jones hasn’t been "deplatformed" – he still owns his own platform. In fact, his platform predates virtually every mainstream modern social media site that he and his drones whine about being kicked out of.

All that’s actually happened is that there was a brief period where he wasn’t restricted to only the people stupid and hateful enough to go to him directly, and he’s now sad because he realises how small his actual community is, and how hard it is to grift from that shrinking number of people. He still has a platform, and nobody’s trying to take it away – he just wants the free audience numbers, and that’s not something that anyone has a right to.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

(… deplatforming is about preventing others who DO want to associate with a speaker from being able to associate. Censorship still interferes with the association aspect.)

SEE THE REGIME HAS NOT THE POWER TO SILENCE THE DISSENTERS TOTALLY!!
THIS IS THE PROOF CENSORSHIP IS GOOD!

the tone of your post is reserve for those who don’t write b****hit

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

(Wrong again!!

Alex Jones has been banned from Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. But guess what, he still has followers. He has his own site and the fucking fools who want to follow him are more than able to do so.)

SEE THE REGIME HAS NOT THE POWER TO SILENCE THE DISSENTERS TOTALLY!!
THIS IS THE PROOF CENSORSHIP IS GOOD!

(I misquoted in the previous post. if mods can please delete it)

bhull242says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

SEE THE REGIME HAS NOT THE POWER TO SILENCE THE DISSENTERS TOTALLY!!
THIS IS THE PROOF CENSORSHIP IS GOOD!

If you can still say it somewhere, and the government isn?t punishing you for saying it, it?s not censorship. And no, privately owned social media sites are not the government.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

HEY LOOK! I’M STILL AT THE PHASE WHEN I BELIEVE THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE ONE CENSORING THEN IS FINE!

I’M ARE UNAWARE THAT CANDIDATES FOR AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES ARE GOVERNMENT, CORPORATIONs, AND RELIGION. AND THEY WORK TOGETHER MOST OF THE TIME.

vote for Big government that makes sneaky sneaky laws tailored to support oligopolies and verticistic monopolies until people have to through the intended private corporations to do anything. that gets fat over corporation bribes.
slowly boil the frog by enacting growing restrictive company policies. deflect all criticism becuz is a private company! climax. et voil? get to live in totalitarianism.

you not the government guys are making their job of screwing us ever more damn easy than normal.

C. hello dear senator, it’s me!
S. again! what do you want now!
C. could you please make a law to damage my competitor? thank you.
S. and what do I get in exchange?
C. mmmmm, I will censor for you, things that the government cannot censor.
S. ok. deal

Is fine getting slammed in the Gulag, if the caretaker is Facebook, not the government?

hello! I am a representative of the electrica&water&gas company we heard by the phone company that you talked shit about the wrong person with your mom on the phone the other day. too bad! we are cutting off your water, electric, and gas supply.
you can get water at the river, lit a pit fire, and bask in the sun, so is not you haven’t other options.
no, you cannot blame us, sir, we are a private company, amirite?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

deplatforming is about preventing others who DO want to associate with a speaker from being able to associate.

Now when the speaker can go to another platform,, and anybody who wishes to follow their speech can follow them on that platform, without leaving other platforms.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

"without leaving other platforms"

That’s always a good thing to stress – unless you’re like Koby and his friends, being kicked off every place they’ve been too offensive to other users or where they were refusing to follow the rules, most people can use any number of social media platforms they wish. Most people already use 2 or 3 at least, and there’s nothing to stop you using a new one if someone you really want to follow uses it. Then, you don’t have to switch permanently, you can keep your old ones.

The thing keeping most people using specific platforms is a combination of laziness and network effect, not any monopoly like the kind Koby imagines. The harsh reality for him is that nobody wants to follow him to other platforms – in fact, they cheered when he was kicked out of the other ones, because those platforms were doing what they asked for when they did it.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

Almost all social media companies today enjoy larger market shares in their respective niches than either Standard Oil or Bell Telephone did at the time of their breakup.

A legal monopoly is not the same as the literal etymological definition of monopoly.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Shill Deffinition

"By definition, no monopoly? can exist if more than one social media company enjoys a large market share. Mono implies one, and if we have more than one large social media company competing with each other?well, even you can?t square that circle."

By your paid shill definition if Widget Globo Inc. owns ever widget factory, and every widget store in the world, and a single person is making widgets in their garage and selling them in Toledo Ohio then Widget Globo Inc. is not a monopoly.

Can you not see how stupid this is?

bhull242says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Shill Deffinition

I wasn?t aware that all but one of the social media sites were run by a single person per site out of their garage and were only available within a single city per site.

So, which is the only social media platform not run by a single person out of their garage only available within a single city? Is it Facebook? Twitter? Parler? Gab? Gettr? MySpace?

Well, which is it?

All of these, as far as I can tell, are run by a corporation itself run by multiple people out of actual offices, all of them are available across the country (or even in other countries), and all of them are online social media platforms. The amount of success each has may vary, but they are all still competing in the same market in the same geographic locations, so clearly none of them are monopolies by any stretch.

Stephen T. Stonesays:

Re: Re: Re:6

paid shill definition

Motherfucker, do you really think I?m paid to waste my time like this? You must be out of your goddamn mind.

if Widget Globo Inc. owns ever widget factory, and every widget store in the world, and a single person is making widgets in their garage and selling them in Toledo Ohio then Widget Globo Inc. is not a monopoly.

Nope. Not even remotely my logic.

See, here?s the thing you?re not getting: Twitter and Facebook are competing against each other as much as they?re competing with every other social interaction network??LinkedIn, MySpace, the Fediverse, Discord, and dozens of others. To turn either Twitter or Facebook (or any other social media service) into a monopoly, you would have to define ?social media? in such narrow terms that the phrase could only ever apply to one service.

But in your example, Widget Globo absolutely is a monopoly despite the existence of the single person making widgets in their garage. That?s because Widget Globo can effectively muscle that person out of business with the smallest amount of economic pressure.

What you?re doing is conflating a genuine monopoly of a single company in a single industry with a faux monopoly of multiple companies (again, mono implies one) in a broad field of communications services that no one company truly dominates on its own. Your logic, and thus your argument, is flawed bullshit.

Please try to present an argument that makes sense in reality next time. Mocking you for your ignorance and SovCit tendencies is getting boring.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

"deplatforming is about preventing others who DO want to associate with a speaker from being able to associate"

No, it’s not. They’re free to associate anywhere they want – just not on the property of people who told them they’re not welcome on that property. Go and take your white supremacist buddies where they are welcome, nobody’s stopping you.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

Businesses should not be meddling in politics or social matters, and thus should be forced to be neutral on all such matters (whether by hosting everything in a content-neutral manner, hosting nothing political or social, or by exactly reflecting existing community opinions).

If you want to engage in politics in your personal capacity, that’s fine, but if you want liability shields, ability to offset input taxes, and so on, you should be required to protect the public interest. Realistically, your small business is not particularly important, but there has to be a sharp dividing line that can’t be eroded or worked around by Facebook or Fox or whoever, so its better not to make an exception.

That One Guysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

Better idea, we could not blatantly violate the first amendment and property rights of a bunch of people by telling them that they have to be ‘politically and socially neutral’ on any platform they set up and instead will host everything if they allow that sort of content at all, forcing them to either muzzle their users more than they wish to or host content they really don’t want to.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

It was a bad idea to stretch the first amendment from applying to private individuals to applying to corporations (whether by deliberately misreading "the right to peaceably assemble, to petition the government" or by deciding the corporate veil only works one way).

It is impossible to have a meaningful democracy when you need billions to "speak" as loudly as Fox or whoever else. Forcing businesses to be neutral is a necessary part of the solution (spending caps for individuals is the other part).

Stephen T. Stonesays:

Re: Re: Re:3

Two questions.

  1. How would using the law to compel the hosting of all legally protected speech, especially in cases where someone doesn?t want to host a given kind of speech, solve whatever problem you think that would solve?
  2. How would you feel if you were forced by law to host speech you didn?t want to host??e.g., pro-Klan propaganda??on a service you own and operate?
Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: One Question

"Two questions.

How would using the law to compel the hosting of all legally protected speech, especially in cases where someone doesn?t want to host a given kind of speech, solve whatever problem you think that would solve?

How would you feel if you were forced by law to host speech you didn?t want to host??e.g., pro-Klan propaganda??on a service you own and operate?"

Why do you keep insisting that Mikes strawman lie is anything but a lie?

"law to compel the hosting of all legally protected speech"

The law does no such thing, no matter how much Mike lies about it. Mike is not a lawyer and he really should be careful how much he blathers with ‘this is my job so I know it’ he is dangerously close to practicing law without a license.

HB 20 simply sets a procedure for appeal and curing which is common in contract law.

States have a vested interest in such regulations because they don’t want their courts burdened with contract disputes.

The way TOS are written today is ‘neener neener neener I can do what I want and you cant do shit about it’ this inherently sets up a situation that burdens state courts because their is no remedy outside of suing for breach of contract.

bhull242says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: One Question

Why do you keep insisting that Mikes strawman lie is anything but a lie?

It?s not a strawman if there are actually people who claim this.

The law does no such thing, no matter how much Mike lies about it.

  1. Being wrong doesn?t make it a lie, no matter how ridiculous you may think the claim is.
  2. The law does do that.

Mike is not a lawyer and he really should be careful how much he blathers with ‘this is my job so I know it’ he is dangerously close to practicing law without a license.

It?s not even remotely close to practicing law without a license. Stating an opinion or fact about the law with regards to an issue to the general public?without more?is not and has never been the unlawful practice of law. You don?t have to be a lawyer to make public claims about the law or a particular law. He also doesn?t ?blather[] with ?this is my job so I know it?. You literally have no idea what you?re talking about, do you?

HB 20 simply sets a procedure for appeal and curing which is common in contract law.

It is common for contracts to set out a procedure for appeal and curing. It is not common to for the government to require a procedure for appeal and curing to be in any contract that doesn?t involve the government or a government function.

States have a vested interest in such regulations because they don’t want their courts burdened with contract disputes.

But that?s exactly what this bill would do! It would burden their courts with contract disputes. By contrast, ?230 does remove many alleged contract disputes from courts, along with many other issues.

The way TOS are written today is ‘neener neener neener I can do what I want and you cant do shit about it’

This is technically true, but that?s largely to prevent an issue with contract disputes. That said, Facebook and Twitter do have mechanisms for appealing a moderation decision.

this inherently sets up a situation that burdens state courts because their is no remedy outside of suing for breach of contract.

No, because by writing the TOS in such a way that your content can be removed for any reason (or maybe even no reason at all) and not providing any opportunity for an appeal or curing, there is no way that the platform holders could possibly breach the contract, so there would be no remedy by suing for breach of contract, either. Such a lawsuit would be completely without merit on its face (assuming the TOS is written as broadly as you claim), and it would be dismissed very early on.

By contrast, requiring contracts to have an appeal-and-cure provision would make it far easier to be able to sue under breach of contract and get past dismissal, plus lawsuits over contracts that don?t contain the necessary clause. You have it completely backwards.

Also, on a related note, I don?t think it matters much to the courts whether it?s a state claim for breach of a law vs a state claim for breach of contract.

That One Guysays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

It was a bad idea to stretch the first amendment from applying to private individuals to applying to corporations

If corporations were entities entirely disconnected from any humans that might be true(of course that would open up a whole host of other issues) but as it is they’re owned by people who have first amendment rights that apply to their property and more specifically how they run their property.

It is impossible to have a meaningful democracy when you need billions to "speak" as loudly as Fox or whoever else. Forcing businesses to be neutral is a necessary part of the solution (spending caps for individuals is the other part).

Strange then that it worked out fine before social media when only a handful of companies had large platforms in the form of newspapers and tv stations and you had no right to use those platforms to speak either.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: There is a sharp dividing line;its called the FIrst Amen

And if they wish to remove themselves from the public control they need only remove their property from the public interest. When an individual makes the conscious and willful decision to put their property to the public interest they submit their property to pubic control for the public good.

I may own my truck. But the moment I make the willful decision to start driving for uber and lift I have submitted my property to the pubic interest and surrendered to public control. If I wish to regain full control I need only stop driving for uber or lift.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: There is a sharp dividing line;its called the FIrst

I may own my truck. But the moment I make the willful decision to start driving for uber and lift I have submitted my property to the pubic interest and surrendered to public control. If I wish to regain full control I need only stop driving for uber or lift.

Do me a favor, the next time you order an Uber, ask the driver to get out of his car, then, get in the drivers seat, and drive away. You know, the driver must have submitted his car to public interest and surrendered it to public control, that must mean you can take it for hours on end for your own uses.

Are you really that fucking stupid, Mr. I have 20 college engineering degrees that you think opening a business to the public means you have ceded all control of your private property to the public at large?

If I were you, I would ask for your tuition money back, because you didn’t learn anything and are still fucking stupid.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a sharp dividing line;its called the FI

My states passenger carry regulations which includes uber and lift is about 7 pages long and that is pretty standard for most states.

Again you are an ignorant petulant child. Just because you don’t see the pages of regulation doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a sharp dividing line;its called th

My states passenger carry regulations which includes uber and lift is about 7 pages long and that is pretty standard for most states.

So you are saying that you are allowed to take somebody’s vehicle once they start driving for Uber because they have "surrendered [their vehicle] to public control"

Damn you have no fucking clue about private property rights! Fucking idiot.

Again you are an ignorant petulant child

Are you going to beat me up now? You are so strong, and smart, and boy, I am so envious of you and everything you have told us about yourself. I am here trembling in my boots that you are going to come beat me up. And I also feel like such an imbecile not have 50 college degrees like you, and having not been a super star college sports ball player. I feel like such an inferior person than you.

But you want to know what, I have a bigger penis than you!!! You fucking piece of shit loser who has to puff himself up online to make his life have some worth.

Why haven’t you responded to my original question about showing proof that Rubin was suspended specifically because of his comments about booster shots.

And you know what, you are still, and always will be , a whiney little bitch with a small penis!!!

Fucker.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a sharp dividing line;its calle

"So you are saying that you are allowed to take somebody’s vehicle once they start driving for Uber because they have "surrendered [their vehicle] to public control"

I’m saying that if I put my property to public interest I subject myself to "public control" as the courts have put it which is just another word for government regulation. Just because you don’t see the pages and pages of regulation someone offering a service operates under does not mean it does not exist.

