The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach

from the it's-the-audience dept

A week ago, we wrote about Trump's new blog, which was designed to look vaguely tweet-like, noting that this proved that he never needed Twitter or Facebook to speak freely. He's always been able to speak on his own website. NBC News has an interesting story now, suggesting that the blog just isn't getting that much attention.

A week since the unveiling, social media data suggests things are not going well.

The ex-president’s blog has drawn a considerably smaller audience than his once-powerful social media accounts, according to engagement data compiled with BuzzSumo, a social media analytics company. The data offers a hint that while Trump remains a political force, his online footprint is still dependent on returning to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

The Desk of Donald J. Trump is limited — users can’t comment or engage with the actual posts beyond sharing them to other platforms, an action few people do, according to the data.

Some have been using this to argue that Twitter and Facebook's bans on the former president were attacks on his "free speech." But it actually demonstrates something different -- and important. Everyone complaining about the removal of Trump's account are not actually mad about the "free speech" part of it. They're really mad about the "free reach." (Hat tip to Renee DiResta for making this point years ago).

Being kicked off these platforms by the platforms (as opposed to, say, the government) is not an attack on your ability to speak. There are lots of places to do that. It is, instead, an attack on having easy access to an audience on those platforms. And, as far as I can tell, there is no right to having as large an audience as possible. Thus, in the same sense that I can't demand a million followers on any of these platforms, the former president similarly can't demand that they supply him with the audience of their users.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: access, audience, content moderation, donald trump, free reach, free speech
Companies: facebook, twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 7:36am

    Analogous statistics…

    I would like to see similar analogous statistics for, say
    Alex Jones, and Red Candle's Games Devotion and Detention (if they can be assessed)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 10:17am

    I mean, yeah. It makes sense. Like, I'm not going to actually call my crazy, racist uncle. But if he happens to be in the same room as me I might listen to a story or two of his, quarterheartedly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 12:18pm

      Re:

      That's part of it but I suspect a bigger part is that while he still has the GOP by the balls he no longer has direct and personal political power, which means that those that were only 'following' him to keep track of what heinous thing he was saying/doing/planning next no longer have reason to, leaving him stuck only with his cultists.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 7:16am

      Re:

      "But if he happens to be in the same room as me I might listen to a story or two of his, quarterheartedly."

      Two or three times maybe. By the 5th time around he starts railing about that time when the Satanic Cabal of Libtard Space Lizard floated him on board one of their UFO's to shove a rectal probe up his ass...you may not be in the mood to hear it any more.
      Or when you're with your friends, s.o. or hot date and he looks you up to share with you his newest revelations on the goings-on in the dank basement of Killarys Pizza Parlor or on the throne of the Dark Lord, the Kenyan Muslim.

      You'll end up avoiding him.

      Metaphorically speaking what the GOP currently wants is to make sure the place he holes up in will be the same place you go to to meet your friends and no matter how much he rants, the proprietor can't kick him out.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 10:23am

    He is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO beloved that even when there is just 1 place to listen to the mango messiah people aren't willing to go there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Koby (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 10:53am

    We Knew It Was Just Political

    Just as importantly, the people that subscribed to his feed were doing so voluntarily. The big tech censors don't want certain people to speak, but they also don't want people to listen. They seek to deny network usage based upon political affiliation; freedom of speech means little without access. This is why it's so important to repeal section 230, and subject social media to common carrier utility rules.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 11:45am

      Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

      subject social media to common carrier utility rules

      For what purpose? Social media provides zero societal necessities. I can not think of a single reason why it should be a common carrier.

      Please explain what part of social media is required to function in today's world that would force it to become a common carriere.

      I can get by without FB, Twitter, etc, but I would find it very difficult to get by without electricity, or a phone line, or any other utility.

      And where is it written that social media is required to provide an audience for everybody. My twitter account does not have 5 millions followers, to whom should I complain?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Koby (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 12:46pm

        Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

        And where is it written that social media is required to provide an audience for everybody.

        That's why many of us want section 230 reform. We want to write it down. If you build the digital version of a public square, and folks can voluntarily subscribe, then the platform shouldn't be censored. The voluntary communication should be unquestionably allowed.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 1:00pm

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          The public square is the Internet, and twitter et al. are clubs accessed via that square. You can set up you own club off that square, or find a club that accepts what you want to say. However what you keep demanding is an ability to hijack the clubs, regardless of the wishes of the owner and complaints of the patrons..

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 1:05pm

          We've had this conversation before.

          Feel free to get the state to make an actual public square on the internet. But you're going to find you need moderation in a hurry.

          Unless you really like penis pills, Nigerian princes and discussions of your vehicle's extended warranty.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 1:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          Your analogy is flawed. The internet is closer to a public road than a public square. You can walk on a public road all you want, but it does not give you the right to enter private property.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 1:55pm

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          We tried this with USENET, which still works.

          AOL had a near-monopoly on internet speech in the mid-1990s, had very restrictive speech policies, and lost market share, as did Yahoo!, MySpace!, and many other companies that were permissive as they grew before clamping down and raising the drawbridge.