I’m going to use the legal terms like "public control" correctly

"When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control."
~Cheif Justice Morrison Waite 1877

If you dont know what it means ask. Don’t assume for yourself that you know the meaning. You are not that smart.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a sharp dividing line;its c

I’m saying that if I put my property to public interest I subject myself to "public control" as the courts have put it which is just another word for government regulation. Just because you don’t see the pages and pages of regulation someone offering a service operates under does not mean it does not exist.

The please school me. Tell me what private property rights one loses the moment they decide to become an Uber driver? You talk about this "regulation", show me what it says. Tell me how much control I loose over my vehicle as an Uber driver.

Either put up or shut up, your babbling ignorant fool. It’s amazing to me that the smarter people try to project themselves to be, the dumber they actually are.

Nobody here actually believes a word you say as you have been proven completely wrong on so many topics, 95% of your posts just get flagged as trolling. As that’s what you are, a garden variety internet troll. And not a very good one at that.

James Burkhardtsays:

Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

The employers of a public school teacher are the school district. The district reports directly to the voters, as the board members are elected officials. The state government passing a law about curriculum subverts that employer/employee relationship, bypasses the voter’s choice for who defines the district curriculum and substitutes state level officials who were chosen for their ability to run a government and uses them as a proxy for the voter-employer, rather than use the local officials chosen for their ability to manage an educational system as said proxy.

Explicitly, the state legislature defining classroom instruction is not the employer defining the cirriculum, but the state. That may be good to establish broad principles but the law in question proscibes not broad prinicples but requires teachers to walk very fine lines, requiring that any discussion of current events actively avoids talking about how the racism of the past (which they must talk about, by law) continues to affect the modern day (like the origins of the drug war in responces to the civil rights movement, in particular the Voting Rights act of 1965 and the Civil rights act of 1968). Or how modern US penal systems directly descend from the use of Jim Crow to reestablish slavery in the only legal form remaining.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

"The employers of a public school teacher are the school district. The district reports directly to the voters, as the board members are elected officials. "

That’s a big misunderstanding of what school boards are. School boards are established by the state legislatures and only exist from the authority delegated to them from the legislature to the local school board.

Tanner Andrewssays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

Many school boards are extensions of county authority, not state.

That sounds so very strange that I should like to hear of the state where this is the case. Certainly in Florida, which is the one with which I am most familiar, the school boards are creatures of the state, provided for in the state constitution, and having taxing authority independent of the counties. I have seen similar in several other states, and none where the counties have authority over the schools.

In some cases the school board and county will agree to use the same district lines, but that is a choice the entities make at their option.

As creatures of the state, rather than of the county, school boards in Florida have certain inherent powers and duties. DeSantis, though a goof, may find it difficult to overcome the constitutional autonomy of school boards in order to dictate local mask policy.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

"Damn son. No wonder you think a public house is literally a house for the public if you think that’s how basic local government works."

A public house was early government mandated rent controlled housing. To supply enough low rent housing the government would require that anyone who wanted to serve alcohol/food also provide low rent rooms in order to be licensed.

In short the state leveraged licensing authority to create low rent housing. I’m sorry that you are too ignorant to not know that there is a huge difference between a 16th century public house and a modern pub.

Its sad that you actually think you won that argument. Dunning Kruger I guess.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Damn, I was going for a funny vote! Can I have one of those instead?

One of these days, I should register and use an account here as there are people like you with whom I enjoy the banter. Especially when it comes to dragging the resident critics a.k.a idiots like Chozen and Koby.

Although, on the converse, I purposely change my writing style, tone and tenor in order to not be so easily identified as one of the common ACs.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

Well, I?ll play mediator here.
A public house, lodging house, was once a thing. They usually had a bar.
And in that idea they date back to the mid 6th century in China

But public house (lodging) and public house (pub/bar) have long since separated. No one logically refers to the public house as a housing unit anymore.
Actually, few use the term public house outside of historical academics.

There are still pubs in the US where you can spend at the bar and get a room for free. If you spend enough. But for traveler’s it?s termed bar and board. The opposite of bed and breakfast.
You spend on food and drink. Sleep for free. And out by dawn. Regardless of sobriety. (Actually the few I?ve tried let you stay later for a fee).
They were common in the wagon days and became real popular with wagon-by-rail period.

But it was never the idea of public housing we have today.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

Well some back story. Dolt over here was throwing everything he could think of to say that you have some kind of constiutional right to forcefully trhow someone off your property when you recind their invitation.

I said no, in almost all states that is battery. Dolt started throwing every example he could think of until he made some stupid reference to a "public house." I’m like wow I haven’t heard that term since I last read John Milton.

Moron over hear goes ‘ah got you a public house is a pub’ he is that stupid. Im like "no its not, pubs evolved from public houses." But Dunning Kruger over here is too stupid to know he is stupid.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

Well some back story. Dolt over here was throwing everything he could think of to say that you have some kind of constiutional right to forcefully trhow someone off your property when you recind their invitation.

To start, you should learn how to spell you fucking idiot.

Actually, you are fucking wrong again. It originally started with a comment of yours stating that it was un-American to kick people off social media.

I responded that people have been kicked out of "public houses" for being assholes since the beginning of this country. I specifically used the term "public house" as that was the term used for a "pub" back in the early days of this country. And it still is used today, there are at least a dozen pubs in my town that have "public house" as part of their name.

You then responded about how I know nothing of "public housing" and how hard is to evict somebody, yada yada yada… You then went on a long tirade about evictions, public housing, etc, etc, etc.

Out of everybody here who reads the comments, you were the ONLY person that thought the term "public house" meant "public housing" in the sense of government owned property.

Yes, a public house of times past quite often offered rooms to let for travelers, etc. Today we would call that an "inn". But that in no way makes it "public housing" as you were describing.

On the other comments, I commented that I owned a restaurant with my wife, and we "reserved the right to refuse service" to anybody and if we wanted to, we could kick anybody out that we wanted (other than the case of discriminating against protected classes; race, religion, sex, etc.).

You then responded that we needed a hired security professional with a state issued license in order to have somebody removed from the restaurant. And again, everybody else here laughed at you.

Next, you made a comment that a person, once legally allowed to enter a private property, can not be removed when asked. I pointed out that you have no idea how trespassing laws work. Once you tell somebody, who was once "legally" invited / allowed into your private property, that they are no longer welcome, if they do not leave, that is trespassing. Every state has laws that allow you to use force, if needed, to remove a trespasser. Some states will even allow you to shot somebody for trespassing. But you still insisted that only "backwards states" such as Texas have laws like that…. mainly because I spent 5 seconds on google and that was the 1st law I found.

You show your ignorance of the law constantly here, everybody else mocks you because of it. And you keep coming back, doubling down on your ignorance, proving to us all that you have no idea about that which you speak.

And now, since I have managed to keep trolling you, you have showed your true colors. Mr. I am 7 foot 50, weigh 350 pounds, was a college athlete, have 80 degrees, and basically think you are superior than everybody else here.

All I can say is that everybody here mocks you, we all realize that you are an idiot, you know nothing of private property laws. You still to this day double down on your stupidity of confusing a "public house" with "public housing", your ignorance of private property laws, and now that you think you need to puff yourself up online, we all now realize how small of a man (or woman for that matter) you actually are.

The thing that makes me laugh the most, is you keep coming back, and you keep getting smacked down, put in your place, and everybody is basically laughing at you for the things you say.

Also, you have never answered my question you fucking whiney little bitch.

bhull242says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler

Setting aside the fact that you?re mostly wrong here, let?s talk about the whole ?battery? thing and pretend that?s true.

Okay, so that means that there are limitations on the means that can be taken to remove a trespasser and/or who can do the removing. It doesn?t put any conditions on whether someone can remove a trespasser by some means, nor does it in any way restrict whether or why a person can be declared a trespasser to begin with or whether or why that trespasser can be removed once they are declared a trespasser.

When we?re saying ?kick someone out? in these discussions, the ?how? they are kicked out is immaterial to the point we?re making. Unless you?re willing to claim that having your content or your account on an online platform like a social media site suspended, deleted, banned, or removed is battery (or even assault), the limitations on ?how? the removal may take place that you?ve mentioned don?t really apply to such platforms at all.

That One Guysays:

Now tell us what you REALLY think texas republicans...

‘Teaching that racism exists is terrible, divisive and makes the racists feel bad so that’s right out! Now about those ‘the jews had it coming, sometimes terrorists have a point and vaccines are the mark of the beast and cause autism’ posts that social media must host…’

Always nice when politicians slip up and tell everyone what they really think even if it’s all sorts of disturbing(if not in any way surprising at this point) that ‘pro-holocaust, pro-terrorism and anti-vaxx-in-the-middle-of-a-gorram-pandemic‘ are apparently top priorities of things to not just protect but enshrine as untouchable positions for texas republicans.

That One Guysays:

Re: Re: Nope

Unfortunately texas republicans just passed the legal equivalent of ‘If the KKK and/or neo-nazis decide to camp out on your lawn and you try to kick them off they can sue you for doing so’, so apparently in texas it’s not your lawn if certain bigots and/or nutjobs decide to make use of it.

DocGerbil100says:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nope

That’s a very good point you’ve made, Sumgai. I haven’t time to do the research right now, but is there anything in Texas law to stop FB, et al, from simply applying an increasingly-chunky rental fee to users it deems undesirable?

Even arguing against something like that would seem tricky for the supposedly pro-business Republicans. I mean, the government forcibly setting rates for non-essential private businesses to charge their customers? Their speechwriters would be dying from aneurysms in droves.

I could well be wrong, but it sounds an awful lot like an excellent plan to me. >:D

Woadansays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Nope

Well, never underestimate the ability of Republicans to twist logic in whatever way is necessary to support their position. They already changed their "position" on whether a sitting President gets to nominate a SCOTUS associate justice. And they intend to impeach Biden if they hold the House or Senate after the 2022 mid-term elections. And let’s not forget how deficit spending is good if done by a Republican-led House/Senate, but bad if done by a Democrat-led one.

For better or for worse, until they lose badly in national legislative elections, and probably state-level as well, they aren’t going to learn their lesson. And even then, maybe not.

Anonymoussays:

Maybe they just really want to project marginalized groups.

/s

TBH I would really really like for Holocaust denial-ism, terrorist content, and vaccine disinformation to be the off springs of marginalized groups (that is: I think people pushing those should be marginalized because other, non-crazy humans do not want to be associated with their shit).

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

The misinformation was saying that boosters were coming.

Nice way to cherry pick what he said.

"They want a federal vaccine mandate for vaccines which are clearly not working as promised just weeks ago. People are getting and transmitting Covid despite vax. Plus now they’re prepping us for booster shots. A sane society would take a pause. We do not live in a sane society," Rubin tweeted Thursday evening.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/media/dave-rubin-twitter

So if we break down his tweet, there are many things that he said that could have given him the suspension, and most likely it was his statement that the vaccines are "clearly not working".

So, where is your specific proof that he was suspended because of his specific statement about the booster shot? And if you have no proof, how do you expect us to believe anything else you have to say?

Also, you have been spewing your delusional nonsense (public house vs public housing; trespassing laws don’t exist; defamation laws in general) long enough to know that Mike’s most prevalent statement is that content moderation is impossible to do at scale and there will always be mistakes made.

How does this instance of Dave Rubin lie outside of anything that Mike has ever written about? (Even though there is some clear cut misinformation about the vaccine not working)

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

Oh look its the idiot that doen’st know the difference between a 16th century public houase and a 21st century pub. Also doesn’t know the difference between a consitutional right and a legal privlage.

I said in my very first post that it varies from state to state but the general rule is you cannot forcefully remove someone from your property if they have not used force against you. Your ass must have searched every single state codes to just find the exception Texas. Stupid stupid stupid!!! A leftists having to praise Texas law which is an exception not the rule.

And inst a constitutional right its a legal privilege.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

No matter what you say about public house and trespassing laws, you are wrong.

Also, nice way to avoid the larger request of my comment:

where is your specific proof that he was suspended because of his specific statement about the booster shot? And if you have no proof, how do you expect us to believe anything else you have to say?

As well as the following:

How does this instance of Dave Rubin lie outside of anything that Mike has ever written about? (Even though there is some clear cut misinformation about the vaccine not working)

Let me guess, you have no good faith answer so decided not to respond.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

Let me guess, you have no good faith answer so decided not to respond.

Just what I though you fucking whiney little bitch!

Also, do me an experiment, go into your local public house and start yelling racial slurs and other derogatory remarks, and tell me how long it takes before before you are forcibly removed by somebody who doesn’t have some fictitious license needed in your fantasy world to kick somebody out of their privately owned business.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

Well Im a big dude. 6’2" 250lb former college athlete. I’ll beat the piss out of you. You are the kind of person who needed get the @#%^ kicked out of them more when they were a kid.

I’ve worked security at establishments where some nut job was doing exactly what you describe. You cool the individual, call the cops and try your best to lead them too the door. Until they engage in physical violence you cant physically throw them out, in most states got to keep adding that caveat in there or morons like you will cite Texas/Alabama or some other backwards ass law.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

Well Im a big dude. 6’2" 250lb former college athlete. I’ll beat the piss out of you.

Anybody who thinks they need puff themselves up online like you just did, all suffer from the same thing…. small penis syndrome.

You may be able to beat me up, or I may be bigger and tougher than you, we’ll never know. But what I do know, I got a much bigger cock than you do!

And because you still refuse to answer my original question about proving what you said, that still makes you a little bitch, you whiney little bitch!

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

"And because you still refuse to answer my original question about proving what you said, that still makes you a little bitch, you whiney little bitch!"

I answered you question little man because working security is how I made money on the side in college because the NC double assholes wont let scholarship athletes have jobs. Bouncing is a great cash money job that lots of athletes do in college to make side money behind the back of the NCAA.

Now as I said in retort to the original claim that there exists some kind of Constructional property right to engage in physical someone to remove them from your property is a misconception. There is no such Constructional right and in most states its illegal.

You can only engage in force if the other person has engaged in force first. Its not an issue of trespass. Yes they may be trespassing if you have told them to leave but you still have no property right to physically kick them out. That is battery. You have to call the cops or have someone with state approval like licensed security throw them out.

Now the states do individuals legal privilege to do such like the aforementioned licensed security, which is the case in almost all states, or a backwards ass state like Texas may grant a legal privilege in their law, but a legal privilege isn’t the same as a right.

bhull242says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

I answered you question little man because working security is how I made money on the side in college because the NC double assholes wont let scholarship athletes have jobs. Bouncing is a great cash money job that lots of athletes do in college to make side money behind the back of the NCAA.

The question asked:

[W]here is your specific proof that [Dave Rubin] was suspended because of his specific statement about the booster shot? And if you have no proof, how do you expect us to believe anything else you have to say?

Your first ?answer?:

Well Im a big dude. 6’2" 250lb former college athlete. I’ll beat the piss out of you. You are the kind of person who needed get the @#%^ kicked out of them more when they were a kid.
I’ve worked security at establishments where some nut job was doing exactly what you describe. You cool the individual, call the cops and try your best to lead them too the door. Until they engage in physical violence you cant physically throw them out, in most states got to keep adding that caveat in there or morons like you will cite Texas/Alabama or some other backwards ass law.

First of all, that does not answer the question. At all. What does that have to do with Dave Rubin?

Second, in most states, the law says that the amount of force used to physically remove someone from your private property that they have no ownership of must be proportional. In most of those states, it is considered a right, not a privilege, to use proportionate force to remove a trespasser. Maybe that wasn?t the case in your state, but that is neither here nor there for several reasons.

Third, you talk about ?backwards ass states like Texas? as if they don?t count, but we?re specifically talking about a Texas law here.

Fourth, you?re only talking about the amount of appropriate force to remove a trespasser, not when, why, or how you can declare someone a trespasser or whether that trespasser can be removed from the premises at all by someone.

So this claim:

You can only engage in force if the other person has engaged in force first. Its not an issue of trespass. Yes they may be trespassing if you have told them to leave but you still have no property right to physically kick them out. That is battery. You have to call the cops or have someone with state approval like licensed security throw them out.

is wrong (in most states) and irrelevant here. I mean, when you kick someone off your platform, you aren?t physically kicking them out, so there?s no issue of battery at all. This isn?t a discussion of how to remove someone from the property once the decision is made that they are to be removed. This is a discussion of how or when to make the decision to remove them at all by whatever means are legal, necessary, and/or appropriate. So, any laws in place regarding how to exercise the right to have someone removed from your property are completely immaterial here.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

Let me guess, you’re the kind of chap that also thinks that they need a "force multiplier" like Michael Drejka did. What the fuck is it with high school jocks who think it’s insightful as shit to boast about their glory days? That’s not confidence. That’s insecurity.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

"You are the kind of person who needed get the @#%^ kicked out of them more when they were a kid."

Whereas you appear to be the kind of immature loser who never learned that when you resort to physical violence, you already lost the argument. Doubly so, the kind of loser who thinks that boasting about his physical prowess online impresses people rather than makes them laugh at what a pathetically small man they are?

"I’ve worked security at establishments"

Oh, is that why you came up with the idiotic fantasy that professional security is required for any small business to enforce their rules? You want your old job back, and your current hobby of whining like a little bitch online isn’t giving you the roid rage high you crave?

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

Yep. That sounds like the typical jock bully. Bib muscles, small brain.
See tang do tang.
See nerd beat nerd.
See food eat food.

Aka: monkey see monkey do.

How many of you got throughout school because people like me did all your assignment?
I?m in tech. What?s your job?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

I?m in tech. What?s your job?

LOL!!!

You, tech… Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha….

Ok, you may be in "tech" but that doesn’t give you any credibility as to your smarts.

For example, in this comment of yours, one post over, you open by basically admitting you have no idea how markdown works and how to do a quote on this site.

Oh, and for fun, here is me schooling you on how to properly do block quotes with markdown on this site.

How many of you got throughout school because people like me did all your assignment?

It appears that I would have been the one doing your assignments.

At least you are useful for a good laugh, and laughing is a very healthy thing to do!! (BTW, that link points to the Mayo Clinic.)

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

Whelk, when people use anonymous I have no idea which one I?m directly replying too.
But the comment was about the big man kicking the crap out of someone.

That said:

basically admitting you have no idea how markdown works
I?m well versed in markup methods. It?s my my fault this site using some less common. And not any more difficult to read text inside quotes now? is it. When properly separate by line breaks.

how to do a quote on this site.
Yep, this site?s markup is a bit different than most I interact with.

It appears that I would have been the one doing your assignments.
Possibly, but not likely. Most big athletes who go around kicking the crap out of people they don?t like tended to be less than the best in academics. Not every single one, but the good majority.

If you are mr/mrs athlete feel free to answer the job question.
I?m a security researcher and bug hunter.
I?ll wander into repair and service at times but generally like to stick to code.
That I didn?t go hunting for what specific command to use in replace ?quote? when the other markup commands I?ve used here worked doesn?t reflect anything more than my lack of interest in not using ? ? for quotes.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Roman_history#1st_century_BC

Ohkay, they weren?t always called gladiators. But men who fought, who were slaves, and who could be freed with the option of citizenship via wins.
I know of 4, 3 were to be elected, one did become one.
We have a consoler who hired mercenaries to kill his opponents pre election.
We have a legate who poisoned a senator to take his spot, who was then killed by another freed fighter before taking his seat.
And one who was arrested for bribery.

And Titus Novus, who became a senator at the end of the republic and fled his seat for Northern Egypt to return to fighting.

Gladiators don?t make good senators. Not that most of senators were all that good of their own doings.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

"Yep. That sounds like the typical jock bully. Bib muscles, small brain."

That sounds like a typical millennial talk shit and threaten battery

"tell me how long it takes before before you are forcibly removed by somebody who doesn’t have some fictitious license needed in your fantasy world to kick somebody out of their privately owned business."

And when I tell you that I will kick your ass if you try, you run to the teacher. You made the origional threat. I’m only telling you what will happen if you try.

Your generation is a joke.

I got a good anecdote for that too because I was just in Hawaii. Millennial surfer came over top of me. I paddled over to him asked him what the hell he was thinking, he talks a bunch of crap about kicking my old ass.

Like all Gen-X I tell him

‘You and me on the beach now!’

I paddle back to the beach and the kid stayed out for 2 hours refusing to come in.

Your generation are nothing but cowards. You talk a bunch of shit and when challenged you run and cry.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

"I?m in tech. What?s your job?"

Professional engineer with a masters in electrical engineering, triple bachelors in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Computer Science.

You?

I’m not surprised you work in tech? Most "tech" act like spoiled children. That’s why they say they want TOS to be legal contracts then bitch moan and complain like the brats they are when those contracts are regulated like any other contract. Which is this thread in its entirety.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

That sounds like a typical millennial talk shit and threaten battery
I?m gen x and where did I threaten anyone?

you run to the teacher

I?m a bit past that. Lol. Maybe a decade ago I could have run to myself? Given class engagement is part of a (most) masters program.

Your generation is a joke.

My generation gave you home computers, advanced video games,
The internet, and this very site. Sure, I was still a kid when games started to be a thing? you know, pong. But I was an adult in the workforce for the biggest tech era.

Like all Gen-X

Your projecting.

Job?You?

AS in information technology
BS in computer science,
AD in applied mathematics
BS in applied mathematics
MS in theoretical mathematics.

Currently I?m a bug hunter. But I have a short attention span and have bounced around for decades.

Most "tech" act like spoiled children.

Most engineers act like silver spoon gods.

contracts

Uh, given I support legal teeth for tos I think your mixing up posts too.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

"My generation gave you home computers, advanced video games,"

Your generation? Since you are saying my generation and not our generation I have to take that statement as meaning you are a boomer.

And I hate to break the news to you but if you are a Boomer your generation didn’t do shit.

If you actually look, I mean actually look what you will see is a generational black hole.

You wont see many boomers in the big names of the 20th Century tech boom. You will see a lot of Greatest Generation, and Silent Generation at the start, and then a lot of Gen-X.

The boomers are a black hole. Thats one of the reasons the 70s were such a bad decade economically. The boomers had big plans but then they got high and fumbled the ball. It wasn’t until the mids 80s early 90s when generation X got old enough to pick up the ball and run with it that things started moving again.

Just look at the names.

Kahn and Creff – TCP/IP – Silent generation
Cooper – Mobile Phone – Silent Generation
Zuse – Programable Computer – Greatest Generation
Baer – Videogame Consul – Silent Generation
Tomlinson – e-mail – Silent Generation
Sutherland – GUI – Silent Generation
Johnson – Touch Screen – Silent Generation
Easton – GPS – Silent Generation
Masuoka – Flash Memory – Silent Generation
Russle – Optical Disk – Silent Generation
Yokozawa – Laptop – Silent Generation

Sorry I just have stop

If we go chronologically we just end up with the great mid to late 80s early 90s young Gen-Xers we all know about.

The only 2 real exceptions are people like Gates and Jobs but in a way they rode a wave Gen-X created. They had controlled the PC market for close to 2 decades before Gen-X made the market boom by giving a use for the PC that everyone wanted.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

Professional engineer with a masters in electrical engineering, triple bachelors in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Computer Science.

And I am 6’40", weigh 260 pounds, was heavyweight boxing champion, all-pro linebacker, all-star pitcher, championship winning forward, best goalie ever, and to top it off, leading dancer on Dancing with the Stars!

I am also a surgeon, a lawyer, professional electrical, mechanical, civil and industrial engineer, I have 10 bachelors, 8 masters, an MD, JD, 5 PhDs not to mention my 3 post-docs in animal nutrition. I have been mayor in 10 major US cities, plus 3 more in Europe. I hold 8 passports from various countries due to me being such a perfect specimen of the human male.

First, nobody believes you, nor does anybody care.

Second, you must have a very low self-esteem to feel the need to puff your self up like this, online, to a bunch of internet randos.

Third, people like you always suffer from small-penis syndrome.

Fourth, you are still a fucking idiot that doesn’t know the difference between a public house and public housing.

Fifth, you are still a fucking idiot that doesn’t understand how trespassing laws work.

Sixth, you still haven’t answered my original question, what proof do you have that Dave Rubin was suspended for the very specific reason that he mentioned booster shots.

Seventh, you are still a whiney little bitch who feels he needs to puff himself up online so people might thing he is both a big tough guy who is also smarter than everybody else.

Eight, fuck off you whiney little bitch.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

"A person at a conveyer belt fitting plugs is technically an engineer."

The ignorance if this site never ceases to amaze me. If someone is a PE having passed put in their time as an EIT and passed the NCEES national exam for their field of engineering.

You show that you have no life since you don’t know this. Like how Stephen T. Stone quickly revealed that he is a millennial loser who’s never owned any property living in his parents basement because he didn’t know what a plat map is.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time

My statement is factual. Even it it stings. You failed to qualify your level of position initially.
That?s on you, not me.

Damn, I hate the fact that I mostly don’t like your positions, but comments like this make me like your comments like this.

I will still mock you for being a Trump supporter, but I like your ability to talk shit when it’s appropriate.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How T

I just don?t like fake bastard cowards.
I?m not a people person.

I spent the first 15 years of my life bullied. Until one day I had enough, punched back. Beat the shite out of the kid, literally, pulled the emergency bar an the back door of the bus and shoved his arse out. Also literally.
it was a red light
My first run in with the police? as a squad happened to be behind the bus.
Never had another run in with him though.

I spent freshman year of high school dealing with a prick math teacher who coached football. Who was forever piss off that I didn?t give a fuck about his class and spent time with the nerds/losers in the back of th room playing with tech. He?d fling chalk stick at my ear. Fucker had great aim. But I always showed him up. Perfect correct answer every time.
I got my second suspension when I told him ?it?s not my fault I?m smarter than you?. I really did mean it just as I said it.

I understand the many tech hero?s who dropped out. School pissed me off to no end.

But unlike jock idiots, I don?t have a god complex.
I personally just want to be left alone in general. But don?t trot out bull credentials. I?ll skool you every time.

I do what I do and I?m good at it. I?m sterol and can?t have kids. So honestly I don give a single fuck what happens in 2100. My family line is ending at myself and my sister.
Good luck to everyone else.
I just want a happy fruitful life before I become fertiliser

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh H

I just want a happy fruitful life before I become fertiliser

Deepthroating a guy responsible for much of the administrative machinations that encouraged the spread of COVID-19, instead of fighting it, is not fruitful by any stretch of the imagination. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flie

You?re not helping your case.
I?m A+, Net+, iNet+, an CISB certified.
That means nothing.

A lawyer who passed the bar exam is a good study.

I passed the MCIS, MCST, MCSI, HPCT, and CSIS test. You?

Come back and brag when you have Cisco, Microsoft, and HP under your belt.

Want to put your name on the line? I will pay for your tests for Cisco and HP if you pass.
I stand by it. Look up my name on Bing, I?ve paid for dozens who managed to pass the Cisco and HP tests.

The Cisco and HP tests are the hardest to pass in tech world wide.
They cover everything from vac tube mainframes to quantum computing.

Come back with a complete set from those two companies and I?ll happily send you a certified teller?s cheque.
We need more competent tech in this country!
Want proof, take a look at my history at AOL, SuperBay, Git, Boardsort, Tfreak, and Tom?s.
The money is good. I may not make much, but my family inheritance is large enough to play a bit in Philanthropy.
Which is what i use it for.

Prove your claimed degrees are more than derail box paper.
Pass one and I?ll prepay and register you for the other.

FYI, the HP test passes less than 10 per 500.
So honestly: good luck.
I spent a fortune failing that ever-changing test before finally passing it.

Here?s a hint, learn IPX, 8086, ARM, and AMD64 assembly.
Unix, MACH, DRIVe, and Windows.
Dbase, Fman, SQL, Pearl, Pascal, C/+/#/++/D?
BBSCode, HTML, XML, and RTF
TEX, Wiki, and Hops markup

Having a Mac is a plus as you can boot camp Darwin for the real bare metal Mach experience without building from scratch.

Learn it, love it, lead it!

????

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

Wow, you must be what, 150 years old?
10 bachelors. Assuming 3 at a time, and finishing in 3 years per set:
We?re at 9 years there. I figure you took that 10th GBD while getting your first to masters so that?s another, let?s push, 3 years.
7 masters in 12 years? Possibly?

So 24 now.
3-5 on MD if you pass certification.
Those residencies and fellowships add a decade.
37 years?

5 PhDs in 10 years, and 3 for the JD.
50 years!
And 40 years as mayor! Overachiever!!!
I?ll assume some crossover in politics with those PhDs.
So if you started post Ed at 10 like the genius you obviously are, you?re over 90. Add Europe and you are what? 95?

I like math! Hehe ????

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

I like math! Hehe ????

Mr. Lost,

I think you are fucking ass-backwards in your political convictions and support of the Trump fucker.

But unlike others of your ilk, you at least stand up and (attempt) to defend your indefensible ass-backwards views.

But also unlike others of your ilk, comments like this make me realize that you actually aren’t really as whacked out as your ideals would make me think you are.

I will always attack your Trump centric ideals, and I will be rude while doing so, calling you a fucking idiot when you are defending those Trump centric ideals.

But a comment like this, makes me glad you are here, you realize that my fucking idiot comments are nothing but hyperbole, and you still come back and drop some great comments (sometimes… ok.. rarely)

Anyway I like math too, but I do have one correction to your math. Many of my math / engineering curriculums allowed me to take master’s level class that counted as both masters and undergrad credits. So with that in mind, you can take about 3 years off your calculations. ????

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flie

Ah, hell. I made a mistake.
But again, I majored in theory. Not practical math.
But I wrote two published theories in school. One for an applied achievement credit masters (theoretical science) on the premise of faster than light travel,
The other on the historical significance of 7 and 9.
Both are free on scribd.

I constantly reply I don?t fit any party proper.
Don?t take my gun. I like wild food. Be it squirrel or possum or elk. It?s all good to me.
Don?t tax me more. I?m a disabled vet, on SS, and fall under the poverty level.
And living on the outer rim of Chicago I suffer from the ?progressive? taxes.
And make too much to pay nothing and not enough to pay for everything.
Mainly because I?m good at what I do. There isn?t a system today I can?t compromise, eventually.
Bug bounties create quick windfalls that lock out SSD payments.

But o generally fall into the standard non-progressive camp for Dems.
I am not, have never been, and never will be, a Republican.

If you didn?t know I voted for trump you?d never guess I was one to do so outside of political discussion.

I came here, for tech coverage. Somewhere it became political.

Generally, though, I?m all for legitimate discussion. I?m more open minded than any Republican you?ll likely come across.
I just dislike rude name calling as the first and only reply.

I?m also far more worldly than most Reps or Dems. I really do have Japanese residency permission. Something very difficult to qualify for.
I have close friends around the world.

Simply put, I hate the Clinton family. I can not ignore we?re on the wrong side of Ukraine?s genocide of ethnic Russians.

And I firmly believe the physical evidence that Biden has dementia.

The other choice in both cases was trump.
That?s all the more there is to it.

My defence, is nothing more than for the good things he accomplished. Every president has good and bad.
Trump is far better than Carter was.
You may hate him, like I hate Clinton, but you can?t deny he did good things , not in good faith.
The positive/negative ratio is opinion. But again, at least it wasn?t another Carter.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time

I am not, have never been, and never will be, a Republican.

But damn you will snap your disabled veteran back in half to make the bad fee-fees go away on their behalf.

at least it wasn?t another Carter

Ah, the "at least we didn’t get Hilary Clinton in 2016" argument. I thought the team you supported was supposed to be winning. What the fuck is with all this lowering of the goalposts?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

It’s not difficult to imagine.

Millennials these days burn themselves out with plenty of bloated qualifications because "market forces".

Hustle culture is an even bigger thing for them than it was for Gen-X. At the very least when Gen-X hustled it generally paid off. When millennials hustle these days you can’t even get most people to spit in their general direction, unless the stars align on the 31st of June.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flie

"Millennials these days burn themselves out with plenty of bloated qualifications because "market forces"."

I didn’t burn myself out at all. Carefully selected the school that gave me an offer with the best engineering program. The program was a 5 year double major program which was perfect for me because I intended to redshirt my freshman year and had no intention of playing professionally so I was going to be in school for 5 years anyways.

I chose computer science and computer engineering as my double major. There is a lot of overlap between computer engineering (CPE) and electrical engineering (EE) in terms of classes. By my junior year I found that I liked the EE classes better, especially power systems, I also saw the brick wall that was coming for "Tech" even before the 2001 market crash. Power was simply a better field for the long term. I carefully looked at the major requirements and saw that if I chose the right electives, classes that count for both CPE and EE, I would only be 3 300 level classes from also completing the requirements for a EE. So I finished my double major in 5, paid for 1 semester out of pocket after my scholarship ran took the remaining 3 EE classes and got my EE in 5 and a half. I graduated with 3 degrees in 5 and a half years and not a penny of debt.

I’ve worked in power systems my entire life since graduating. I never spent a day in my life working in "tech" despite the other 2 degrees. But they are extremely helpful as that plays such a large role in the industry today with computer controls taking over what used to be analog.

After a few years I just started taking one to two night classes a semester until I got my masters. It was really cool hybrid management/engineering program. So you take a high level engineering class one semester and a regulatory law class the next.

Its not so Hustle culture its just having better foresight and planning. If you look at the sharp increase in diagnosed personality disorders amongst millennials, generation narcissist they have been called, its not hard to see why they suck. People with personality disorders are poor long term strategic thinkers. They can be brilliant short term tactical thinkers but they always screw themselves in the long game.

That inability to do what I and other Gen-X did and just set a solid long term plan and stick with it is why Millennials are such failures. A millennial would think it takes like 10 years to get 3 degrees because that is what it would take them.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time

You cashed in on a trend. Big whoop. These days you don?t plan for anything, not when lecturers are telling you to forget stocking in a job for more than two, three years because volatility and uncertainty is how the world works these days. A plan is useless when your boss tells you ?fuck you, got mine? and tosses you out with no acknowledgment or progression.

But hey, don?t take my word for it. One glance at international trends, particularly in developed economies will tell you enough. Businesses demand First World workers and pay them Third World salaries while spouting the same tired tropes like you that everyone else after your generation is a bum that has to be treated like garbage. The one upside is that eventually, your usefulness as a patsy will run out too, like Jack Ma and his ?996 working schedule? advocacy.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies

In what world do I have to agree with everything anyone says if I’m to agree with them at all. I’m not a leftist moron. I know this is a hard concept for someone such as yourself to grasp. You clearly have no sense of self so being an individual onto yourself is a hard concept for you.

Chozensays:

I Read the Act

Mike you are simply lying. I read the act. The bill establishes a process for removing content and persons. The additiosn are attempts to create exceptions that let Big Tech ignore the process.

"Sec.A143A.006.AACONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter
does not prohibit a social media platform from censoring expression
that:
(1)AAthe social media platform is specifically
authorized to censor by federal law;

(2)AAis the subject of a referral or request from an
organization with the purpose of preventing the sexual
exploitation of children and protecting survivors of sexual abuse
from ongoing harassment;

(3)AAdirectly incites criminal activity or consists of
specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group
because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin
or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge; or
(4)AAis unlawful expression.

(b)AAThis chapter may not be construed to prohibit or
restrict a social media platform from authorizing or facilitating a
user?s ability to censor specific expression on the user?s platform
or page at the request of that user."

Notice that these exceptions are only for criminal acts. Not this subjective bull. The site can take down whatever subjective bull it wants but it has to follow a process.

"ec.A120.103.AAREMOVAL OF CONTENT; EXCEPTIONS. (a)AAExcept
as provided by Subsection (b), if a social media platform removes
content based on a violation of the platform?s acceptable use
policy under Section 120.052, the social media platform shall,
concurrently with the removal:
(1)AAnotify the user who provided the content of the
removal and explain the reason the content was removed;
(2)AAallow the user to appeal the decision to remove the
content to the platform; and
(3)AAprovide written notice to the user who provided
the content of:
(A)AAthe determination regarding an appeal
requested under Subdivision (2); and
(B)AAin the case of a reversal of the social media
platform?s decision to remove the content, the reason for the
reversal.
(b)AAA social media platform is not required to provide a
user with notice or an opportunity to appeal under Subsection (a) if
the social media platform:
(1)AAis unable to contact the user after taking
reasonable steps to make contact; or
(2)AAknows that the potentially policy-violating
content relates to an ongoing law enforcement investigation.
Sec.A120.104.AAAPPEAL PROCEDURES. If a social media

H.B.ANo.A20
7 platform receives a user complaint on the social media platform?s removal from the platform of content provided by the user that the user believes was not potentially policy-violating content, the
social media platform shall, not later than the 14th day, excluding
Saturdays and Sundays, after the date the platform receives the
complaint:

(1)AAreview the content;
(2)AAdetermine whether the content adheres to the
platform?s acceptable use policy;
(3)AAtake appropriate steps based on the determination
under Subdivision (2); and
(4)AAnotify the user regarding the determination made
under Subdivision (2) and the steps taken under Subdivision (3)."

Your statement of "are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism." Is nothing more than baldfaced lie.

If the terms of service has a rule against vaccine misinformation that’s fine. But there is a process they have to explain why and allow for a formal appeals process.

Im sorry mike. Maybe if your BigTech overloads didn’t make a joke of contract law but BigTech is so off the rails with how they enforce their terms of service this is needed.

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re: I Read the Act

I told no lies, Chozen. I said the bill was unconstitutional, because it says how a website can and cannot moderate. That’s the unconstitutional part. As we already saw in Florida (which you falsely insisted would be found constitutional).

Why are you so bad at this?

Also, I have no "bigtech overlords". I’m working to help undermine "big tech" as we speak, so if they’re my overlords, they can’t be very happy with my writing on how to destroy them. That would be weird.

Finally, how is "big tech" "off the rails" with "how they enforce their terms of service." Be specific.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act

Oh motte and baily much? You said that social media and and I quote "are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism."

Now with the motte "forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism" unable to hold to you retreat to the baily of

"I said the bill was unconstitutional, because it says how a website can and cannot moderate."

And no Mike, the bill dictates how terms of service which are legal contracts are to be enforced. States have every right to dictate how contracts are drafted and enforced in their states.

BigTech in the 90s.

‘Oh we want our TOS treated as legal contracts.’

BigTech today ‘Oh we meant we just wanted the upside of legal contracts like waving liability and setting jurisdiction, not the downside like state regulation’.’

Tough shit Mike! They wanted TOS to be treated as legal contracts they get the whole packaged. If you don’t want state regulation don’t have a contract. The moment you have a contract you surrender to state regulation.

BigTech has proven itself incapable of abiding by even the most common of contract law. Its so bad they seldom even bother to cite the TOS when sued because they are so vague and arbitrarily enforced that they aren’t worth the paper they are not printed on. But they will still try and get venue changed to Cali.

Its about time states stepped in and held this industry to some basic standards as much as they make a mockery of contract law.

Stephen T. Stonesays:

Re: Re: Re:

the bill dictates how terms of service which are legal contracts are to be enforced

Ergo, it dictates how websites can and can?t moderate. Man, you?re bad at this.

Its about time states stepped in and held this industry to some basic standards as much as they make a mockery of contract law.

Whose speech do you believe Facebook and Twitter should be forced by law to host??antivaxxers, terrorists, and/or Holocaust deniers?

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act

Oh motte and baily much?

Lol. Did you just learn that term? Because this is not that.

And no Mike, the bill dictates how terms of service which are legal contracts are to be enforced. States have every right to dictate how contracts are drafted and enforced in their states.

No. The 1st Amendment gives sites the ability to moderate how they see fit. It is not about contracts.

Tough shit Mike! They wanted TOS to be treated as legal contracts they get the whole packaged

You are too stupid for me to go any further on this. Seriously, stop it. This is dumb even for you.

bhull242says:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act

And no Mike, the bill dictates how terms of service which are legal contracts are to be enforced. States have every right to dictate how contracts are drafted and enforced in their states.

Not when it infringes on 1A rights like this.

Tough shit Mike! They wanted TOS to be treated as legal contracts they get the whole packaged. If you don’t want state regulation don’t have a contract. The moment you have a contract you surrender to state regulation.

Not necessarily. Regulation of what is or isn?t a legal contract is actually quite limited.

BigTech has proven itself incapable of abiding by even the most common of contract law.

Like what? Can you name a single instance of this?

Its so bad they seldom even bother to cite the TOS when sued because they are so vague and arbitrarily enforced that they aren’t worth the paper they are not printed on.

No, it?s because of ?230. They don?t need to cite the TOS in most cases because ?230 protects them. (So does the 1A, for that matter.)

But, you know what? Let?s go with the whole ?breach of contract? thing, just for kicks and giggles. If the contract expressly states that it can be severed by either party at any time (which most TOS does) without monetary penalty, then either party can unilaterally revoke the benefits of the contract for both parties. That?s pretty basic contract law right there. In this case, there was no monetary compensation for either party, and in booting someone off the platform, they also lose the content that person posted and any future value they may have. That?s in full keeping with lawful breach of contract. (You can only successfully sue over an unlawful breach of contract.)

It?s also worth noting that most companies use a lot of vague TOS in their contracts when dealing with stuff like this, not just Big Tech, so this is actually fairly standard in contract law, and not just in this particular industry, either.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act

Oh and I would also like to add Mike that you apparently favor including "vaccine misinformation" in a section in such a way as to make it on par with " preventing the sexual exploitation of children."

You are sick Mike! That you even think its appropriate to equate the two is sick!

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act

" That’s the unconstitutional part. As we already saw in Florida (which you falsely insisted would be found constitutional)."

I never said that because I know how bad of a judge judge Hinkle is. I never expected Hinkle to rule any other way. He is an extreme left-wing ideologue. I did chime in when the judge Hinkle made his decision and said that I expect him to be overturned … again … because he is a bad judge who writes poor decisions and is using the same legal arguments he used in his last major decision that was overturned.

I also said you were being stupid taking a victory lap and not even realizing how poorly written the decision was.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Mike Masnick isn't a Texan

But it’s obvious he wants to bash Texans and Texas who have decided on their own how to handle their business.

Ummm, you do realize that there is a thing in our country called "The Constitution" and that this covers all 50 states?

A violation of the 1st amendment is the same no matter which state you live in. This is basic high school civics / government. It never ceases to amaze me at the sheer stupidity of people like you, and most of your ilk seem proud of your stupidity!!

bhull242says:

Re: Re: Mike Masnick isn't a Texan

He?d say (and has said) the same thing about non-Texans as well when they do the same, and he has praised Texas?s Anti-SLAPP Law a number of times, so claiming that ?it’s obvious he wants to bash Texans and Texas? is patently false.

As for them having ?decided on their own how to handle their business?, they?re trying to regulate businesses that are principally in California (a state that Mike happens to reside in) in a way that is inconsistent with federal law (?230) and the US Constitution (1A). So, it?s not Texas or Texans? business to regulate in this way, and it is very much Mike?s business to criticize it.

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re:

The problem with that is that it is useful to bad faith actors who are looking to game the system. And, frankly, the majority of people who are going to be moderated… tend to be bad faith actors looking to game the system.

Either way, REQUIRING that info (even if we agree it would be useful) is blatantly unconstitutional.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don?t know about ? blatantly?.
Looks to me like a breach of contract situation. You agree to be bound by the tos when you register. As such, you have a binding contract.
And if the state want?s to add a specific requirement for exercising contract law? I don?t see that as a problem.

Even in at will contracts, be it employment or a social media service, how is a state mandate of how notification must be made a violation of the constitution?

Stephen T. Stonesays:

Re: Re: Re:

if the state want?s to add a specific requirement for exercising contract law? I don?t see that as a problem.

Doing so would turn every moderation decision??hiding content behind a warning of some sort, deletion of content that violates the ToS, even suspensions and bans??into a situation where courts could (and probably would) be brought into play by those whose speech is moderated. How often do you think Twitter moderators would do their jobs if the higher-ups at Twitter knew every such act could land the company in a courtroom? How often do you think bad faith actors would abuse and eploit such a system for their own benefit?

Requiring moderation decisions to have a legal component baked into them would grind moderation on social interaction networks to a halt. I know you?d love that, considering how you think deleting even a single letter from a single post is the kind of unconscionable and horrific censorship that should be stopped by any and all means necessary?, collateral damage be damned. For everyone else, watching assholes flood a service with spam and porn and racism and queerphobia because said service would prefer not to deal with the courts every time it moderates would be?less than pleasant.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"Doing so would turn every moderation decision??hiding content behind a warning of some sort, deletion of content that violates the ToS, even suspensions and bans??into a situation where courts could (and probably would) be brought into play by those whose speech is moderated."

Then TOS are not a contract and cannot be treated as such. The very companies that pushed for law that allowed TOS to be contracts now want TOS to be exempt from the rules of contract law.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

?Doing so would turn every moderation decision? ? into a situation where courts could (and probably would) be brought into play by those whose speech is moderated. ?
I don?t see how that would be the outcome if proper notification is given. The bill makes the action quite limited, removal.
Hiding isn?t removal moving isn?t removal. Deletion is removal.

?How often do you think bad faith actors would abuse and eploit such a system for their own benefit??
All of them. But they do so today anyway.

?Requiring moderation decisions to have a legal component baked into them would grind moderation on social interaction networks to a halt. ?
Again, I don?t see that. We?re only talking about removal. The most extreme version of moderation.

?I know you?d love that, considering how you think deleting even a single letter?
Considering I made clear I have no problem decimating a post by removing letters, or converting them to another form, ?

Stephen T. Stonesays:

Re: Re: Re:3

I don?t see how that would be the outcome if proper notification is given.

You said it yourself: ?contract law???the key word there being ?law?. Yeah, most trolls probably wouldn?t go through with any actual legal threats, but dipshits like Marjorie Three-Names and Devin ?I Hate Cows? Nunes absolutely would. So would someone who could find a lawyer/legal outfit willing to help the aggrieved play martyr for a sociopolitical cause. To say such things wouldn?t??or couldn?t!??happen under the system you believe should be in play is, at best, underestimating the power of grievance politics.

Hiding isn?t removal moving isn?t removal. Deletion is removal.

You?re on the side of adding a legal component to content moderation; what form the moderation takes is ultimately irrelevant to that fact.

Considering I made clear I have no problem decimating a post by removing letters, or converting them to another form

Tell me you?re a censor without telling me you?re a censor. (Under your ?any and all deletion is censorship? logic, anyway.)

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

To say such things wouldn?t??or couldn?t!??happen under the system you believe should be in play
That happens anyway.
But all a site has to do to toss the case is show the letter they supplied as to the cause of removal. Case dismissed.
It?s not any harder a burden case wise than to show up and say 230 case dismissed.
On the other hand it does create a notice of act that could be used to help guide people not looking to game the system, the majority, with how to express themselves within the rules.

You?re on the side of adding a legal component to content moderation; what form the moderation takes is ultimately irrelevant to that fact.
Sometimes valuable change requires acts of law.
Much of the positive change in this country wouldn?t have happened without acts of law.

Tell me you?re a censor without telling me you?re a censor.
When the post is removed? It?s been censored from the location it once existed in.
Sometimes censorship is necessary, even if I don?t like it. An act I?ve admitted elsewhere I?ve actively done myself in moderation.
You act within the confines of the rules of the location.
Be it the law of the nation, the law of the town, or the law inside the local bar or web site: when punished for breaking a law (rule) you should be informed of what law (rule) you broke.
I have mixed feelings on appeal. I believe there is a limited right to defend one?s self, but also see an easy case for a new form of abuse.

If I delete delete something, the poster will always know exactly why.

Stephen T. Stonesays:

Re: Re: Re:5

(An FYI for the future: When you quote text, you have to put an empty line between the quoted text and your own for the Markdown formatting to work right.)

all a site has to do to toss the case is show the letter they supplied as to the cause of removal.

If you think that won?t be appealed/challenged/whatever by people with a big enough bankroll and the desire to become a martyr??all in search of a loophole that can be abused to their benefit??you?re deluding yourself.

it does create a notice of act that could be used to help guide people not looking to game the system, the majority, with how to express themselves within the rules

The rules of a given social media service are often clear enough that anyone who doesn?t know how they broke the rules has to be lying. Hell, when I got popped by Twitter for using an anti-queer slur in the context of mocking anti-queer attitudes, I absolutely understood why I got suspended despite my contextual usage of the word.

Anyone who reads the rules and doesn?t understand how to stay within them is better off posting at 4chan?s /b/.

Sometimes valuable change requires acts of law.

If such an act of law changes the landscape of the Internet in ways even you would consider unappealing??possibly even disastrous??you will have no one else to blame for your pushing for such change but yourself.

When the post is removed? It?s been censored from the location it once existed in.

No, it?s been removed. Moderation isn?t censorship because nobody is required to host someone else?s speech and nobody has a right to make others host their speech. Again: A vast difference exists between ?we don?t host that here? and ?you can?t say that anywhere?. Don?t bitch at me if you can?t understand that difference.

when punished for breaking a law (rule) you should be informed of what law (rule) you broke

Yes or no: If I kick someone out of my home for insulting my family, should I be forced by law to tell them why I kicked them out? Hell, should I be forced to post a list of rules for visitors to follow while they?re in my home?

I believe there is a limited right to defend one?s self, but also see an easy case for a new form of abuse.

And that?s why I don?t support adding a ?let?s involve the legal system? component to content moderation: It opens up whole new avenues of abuse that can?t and won?t be as easily closed as a change to a Terms of Service document closing a loophole in those rules.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

you think that won?t be appealed/challenged/whatever

They do so now. Just they do so over deletion and not the reason.

unappealing??possibly even disastrous??you will have no one else to blame for your pushing for such change but yourself.

Well, again I?m focusing on the moderation line of the bill. Not the entirety?
But under that alone there?s no significant change.

No, it?s been removed

yes yes, I know. You like a much more narrow definition of censorship.

Yes or no: If I kick someone out of my home for insulting my family, should I be forced by law to tell them why I kicked them out?

Ideally you would tell them why yourself. Should you legally have be required? Again, mixed feelings. It?s something you should do of your own accord.

But that?s different from tossing a person who states ?vaccinations have harmful side effects and aren?t as reliable as we were told? and saying you broke the rules by.

And that?s why I don?t support adding a ?let?s involve the legal system

Unfortunately as it stands now it?s too easy for people to abuse moderation.
There?s nuance in moderation. And the larger companies ignore it completely. All too quickly we embrace key word computer removals.
Your case is a fine point. You should not have punished.

But too often deletions happen that make zero sense to the poster. With not understanding of why they get tossed for a repeat violation.

There is a difference between being legal and being correct.

If nothing else I like to look for a positive in every law. Here I can at least see a positive.

When I first clicked the lint to The TX bill the latest version wasn?t yet posted. It is now. So I?ll read it and see.

Stephen T. Stonesays:

Re: Re: Re:7

that?s different from tossing a person who states ?vaccinations have harmful side effects and aren?t as reliable as we were told? and saying you broke the rules

How is it different from me kicking someone out of my home for saying something I don?t like? Because that?s what moderation bans are: the owners of private property kicking out someone who said/did something on said property that the owners didn?t like.

as it stands now it?s too easy for people to abuse moderation

Adding the legal system to the mix might introduce some friction in that regard, but it would also open up whole new avenues for abuse that could ultimately affect all social media services.

There?s nuance in moderation. And the larger companies ignore it completely. All too quickly we embrace key word computer removals.

Yeah, yeah, content moderation doesn?t scale. Tell me something new.

Your case is a fine point. You should not have punished.

No, I absolutely should?ve been (and was!). I blatantly broke the rules. Context shouldn?t always be a ?get out of Twitter jail free? card.

too often deletions happen that make zero sense to the poster. With not understanding of why they get tossed for a repeat violation.

Asking for transparency about such situations is fine. Demanding it be a legal mandate? Not so much. Especially since, as has been pointed out, all that will do is encourage the worst kind of rules lawyering from the worst kinds of people.

There is a difference between being legal and being correct.

And when it comes to moderation, ?being correct? is irrelevant to ?being legal?. Even mistaken moderation is legal under Section 230.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

To say such things wouldn?t??or couldn?t!??happen under the system you believe should be in play

That happens anyway.
But all a site has to do to toss the case is show the letter they supplied as to the cause of removal. Case dismissed.
It?s not any harder a burden case wise than to show up and say 230 case dismissed.
On the other hand it does create a notice of act that could be used to help guide people not looking to game the system, the majority, with how to express themselves within the rules.

You?re on the side of adding a legal component to content moderation; what form the moderation takes is ultimately irrelevant to that fact.

Sometimes valuable change requires acts of law.
Much of the positive change in this country wouldn?t have happened without acts of law.

Tell me you?re a censor without telling me you?re a censor.

When the post is removed? It?s been censored from the location it once existed in.
Sometimes censorship is necessary, even if I don?t like it. An act I?ve admitted elsewhere I?ve actively done myself in moderation.
You act within the confines of the rules of the location.
Be it the law of the nation, the law of the town, or the law inside the local bar or web site: when punished for breaking a law (rule) you should be informed of what law (rule) you broke.
I have mixed feelings on appeal. I believe there is a limited right to defend one?s self, but also see an easy case for a new form of abuse.

If I delete delete something, the poster will always know exactly why.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

common law

Don’t try to invoke that sovereign citizen nonsense, boyo. out_of_the_blue gave us plenty of practice with that shit, mostly because the one defining feature of sovcits is that they have no idea how to explain what common law means when asked.

keeping social media the wild wild west when it comes to regulatory law

Weren’t you Trumpers bitching about net neutrality because you wanted less government regulation, and you cheered after it got killed off?

bhull242says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mike is a paid shill.

  1. Evidence?
  2. For whom? Social media? He?s criticized every social media platform/company I can think of, so probably not.

His job is to keep out basic common law from applying to social media.

I don?t think you understand the first thing about common law. Hint: It doesn?t contradict anything Mike has said in this article.

Rockysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You didn’t read the proposed law then?

The section you refer to is the section that explicitly determines what can be moderated without liability, any other type of legal content confers liability if moderated – ie moderating posts about Nazi ideals and Holocaust denials means someone can sue the site.

The law is so stupidly written that it explicitly defines what can be moderated "legally". And here’s the kicker: There where no other place else to add amendments of what content can be moderated without liability. You grasp onto something out of context so you can use the old litany of "think of children" as an attack. We are all familiar with that tactic, it’s commonly used by people who are dishonest and stupid.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting

" The problem with that is that it is useful to bad faith actors who are looking to game the system. And, frankly, the majority of people who are going to be moderated… tend to be bad faith actors looking to game the system.

Either way, REQUIRING that info (even if we agree it would be useful) is blatantly unconstitutional."

Very interesting admission here. Given that people in Tech like Jack Dorsey have a history of listening to you I dont think you want to be saying this part out loud. To imply that Tech TOS are deliberately ambiguous to prevent "bad faith actors" from ‘gaming the system’ is a very very very serious admission.

I’ve screen shotted and forwarded this onto Robert Barns and a few other high-profile lawyers who like to sue BigTech. I’m sure they will love to hear that Mike Mansick admits that BigTech’s TOS are written ambiguously on purpose as would any judge in a BigTech case.

Its just a nice little piece of evidence.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting

I’ve screen shotted and forwarded this onto Robert Barns and a few other high-profile lawyers who like to sue BigTech. I’m sure they will love to hear that Mike Mansick admits that BigTech’s TOS are written ambiguously on purpose as would any judge in a BigTech case.

Lawyer (to judge): Your honor, Mike Masnick states that "Big Tech" has purposely ambiguous TOS! That means I can sue Twitter for banning my client.

Judge: Who the fuck is Mike Masnick, and what law states that TOS can’t be written ambiguously?

Lawyer: I don’t know what law. BUT it’s Mike Masnick, you know, he runs Techdirt and that’s what he said!

Judge: What the fuck is Techdirt? Do you have any actual facts based in law to show this court?

Lawyer: Yes, I have this screen shot that some rando name Chozen forwarded to me that shows Mike Masnick from Techdirt says that "big tech" has ambiguous TOS.

Judge: So what law is Twitter breaking by banning your client?

Lawyer: You know, the law that says TOS must not be ambiguous, and since Mike admits they are, they broke the law.

Judge: Section 230 protects Twitter’s moderation decisions regardless of what their TOS states. Also, approach the bench as I am going to bitch slap you for bringing up such a ridiculous argument that sone guy who runs an internet site said that TOS are purposely ambiguous.

Judge: Closer…. Closer….. <WHAM>

Seriously, you really think you are some self-important righteous person. Reading that you have taken a screen shot and forwarding it to some lawyer….

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahhahahahahahahahah

<takes a breath>

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah

I am sure Mike and Twitter are shaking in their boots right now because you sent a screen shot to some lawyer.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

wait a sec…. can’t stop laughing

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

You remind me of a playground bully, who, when you get called out on your stupidity, you have to start making statements like that. "I have written down the time and date you called me stupid and I am forwarding it to the teacher"

You do realize, that every time you make a post, you just keep proving to all of us what an idiot you really are.

Also, you still haven’t answered my question on your proof of why Rubin was banned you whiney little bitch!

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting

"Judge: Who the fuck is Mike Masnick, and what law states that TOS can’t be written ambiguously?"

Mike Mansick is the founder of the silicon valley think tank The Copia Institute. His writitngs are easily provable to have influenced the decision of BigTech executives such as Jack Dorsey. See attached exhibits relating to his "Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech" paper and its subesquent adoption by Twitter and other big Tech Platforms.

Judge: I see there is a prima facscia case that the defendents do both listen to him and act on his recomedations.

Lawyer: Correct your honer.

Judge: "what law states that TOS can’t be written ambiguously?"

Lawyer: Uh judge here is the syllabus from your contract law 101 class. Scholl down to week 2. Three things void a contract. 1) The parties are not legal persons. 2) There is no meeting of the minds, contract is ambiguous. 3) Violation of public policy.

Judge: Oh yeah sorry I’m getting old and I’ve been listening to too many ignorant millennials on the internet.

Judge: "Section 230 protects Twitter’s moderation decisions regardless of what their TOS states. Also, approach the bench as I am going to bitch slap you for bringing up such a ridiculous argument that sone guy who runs an internet site said that TOS are purposely ambiguous."

Lawyer: In its response Twitter has cited its terms of service here here and here as they always do. Especially their motion to move venue to California. The ambiguity voids this contract. Furthermore all section 230 immunity decisions must be done in good faith. The admission that the TOS are deliberately written ambiguously is evidence of bad faith so section 230 immunity should be stayed until after discovery.

Judge: Agreed case may move forward in this jurisdiction. After discovery we will revisit section 230 immunity. Motion to dismiss under section 230 denied.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting

Let’s just start with your first statement, just to show the sheer idiocy of it:

Mike Mansick is the founder of the silicon valley think tank The Copia Institute. His writitngs are easily provable to have influenced the decision of BigTech executives such as Jack Dorsey. See attached exhibits relating to his "Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech" paper and its subesquent adoption by Twitter and other big Tech Platforms.

Judge: I see there is a prima facscia case that the defendents do both listen to him and act on his recomedations.

That’s not how any of this works in court.

What the fuck does that have anything to do with an actual court case in front of a Judge. Court cases are about law, not what some Internet site author writes about.

Please point to any court precedent that has been set that is comparable the situation you just described. I’ll wait….

You are so fucking bad at this, it’s almost tiring constantly bitch slapping you like this. Again, every time you post a comment here, you show just how fucking stupid you really are.

Stephen T. Stonesays:

Re: Re: Re:3

I?m not typically prone to ragging on people specifically for their spelling. That said: For someone who likes to act like they?re smarter and stronger and just plain better than everyone?

Mansick

subesquent

prima facscia

honer

Scholl

?I have to wonder if you wrote this post while having a mild stroke.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re:

If an engineer has impeccable spelling he isn’t a very good engineer.

As an engineer, I call bull shit!!!

I may not be exceptional at spelling, but I spend the time to look up my misspelled words so that I can correct them. My browser / OS / text box marks words as misspelled and I make sure everything is spelled correctly before submitting.

Also, I find it hard to believe you are an engineer, as one of the prevailing characteristics of a highly educated engineer is being a perfectionist. Just think about building a bridge and you misspelled something critical enough to cause a catastrophic disaster. Or designing plans for a high rise building. Or building the electronics for the next manned space mission and you don’t take the time to make sure you spelled everything correctly.

Good engineers don’t make mistakes, spelling or otherwise. Mistakes made by an engineer can easily lead to death and destruction.

If you are so unconcerned about making simple spelling mistakes, how many people have died because of your engineering mistakes, if you even are an engineer.

Considering you have puffed yourself up here to make yourself appear as somebody who is super tough, and super smart, most people that feel the need to do so, are the complete opposite of what they claim to be.

And you still haven’t provided proof as to why Rubin was banned. you fucking whiney little bitch!

bhull242says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re:

Lots of engineers I know have excellent spelling, so that?s flat out wrong.

But that aside, if you?re such a bad speller, try using autocorrect or a spell checker or something. It?s not that hard. Smartphones often have them on by default, and PC internet browsers usually have an option for it, too. They?re not perfect, mind, but they should catch things like ?subesquent? at least.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re:

Well, unless you on iOS Dev beta 15.
Where autocorrect does what the hell it wants.

but since I?ve never meet an electrical engineer that wouldn?t run at the sign of code ? it doesn?t matter.

in reality I could technically call myself a professional engineer as well. I?m ASE certified and added a guidance and control engineer certificate.
Here?s the reality, I can plug my phone or laptop in and tell you what is wrong. Then I say take it to a mechanic. Lol.
In other words my family and our friends, tell a quality mec, skip the $75 diagnostic and ?fix this, this, and this, only?.
I have no clue how to fix it or why it needs to be fixed.
😉

I have two Microsoft engineering certificates. That also allows the term Professional engineer.

TLDR: the word engineer means nothing alone. Even when you stick professional in front of it.
No single group has complete control over every use of ?professional engineering?.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Well, unless you on iOS Dev beta 15.
Where autocorrect does what the hell it wants"

This is why proofreading is important – just read what you typed before pressing submit, and correct whatever is wrong. It only takes a moment, and ensures that your message is clear. Unless you’re hammering out comments without thought or care to their accuracy, this isn’t a problem.

"I have two Microsoft engineering certificates"

I’ve met plenty of such people during my career who have them because they studied a braindump-style site and don’t even understand what the answers they memorised mean, let alone anything that wasn’t on the exam. They’re usually the people who get hired because they ticked the right boxes for HR, then get fired a month later because they though that rebooting a production server in the middle of peak business hours was the only solution to a minor caching error. So, I’d take that claim with a pinch of salt.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So, I’d take that claim with a pinch of salt.

Scroll up.

I was picking on Chosen, not bragging.
I was picking on the use of ?professional? as anything special.

Or that some mechanical or electrical group is going to have me arrested for using the term.

And I agree, and stated above, passing the test doesn?t mean crap.

He stuck his 15 foot tall 500 pound 90% muscle 2 foot appendage self out as being a ?professional? engineer.
Like that makes him god.

I?m a ?professional? too. I don?t trot it out every other comment because it means nothing.
What means something? I have 30+ years of practical field experience. Given he has 350 different degrees and is 300 years old and spent 295 of them in school, I?d say I?m a bit better off.

Don?t forget his father was a Celtic Warrior and his mother was a Valkyrie and they created the US from dust and farts.
His grandparents were gods and etc etc etc . ????

bhull242says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting

Mike Mansick is the founder of the silicon valley think tank The Copia Institute.

Irrelevant. Masnick has no other association with Twitter except as a user, and Twitter has no affiliation with The Copia Institute, so anything Masnick has to say cannot be used as evidence against Twitter.

You also haven?t proven that he is the founder of The Copia Institute or that he still is associated with the Institute in any meaningful way.

His writ[ings] are easily provable to have influenced the decision[s] of BigTech executives such as Jack Dorsey.

So what? That Twitter?s decisions can be influenced by Masnick doesn?t prove that anything Masnick says regarding Twitter is material or relevant to the case against Twitter.

See attached exhibits relating to his "Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech" paper and its subesquent adoption by Twitter and other big Tech Platforms.

Masnick was neither the first nor the last to make such a proposal, nor does this prove that Masnick?s statements on Twitter?s TOS are admissible evidence against Twitter.

Judge: I see there is a prima [facie] case that the defendents do both listen to him and act on his [recommendations].

One instance is not evidence of a trend, and that still doesn?t make what he said about TOS admissible evidence in a case against Twitter, making that whole thing irrelevant to begin with. Unless Masnick was personally and directly involved with the decision or was an employee or executive of Twitter, nothing he says can be used to prove a case against Twitter.

Judge: "[W]hat law states that TOS can’t be written ambiguously?"

Lawyer: Uh judge here is the syllabus from your contract law 101 class. Scholl down to week 2. Three things void a contract. 1) The parties are not legal persons. 2) There is no meeting of the minds, contract is ambiguous. 3) Violation of public policy.

You not only can?t spell, you also can?t count. ?No meeting of the minds? and ?contract is ambiguous? are two separate things. Additionally, you forgot one other basic thing that voids a contract: no consideration.

As for ?contract is ambiguous?, that doesn?t actually void a contract. It does require a judge or mediator to decide the most reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous clause based upon a variety of factors, but it?s not enough to render the clause void.

In fact, you?re even conflating finding a particular clause void and finding the entire contract void. Just because a particular clause is void doesn?t make the entire contract void.

The legal persons thing is obviously inapplicable since you can?t have a lawsuit if any plaintiffs or defendants are not legal persons.

As for ?meeting of the minds?, that isn?t necessary in this sort of clickwrap contract, as has been decided in multiple court cases. All that is necessary is that both parties willingly and knowingly agreed to the terms.

Finally, as for public policy, that is rarely used to void a contract (aside from ?choice of venue? clauses, but that is generally severable from the rest of the contract and so doesn?t apply here). Generally, it?d have to involve actually censoring someone (not just moderating content on their platform or kicking off or suspending users from using their platform) or something really huge. None of those would apply to the parts of TOS involving what content can be moderated and such, so this wouldn?t void the contract as it relates to moderation decisions.

Judge: Oh yeah sorry I’m getting old and I’ve been listening to too many ignorant millennials on the internet.

I don?t think you know much about millennials. For one thing, I?m barely a millennial (on the older side), and I know that Mike and Stephen, at least, are significantly older than me, so they aren?t millennials.

You also haven?t cited a law or case in support of your claim that TOS can?t be written ambiguously, just the syllabus of an imaginary course taken by the imaginary judge in this imaginary case. Imaginary things are not evidence. Also, if they?re old, how would you even get the syllabus for the specific class they took when they were in law school? Are you trying to make your imagined scenario sound ridiculous? Because if so, you?re succeeding.

In its response Twitter has cited its terms of service here here and here as they always do.

Actually, they rarely would in a motion to dismiss that invokes ?230 and/or the 1st Amendment, and those issues would trump any issues involving the TOS, so that would be irrelevant.

Especially their motion to move venue to California.

Again, that doesn?t matter if they?re not citing the parts that relate to moderation but just the ones regarding proper venue. Which venue is proper has nothing to do with the application of ?230.

The ambiguity voids this contract.

At best, even if you?re right about it being ambiguous (rather than vague or broad), and even if ambiguity was sufficient to void a clause in a contract (which it usually isn?t), that would only affect the clause regarding reasons for being removed from the service, not the venue. Most likely, even granting the same, it would only void the ambiguous parts within the TOS, not the entire thing.

Plus, it?s irrelevant to the ?230 inquiry whether or not the contract is void or not. And if it is void, that basically means you can?t use the service anyways, so? What is the point?

Finally, the TOS are written broadly, not ambiguously. The issue isn?t that there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the plain text; the issue is that the TOS are written to cover a large amount of content and that Twitter can enforce them at its own discretion. And ambiguity doesn?t void a contract to begin with.

Furthermore all section 230 immunity decisions must be done in good faith.

Incorrect. As I?ve said before, the good faith requirement only appears in part 2(A), and it doesn?t apply to part 1, which is the most used part of ?230, including for immunity for moderation decisions. As such, even bad faith moderation decisions are often immunized.

The admission that the TOS are deliberately written ambiguously is evidence of bad faith [?]

No, it is not evidence of bad faith.

First, again, Twitter or one of its employees, executives, or representatives would have had to make that admission, not some third party. Such an ?admission? coming from anyone but Twitter is inadmissible evidence. That something Mike wrote on a different topic may have (or even definitely did) influence at least one of Twitter?s decisions not related to this lawsuit or the events being sued over doesn?t make what he said on this subject admissible evidence regarding Twitter?s state of mind on this subject and thus has no bearing on this lawsuit at all as it relates to Twitter.

Second, the ?admission? is that TOS are written broadly, not ambiguously. As I stated earlier, those are two very different things.

Third, that wouldn?t be evidence of bad faith with regards to whether ?230 protects Twitter here. For one thing, the question is whether or not the moderation decision itself was in bad faith, not the writing of the TOS. Additionally, deliberate ambiguity (or broadness) in a TOS is not evidence of bad faith because it is feasible that both parties wanted that ambiguity (or broadness) or knowingly and willingly agreed to it.

Fourth, again, the ambiguity/broadness would only affect that one term. If Twitter cites any unambiguous or specific clause in support, that one is ambiguous or broad is immaterial.

Finally, courts typically interpret ?good faith? as it applies to part 2(A) of ?230 quite broadly, so it is very difficult to prove bad faith on such a claim.

[?] so section 230 immunity should be stayed until after discovery.

That?s not how it works. Again, you?re focusing on part 2(A) when most motions to dismiss involving ?230 (including most that are about moderation decisions) cite and are decided on part 1, which does not have a good faith requirement. Additionally, the contract is neither void due to supposed ambiguity nor evidence of bad faith to begin with, so discovery is unnecessary to resolve the applicability of ?230 immunity.

Judge: Agreed case may move forward in this jurisdiction.

We weren?t arguing about choice of venue, and you barely even mentioned it outside of saying that Twitter mentioned it in its motion to dismiss without saying anything else. So, as far as this discussion goes, it?s irrelevant, but you also haven?t presented a case to support it.

After discovery we will revisit section 230 immunity. Motion to dismiss under section 230 denied.

If this happened, it would likely be overturned on appeal, at least under the scenario you imagined and presented. Of course, few judges would ever make such a claim, so that?s kinda a moot point. It is also highly unlikely to make it past summary judgment even if it made it that far.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting

I’ve screen shotted and forwarded this onto Robert Barns and a few other high-profile lawyers who like to sue BigTech

For what reasons do these lawyers sue big tech?

And of all these lawyers who like to sue big tech, how many of them actually win their cases?

Also, you must provide proof of their courtroom wins, in the form of a judge’s ruling that can be independently verified before anybody will believe you.

And at least one has to have the name "Robert Barns" (whoever the fuck he is) as one of the lawyers involved.

I’ll wait…..

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting

Very interesting admission here. Given that people in Tech like Jack Dorsey have a history of listening to you I dont think you want to be saying this part out loud. To imply that Tech TOS are deliberately ambiguous to prevent "bad faith actors" from ‘gaming the system’ is a very very very serious admission.

For someone who so into accusing other people of logical fallacies, you sure do a lot of your own. I didn’t say that they create their TOS to be ambiguous. Can you not read? I said that the issue of requiring a full and detailed explanation for each moderation decision helps bad faith actors. Which is accurate.

I’ve screen shotted and forwarded this onto Robert Barns and a few other high-profile lawyers who like to sue BigTech. I’m sure they will love to hear that Mike Mansick admits that BigTech’s TOS are written ambiguously on purpose as would any judge in a BigTech case.

Lol. I mean, seriously, thanks. I’m having a tough week and this literally gave me a huge laugh. Please do share it as widely as you can. Especially with lawyers like that. You really made my day.

I said earlier that you’re easily too stupid to be responding to, but this takes it to entirely new levels of stupidity.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting

Like I said and you edited out, its a nice "little" piece of evidence. As Tim Pool said to Jack on Rogan grains of sand make a heap. You aren’t the only think tank wonk who has argued that specificity is bad and ambiguity is good. That is a quite part you don’t want to say out loud. It’s a nice little piece of evidence to go into a much larger file. Keep supplying the grains of sand Mike.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting

Look out boys, Chozen’s got a list! Just like average_joe, John Smith, out_of_the_blue, and all the other easily offended fucknuggets angry at Mike Masnick for not kissing their footprints and sucking their cocks without protection. I’m sure the world is shaking in terror over what some meathead jock who’s way past his prime thinks about someone else he regards as garbage. Or is the part where you run back to Trump’s defunct Twitter clone for some orange man headpats?

Stephen T. Stonesays:

Re: Re: Re:3

It’s a nice little piece of evidence to go into a much larger file.

Evidence of what? A larger file for what purpose? I mean, do you think you?re gonna send him to jail or Hell or fuckin? Siberia with your obsessive documenting of things he says?

You probably think you sound like a bona fide badass. You actually come off as a limp-dicked pissant.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re:

And this is why there are so many libel suits against BigTech in their moderation practices now. California think tank wonks like you think its okay to libel people in the act of moderation.

‘This MD’s video was banned and his account was suspended for posting medical disinformation.’

Thats libel. And YouTube FB etc shouldn’t have immunity to libel people under the cover of moderation.

P.S. You have no evidence.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It is how the law works. However, with clauses in the TOS that attempt to force venue in Cali, California judges will bend heaven and earth to protect big tech. This is changing rapidly and more and more judges in other jurisdictions are refusing to allow jurisdiction to be moved to Cali because they know how stacked the deck is.

There is a legal sea change going in in the rest of the country as it pertains to BigTech TOS, section 230, etc. and I know you feel it.

Like I said 10 years ago it was just ‘section 230. Dismissed!’ More and more judges across the nation are allowing big tech cases to move forward and not dismissing under section 230.

bhull242says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

‘This MD’s video was banned and his account was suspended for posting medical disinformation.’
Thats libel. And YouTube FB etc shouldn’t have immunity to libel people under the cover of moderation.

That’s not how defamation law works, Chozen.

It is how the law works.

No, it is not. The bar for defamation is very high. Calling something ?disinformation? is a statement of opinion, which means it?s not defamatory.

However, with clauses in the TOS that attempt to force venue in Cali, California judges will bend heaven and earth to protect big tech.

Incorrect. The reason they try to have the venue in California is, at least in part, because of California?s strong anti-SLAPP law, one of the strongest in the country, which makes it much easier to dismiss meritless cases about speech early on and to get legal fees paid if you prevail.

This is changing rapidly and more and more judges in other jurisdictions are refusing to allow jurisdiction to be moved to Cali because they know how stacked the deck is.

And yet it hasn?t changed the results of those suits in terms of who prevailed at all, so that goes against your earlier claim.

There is a legal sea change going in in the rest of the country as it pertains to BigTech TOS, section 230, etc. and I know you feel it.

As far as judges are concerned? Not at all. They still interpret ?230 to give interactive computer services like social media platforms broad protections regarding moderation and hosting, they haven?t ruled against TOS except on jurisdiction, and the defendant tech companies still prevail more often than not.

As far as local and state legislatures and executives? Yes on ?230, but they don?t actually matter because of the Supremacy Clause. I haven?t seen anything about TOS that doesn?t involve ?230.

As far as Congress goes? Yes on ?230, kinda. There is a deadlock on the issue because Republicans? reasons for wanting it gone are exactly the opposite of and incompatible with Democrats? reasons. There are also those who are hesitant to make any changes to ?230. So until they can agree on what changes to make, they don?t matter, either.

As far as the federal executive branch is concerned? It doesn?t matter. They?re bound by the law as it is, too.

Like I said 10 years ago it was just ‘section 230. Dismissed!’ More and more judges across the nation are allowing big tech cases to move forward and not dismissing under section 230.

Not really. The only times judges do do so, they generally are overturned on appeal. There hasn?t really been an increase in cases getting past ?230, either.

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It is how the law works.

No. It is not. Not even close. You’ve already admitted both in writing and in what you say that you have an active Googler’s knowledge level of the law — meaning that you misunderstand fairly basic concepts and engage in motivated reasoning to pretend the law says what it absolutely does not. Your lack of knowledge and experience in how courts actually work shines through. You are an ignorant fool, acting over confident to cover your very clear ignorance.

California judges will bend heaven and earth to protect big tech.

Lol. This just proves you know fuck all about how the courts work. This is not how any of this works.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Duh!

Evidence of what?

Bad faith, duh!!!! If the author of the contract intentionally makes it ambiguous that is evidence of bad faith and unfair dealing. And as said before to get around section 230 you need to show evidence of bad faith.

And remember this is civil court. Its not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its preponderance of the evidence 51%-49%. So a wonk like Mike and other arguing for bad faith and unfair dealing is important with civil court’s lower standard of proof.

The more statements you can show from people like Mike who work in and around tech arguing for ambiguous contracts the more the preponderance of the evidence shifts to the plaintiff.

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Duh!

Lol. Dude, keep it up. This is funny shit. PLEASE make this show up in court so I can laugh even harder at it.

This is not how any of this works. I mean, I know you’re hilariously and totally ignorant of the law — as your earlier comments have made clear, but watching you flail about here is just so silly. But, at least it confirms for me that you’re who I thought you are. Welcome back to the site.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!

Especially considering that this site’s critics do nothing but point out the dwindling traffic stats, but somehow still poses enough of a threat they had to rally around Shiva Ayyadurai’s suit to get everyone to suck him off… And failed.

You’d think if these goatfuckers had such a slamdunk case they’d have brought it by now, but these guys have the lukewarm brain temp of the 2nd Amendment fans who attempted the Jan 6th joke.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Duh!

After discovery Mike. Lets see your contracts. Lets see which Tech companies are paying you for you opinion. Lets see those opinions and what you tell those tech companies.

Hell you are running around on your blog saying that Tech TOS and the TOS enforcement shouldn’t be specific because specificity can be abused by bad actors. At the same time you also brag about your influence within BigTech. Your big mouth, and the big mouth of other Wonks for contract like yourself, is at the very least providing the evidence needed move to discovery.

After discovery the judge can decide to dismiss or not. If you haven’t noticed this is happening more and more. More and more judges are denying motions to change venue to California, and allowing the process to move forward. 10 years ago this was unheard of where it was just ‘section 230 dismissed!’ the legal tides are changing and I know you feel it.

So lets open the books Mike. Lets see how much influence you have and how much BigTech listens to you.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!

After discovery Mike. Lets see your contracts. Lets see which Tech companies are paying you for you opinion. Lets see those opinions and what you tell those tech companies.

Discovery for what?

And of everything you just spewed out in the quoted sentences, you used the word "opinion." Do you have no understanding of the 1st amendment and that opinion is 100% protected.

My opinion is that you are a goat fucker. Sue me bitch!

Also, you still haven’t provided proof that Rubin was banned for talking about booster shots, whiney little bitch.

Stephen T. Stonesays:

Re: Re: Re:7

After discovery

For what, an imaginary lolsuit you filed in SovCit court?

Lets see which Tech companies are paying you for you opinion.

Let?s see who?s paying you to spout their opinions first.

you are running around on your blog saying that Tech TOS and the TOS enforcement shouldn’t be specific because specificity can be abused by bad actors. At the same time you also brag about your influence within BigTech.

And? He?s right about TOS enforcement: hyper-specific rules will only lead to a cycle of rules lawyering and enacting even more hyper-specific rules. Keeping some rules vague, and purposefully enacting a ?we can figuratively bop you on the head for basically any reason that isn?t prohibited by anti-discrimination law? clause, is the best way to guard against excessive rules lawyering.

Your big mouth, and the big mouth of other Wonks for contract like yourself, is at the very least providing the evidence needed move to discovery.

Again: For what?

After discovery

Once more with feeling: For what?

More and more judges are denying motions to change venue to California, and allowing the process to move forward.

Name at least five cases within the past five years where this has happened and the cases weren?t eventually tossed out for lacking on the merits. I?ll wait.

the legal tides are changing and I know you feel it

Plaintiff argues that ?the legal tides are changing? in regards to defamation cases against ?Big Tech? in relation to moderation decisions. But Plaintiff offers no facts in their Complaint to support this proposition. The Complaint is summarily dismissed.

lets open the books Mike. Lets see how much influence you have and how much BigTech listens to you.

Okay, so?I guess I gotta be the one to ask: Why the actual godforsaken donkey-fucking hell do you care so much about Mike Masnick? Did he insult your father?s brother?s cousin?s nephew?s former roommate one time twenty years ago or some shit? You?re coming off as an obsessed troll in need of some serious treatment for mental health issues, and frankly, your schtick is less ?ha ha, oh wow? and more ?please get some help? now.

I know this is rich coming from me, but seriously: Log off the Internet and go touch grass for a few hours, then go get some professional help.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!

You know, I agree with specific tos. Despite the difficulties that has. If you don?t have enough people to moderate hire more.

But your running around, at 10 foot tall 400 pound chest thumping with your 12 pack abs calling people names and threatening to fight? you again, look like the school yard bully. A spoiled child of an adult with daddy issues in dire need of a hard spiked paddle spanking.

Can you seriously not hid a discussion without name calling and temper tantrums?
Maybe it?s time to change your diaper?
Amazon ships for free for prime members.

Or are you just hungry?
I can Uber you some food if you want.

Maybe I should just call ems. Anyone who can spew so much shite has an obvious digestive issue.

Seriously. You?ve some real issues to look into. Such as why are you here. I engage and try to learn and understand. Agree or not in the end.
You just fight. Your lonely huh.
I?ll order you a stuffed pig. Or an elephant. Hell, both. You just need something to cuddle.

bhull242says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!

I said the exact same things before Mike did, and I have no affiliation whatsoever with any social media company at all.

Additionally, on what grounds would you sue him over? You can?t force him to give up any evidence you want unless you already have good evidence to link him to the defendant (or is the defendant) and can articulate how the evidence would help your legal case.

And no, the proportion of cases where ?230 is asserted such that it fails to persuade the judge and does not get overturned on appeal has not substantially increased over the past decade or so. And whether or not the rule in favor of defendants? jurisdiction arguments is completely irrelevant when discussing ?230 and moderation.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!

Hey John Smith. You know what discovery means, right? It means putting a name and face on the guy who called Masnick’s wife a whore and his kids shitstains. So… By all means, go ahead. Your lawsuit is four years overdue since you promised to rape every Aspie on the site anyway. I think the judge will be very keen to see the new champion of all things Trump and copyright.

bhull242says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Duh!

If the author of the contract intentionally makes it ambiguous that is evidence of bad faith and unfair dealing.

No, it is not. There is nothing in contract law that says you can?t have ambiguous terms, and it certainly doesn?t help prove bad faith.

And as said before to get around section 230 you need to show evidence of bad faith.

Only regarding part 2(A). Part 1 also protects moderation decisions to a large extent and doesn?t require good faith.

And remember this is civil court. Its not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its preponderance of the evidence 51%-49%.

Preponderance of the evidence, yes. 51%-49%? No. Preponderance of the evidence generally requires more than just barely-more-than-even. It?s lower than ?proof beyond a reasonable doubt?, sure, but that?s basically saying it?s lower than 99.999%.

So a wonk like Mike and other arguing for bad faith and unfair dealing is important with civil court’s lower standard of proof.

What some unaffiliated third party says has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. It also has no bearing on a motion to dismiss, which is about questions of law, not fact.

The more statements you can show from people like Mike who work in and around tech arguing for ambiguous contracts the more the preponderance of the evidence shifts to the plaintiff.

Again, no. Only those directly affiliated with the defendant matter on this, but even so, ambiguous clauses are far from sufficient evidence of bad faith.

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Duh!

If the author of the contract intentionally makes it ambiguous that is evidence of bad faith and unfair dealing

I just want to emphasize here, that this is not how any of this works, and more importantly, there is nothing "ambiguous" about every terms that has a clause along the lines of "if we believe you have violated our rules, we may remove your content" and every such website has such terms.

Chozen is trying to (1) misrepresent what I said and (2) pretend that what I did not actually say somehow invalidates contracts. Both points are wrong.

I did not say that they make the terms purposefully ambiguous, because they do not. I was responding to someone who talked about whether the NOTIFICATIONS (not the rules) would be specific about what was violated. And I noted that that’s a scenario where there are problems with being too specific in explaining the reasons for the takedown because it enables dishonest assholes (such as Chozen) to use that info to try to continue to be a bad actor.

That is wholly different than the question of whether or not the terms of use themselves are ambiguous (they are not — every site has the right to remove any content they themselves deem inappropriate for the site).

And the rest of Chozen’s nonsense is just bad faith trolling from an extremely bad faith troll.

Chozensays:

Re: Re:

Correct, this bill in no way forces an social media to host any content. It simply requires some basic standards for enforcement of their TOS which are legal contracts and therefor fully under the jurisdiction of state law. The state has every right to put some basic rules for social media TOS, just as they do for rental agreements, professional contracts, business contracts etc. etc. etc.

Paid shills like Mike have one goal and that is to keep social media the wild wild west where basic our common law doesn’t apply.

Despite Mikes intentionally false headline "Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism" the bill in no way forces any site to host "Holocaust Denialism." It simply sets out some basic standards for content removal, appeal, and basic right to cure.

The section of the bill the democrats tried to amend to add their pet issues is strictly for overt criminal activity specifically child sexual abuse and direct threats of physical violence.

This is the sick mindset of people like Mike. Someone like Mike so blinded by their own ideology does not see how adding "Vaccine Misinformation" to a section reserved for the most heinous of crimes like child sexual abuse, makes a mocker of the seriousness of child sexual abuse.

Mike is fundamentally sick if he thinks that is at all appropriate.

As said before I’m a gifted athlete. I still coach my respective sport and I have had to deal with this kind of pet issue craziness form people like Mike. In many states across the nations schoools have TAD polis, that stands for tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. The problem with such polices is that they treat them the same because an anti-tobacco lobby is so powerful. You end up with a system that treats vaping the same as it treats meth.

This reduces the seriousness of hard drugs in the kids minds. It also hurts enforcement because you have administrators focusing of vape pens when you got some kids addicted to meth.

This has happened to me you have 5 players being suspended for up to 30 days for vaping while you got a kid addicted to meth and the admin wont do anything to save the kid because "Its only his first TAD offense." His god damn spleen was shitting down and we couldn’t get the school to step in at all.

This is the specific evil that Mike is advocating for.

Rockysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The section of the bill the democrats tried to amend to add their pet issues is strictly for overt criminal activity specifically child sexual abuse and direct threats of physical violence.

This is the sick mindset of people like Mike. Someone like Mike so blinded by their own ideology does not see how adding "Vaccine Misinformation" to a section reserved for the most heinous of crimes like child sexual abuse, makes a mocker of the seriousness of child sexual abuse.

You are free to point what other section in the bill pertains to allowed moderation where you can amend the text with what types of content can be moderated without liability (hint: there is only one section, 143A.004).

Mike is fundamentally sick if he thinks that is at all appropriate.

Ooh, the "outrage". Now, how about you stop being a dishonest asshole and instead improve your reading comprehension skills.

This is the specific evil that Mike is advocating for.

Only dishonest assholes that doesn’t understand what they read think so.

Chozensays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You are free to point what other section in the bill pertains to allowed moderation where you can amend the text with what types of content can be moderated without liability (hint: there is only one section, 143A.004)."

And its all criminal activity exceptionally heinous criminal activity, not "vaccine misinformation."

One of these things is not like the others, not like the others, one of these things is not like the others.

You are so dumb Sesame Street is too advanced for you.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

many websites included the famous big ones, leave their rules purposely ambiguous to maximize sweeping deletion potential.

in short, is much easier to delete some unwanted posts by keeping ambiguous rules, and is more arduous for the victims of an unfair ban to claim innocence.

plus for the same reason with ambiguity, you can leave it on your website infringing posts but made by a political party you favor, that otherwise, you would have to strike down if more clean rules were in place.

in short ?Notify the user who provided the content of the removal and explain the reason the content was removed? occur because rules aren’t enforced evenly.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

you can leave it on your website infringing posts but made by a political party you favor

Please point to any such instances of posts being left up because they were made by a political party they favor?

Oh wait…. The Zuk was very chummy with Trump back when he was pres, so it’s probably true that he leaves plenty of right-wing posts up which would clearly violate FB’s policies.

Just look at the daily list of their top posts:

  1. Fox News
  2. Ben Shapiro
  3. Franklin Graham
  4. CNN
  5. allkpop
  6. Breitbart
  7. Diamond And Silk
  8. Breitbart
  9. Ben Shapiro
  10. MovieWeb

Oh wait…. I thought that "Big Tech" was just a bunch of leftists trying to bring down the conservatives by having an anti-conservative bias.

Oh wait…. the cognitive dissonance needed to make both those statements true is going to make my head explode like a blipvert.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

so you want some example of double standards for my claim? and precise too? ok, I’ll post you some examples then. I will not provide sources so I’ll stick with high-profile cases mostly. you have to do research by yourself.

Youtube: 1 month ago Youtube banned Sky News Australia, the channel was then reinstated by youtube when the channel agreed to delete all video critiques of President Biden and more.

Twitter & co. After Trump was banned by ALL social media in January, rumors that he could open an account on Parler emerged. the app was promptly requested to "purge its extremist content" or face expulsion. Parler refused and was expelled by ALL app stores and kicked off the servers it was located. a list of 100 hateful tweets was provided as "proof" of hateful content. Supporters of Trump on Gab have affirmed they have archived at least 100 millions of Twits that falls in the category of hate speech. the matter of banning for example Twitter from app stores is SciFi naturally.

Hunter Biden’s laptop case. Twitter and other social suspended the account of one of the biggest newspapers in America deeming their hit piece as misinformation plus they made a new rule on the spot against "hacked material" 😀 does this apply if is Trump’s taxes hypothetically if journalists never provide the source of the documents? never mind. how they determined the laptop was misinformation is not clear. meanwhile, 4chan was looking over the leaked photos of Hunter Biden with prostitutes, crack, and everything seeking incriminating material. of course, it was true and it was proven months later beyond doubt. this action alone done by the social in the electoral campaign qualifies big tech as more interfering than any Russian real or fantastic campaign.

Trump post on twitter complains about BLM looting and destruction labeled a "glorify violence".
the unending flow of posts advocating for killing cops, burn, and kill are fine. for other politicians lionizing protestors and advocating violence yep. is fine.

when twitter Ceo was subpoenaed by the Senate and questioned why he would ban Trump but allow Iran president Rouhani to stay on the platform of Twitter posting hate speech against the Jews Twitter CEO replied that his staff applies two-weight two-measures concerning America and foreign politics. no such matter is even mentioned in Twitter rules or was mentioned before.

6 months ago a whistleblower released a video where Twitter CEO expressly state that they will keep focusing on conservatives accounts because "this is not gonna end here" this video is precedent to the Trump ban.

Using a Hidden camera a Project Veritas journalist manage to film Number 2 of CNN and the technical director Charles Chester admitting that they indulged in propaganda to get Trump out, fearmongered coronavirus, and plan to do the same for climate change. and more dirty laundry. James O’Keefe CEO of Project Veritas was banned from Twitter coincidentally afterward. motivated as "use of fake accounts". O’Keefe sued Twitter for defamation.

If you go on 4chan /pol/ board right in these days you can be lucky and find a thread commenting about how the Taliban account on Twitter is "/pol/posting" aka is posting the memes made by the /pol/ board which are extremely racist and anti jew. a random nobody would get banned quite fast for posting the same thing, but they are allowed to stay. the Washington Post made an article describing the use of Twitter by the Taliban extremely sophisticated and they got criticized for saying that despite is the norm in not heavily "sanitized" websites. Taliban on Twitter polposting are allowed to stay for now.
all other socials banned the Taliban by default without they violated even any rule.

Reddit: Reddit just yesterday banned the r/NoNewNormal subreddit, allegedly for fake staging a protest. a week ago they banned r/MGTOW subreddit for hate speech. every time this occurs like an old classic the question returns, why subreddits with open and violent hate speech against men example: r/justneckbeardthings, r/inceltears, are allowed to stay unscathed? admins have been questioned for this double standard but they went radio silent for years until they started finally to provide a reply: Admins claim they selectively decide which class of individuals are vulnerable and which no. for the admins white men are not a vulnerable class, therefore hate speech against them is allowed.

after the death of Floyd and the revolts in the streets by BLM movement, official data about crime by race and violent conduct of police toward race, was posted on various subreddits disproving some of the movement supporter claims. these posts were taken down by mods and admins alike.
community criticized the admins and made a label for the act of banning official data treating it as hate speech. community rebrand official data from now on as "hate facts".
not happy Admins subsequently institute a temporary rule: you were not allowed to submit a post where you claim a black as the aggressor. whatsoever. de facto creating a rule where a sector of the population was above the others and could not be criticized. the rule has been torn down only after criticism.

Kotakuinaction is a subreddit created by the gamers back by the time of the gamergate controversy. they are super against identity politics in their pop-culture and stuff. admins bombarded the subreddit with a crescendo of convulses extra special made rules just for them to apply regarding hate speech. Mods decided to comply with everything, sparking a schism in the community. later admins started removing posts and warning the mods for slurs against transgenders posted in the subreddit. Mods requested a list of the slurs so they can update the automod and automatically delete these posts instantly. the list of the slurs was never provided.
Look! There are precise slurs that may cause your subreddit to get banned if you use them, but they are also vacuous I cannot tell you which they are (I cannot make them on the fly If I do).
worming that vagueness boy!
Mods of the subreddit issue a blank slate ban to everything ever marginally related to transgenders to avoid losing the subreddit.
so a subreddit to criticized forced identity politics in pop-culture, when it includes transgenders they cannot talk about it at all.
Kotakuinaction2 the twin community much less politically correct is 99% of the time private and they moved or another platform entirely already. giving for granted their ban sooner or later.

In may the unfortunate Palestine Israel crisis occurred, in a strange game of mirrors the same left that for yeas called the right nazis eventually got sucked into a strong manifestation of antisemitism. it hammered left-wing subreddits and twitter aswell. despite the high amount of material that would in normal circumstances cause the ban of subreddit and accounts. this time around subreddit went out unscathed. (no sure about Twitter, I did follow this one marginally)

Payment processors: in 2012 circa Obama administration created the "operation chokepoint" initiative, formally to check and investigate over banks’ deals with shady corporations at high risk of fraud and money laundering. in truth, it turned into one when the commission pressured banks and payment processors to selectively disengage which business the commission didn’t like based on ideological stances. this includes: porn industry, hentai industry, firearm dealers, coal dealers. etc. any website related to these could have problems.
chokepoint has been accused to be politically driven, they denied, there were lawsuits, receipts popped out, it was no good. it was shoot down.

today it seems chokepoint is back in spirit. payment processors and banks have begun enforcing like in 2016 that businesses dealing with them also follow their moral policies clauses in the contract. after the social Gab struck some time ago they have hit the biggest Porn website Pornhub, now is the turn of OnlyFans apparently, we will see if they dodge the bullet.
in the case of Pornhub, the website has chosen to enact the most restrictive control in the world for content upload for a big website, to convince payment processors to return, yet payment processors aren’t back. whatever material went on Pornhub that triggered Mastercard if real is also material that went on Facebook a dozen of thousands of times. but MasterCard doesn’t cut out Facebook.

Patreon: Patreon a website born to get money for youtube creators after the adpocalypse and first political correctness wave hit youtube at one point started to apply political correctness as well demanding people to torn down visuals and images they deemed unappropriated even images not on Patreon. plus they kicked out their platform conservative pundits; Sargon of Akkad for the N-word is the most famous one. this propped many of their customers to leave the platform in protest suing Patreon. because Patreon had opted for force arbitration in their EULA, a proposition that causes them to pay all legal fees in case of a lawsuit. well, it happens that is very bad if you get sued en masse so they changed their policy stealthy with one where you cannot sue, also you cannot arbitrate 😀 and sued them back. they lost.

Facebook: Zuk is in an interesting predicament, Zuk doesn’t give a shit really. but he has to do something after all that oligopoly doesn’t build itself. on one hand, he would like to go on a banning spree, which is the easiest solution, on the other hand, his social is THE conservative boomerdome of the US, and if he goes le happy ban free his social dries up.
so he goes most by the algorithm and shooting down the most serious stuff

Facebook in December 2020 announced that their algorithm would be modified to target hate more precisely. "Facebook’s proactive technology won’t automatically flag posts declaring, "Men are trash," or "Americans are dumb" moving to an algorithm that will primarily target hate against "Muslim, Blackface, Holocaust denial, and stereotypes about Jews controlling the world"

2 years ago "In an effort to contain misinformation and extremism that have spread across the platforms, Instagram and its parent company, Facebook, have banned Alex Jones, Infowars, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, and Paul Nehlen under their policies against dangerous individuals and organizations.
Infowars is subject to the strictest ban. Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing Infowars videos, radio segments, or articles (unless the post is explicitly condemning the content), and Facebook will also remove any groups set up to share Infowars content and events promoting any of the banned extremist figures, according to a company spokesperson. (Twitter, YouTube, and Apple have also banned Jones and Infowars.)"

New York Post journalist Steven W. Mosher write an article in April 2020 when he merely takes into consideration coronavirus could have originated from Wuhan’s lab. Facebook fact-checker, Danielle E. Anderson, later found to be an ex Wuhan lab worker, thinks otherwise. Facebook accepts Danielle’s version and bans the article sitewide, the thing repeats with other journalists until someone finally calls Danielle out. well, the rest of the Wuhan lab fiasco is known.

you posted a ranking with Ben Shapiro which is quite high. not a surprise as he has millions of followers, but is not something to trigger cognitive dissonance either. you assume that it would prove the lack of double standard bias, but despite his numbers Ben Shapiro is utterly disliked in the conservatives community, they call him a sellout, controlled opposition, limited opposition, etc. and I quote 4chan:
"Ben Shapiro is mostly liked by boomers. He’s pushed Facebookbe and Facebook to keep people from actually radicalizing to the right while also making the right seem like a joke to hip people in their 20s."
he is pretty much disliked over any non "sanitized" platform.
if you can verify that Facebook is indeed conservative boomerdome then there is room for doubt.

for the rest, Zuk used to hire Fact-checkers directly from Hillary Clinton electoral campaign staff you just verify the name by yourself. but now they are so many they have an entire supreme court.

this should be enough material for the claim of the double standard. less know anecdotes are also in abundance but harder to verify.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

I could go through and debunk every one of your examples, but I quickly realized that you are posting all these examples in bad faith, with a preconceived notion that social media is biased.

I will take your first example and show how wrong you are:

Youtube: 1 month ago Youtube banned Sky News Australia, the channel was then reinstated by youtube when the channel agreed to delete all video critiques of President Biden and more.