          What saves free speech in the long run is the desire to bill ourselves as having a "free, open discussion." Even if no one suspects censorship, discussions which omit relevant ideas will quickly lose steam, and some company hungry for users will cater to that market.

          If Twitter is banning people that's just a sign that it's the beginning of the end for Twitter, whose stock is down about 38 percent during Trump's banning. AOL lost even more. The free market actually works for free speech. The internet has done its job.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 2:31pm

            We tried this with USENET, which still works.

            How popular is USENET compared to Twitter or Facebook?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 2:46pm

              Re:

              Not very, and it shows that total free speech exists, just that people have voluntarily chosen moderation.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 2:52pm

                Re: Re:

                USENET was moderated. Many ISPs filtered out the .binaries. newsgroups that contained child porn.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 4:32pm

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  Then there was the .jokes (in some incarnations .humor) which periodically disappeared, because it was such a bandwidth hog. Who can forget the canonical list of lightbulb jokes?

                  And then there was .alt.rec.sex.ferrets - simply boggled my mind!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 4:42pm

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  USENET itself was not moderated, though many ISPs moderated users who connected to USENET through their interface.

                  Anonymous remailers ensured that literally anyone could say anything, and Altopia positioned itself as common carrier.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 7:39am

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  "USENET was moderated. Many ISPs filtered out the .binaries."

                  More like USENET itself wasn't moderated but depending on your ISP or the newsgroups you used to access USENET you'd receive your feed pre-filtered. And this was often the more popular option.

                  So you could argue that even for USENET the market demanded moderation. Because no one wanted to have to wade through megabytes of goat porn fan fiction just to get to alt.rutabagas.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2021 @ 12:09am

              Re:

              For those (somehow) unfamiliar with John Smith's rhetoric, his purpose in bringing up Usenet in these discussions is twofold. One, it's based on the idea that Usenet provides him with information that he uses to populate his allegedly valuable mailing lists. Two, his belief is that "Usenet existed while Section 230 didn't, therefore Section 230 needs to die".

              John Smith claiming that the free market works is not the result of some epiphany. It's part of a carefully crafted angle that he consistently tries to shoehorn into everything. Just wait a few more posts before he starts whining about Rose McGowan again.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 7:47am

                Re: Re:

                "One, it's based on the idea that Usenet provides him with information that he uses to populate his allegedly valuable mailing lists."

                I somehow had an inkling we'd see the resurrection of Baghdad Bob's old line of "But mah mailing list! Pirates done stole it! Mah preciousss!"

                "Two, his belief is that "Usenet existed while Section 230 didn't, therefore Section 230 needs to die"."

                Which is weird because...Usenet still exists and the only difference is that social media platforms have become far more populat than usenet under section 230. I mean, I can see him making that argument. I just can't, as usual, see any functional logic in it.

                "John Smith claiming that the free market works is not the result of some epiphany. It's part of a carefully crafted angle that he consistently tries to shoehorn into everything."

                Except when the topic actually is about the free market at which point he always goes full commie. It's as if his understanding of the "free market" comes out of Karl Marx's definition of intermediate communist state.

                "Just wait a few more posts before he starts whining about Rose McGowan again."

                ...or how Hansmeier and Steele, these stalwart "heroes" of the late, "great" copyright troll outfit Prenda got a raw deal in court, just because they practiced fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion, perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt...

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2021 @ 7:21am

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  Which is weird because...Usenet still exists and the only difference is that social media platforms have become far more populat than usenet under section 230. I mean, I can see him making that argument. I just can't, as usual, see any functional logic in it.

                  It's not that weird when you consider why he's proposing it. John's thought process is "If Usenet existed before Section 230, Usenet doesn't need Section 230, and therefore Section 230 can be killed off. Platforms dependent on Section 230 wouldn't matter because then we'd all go back to Usenet."

                  No, it's not a good argument, but grasping at straws is the basis of John Smith's school of argumentation.

                  ...or how Hansmeier and Steele, these stalwart "heroes" of the late, "great" copyright troll outfit Prenda got a raw deal in court, just because they practiced fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion, perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt...

                  To be fair, he eventually gave up on that by late 2013 when it turned out that Prenda was absolutely getting their ass handed to them. You can read up on Prenda articles on that era for a laugh at John Smith's "horse with no name" phase. Naw, these days John Smith's modus operandi is how women need to be protected via sketchy revenge porn laws, because according to John Smith all women are whores who sleep their way to the top...

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 1:50pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "Platforms dependent on Section 230 wouldn't matter because then we'd all go back to Usenet."

                    Which, of course, wouldn't be such a problem if USENET remotely resembled how people use the modern internet, or the demographics of the audience who use it. Once you start to consider the vast differences between the audiences and the fact that the internet is as vital and as baked into mainstream culture as the telephone was in the 1960s, if not more so, and there's now a generation who can't remember a time before it, then it becomes a much more difficult proposition. Which is why so many of us are opposed to letting a loudmouthed minority of bigots control the narrative.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2021 @ 11:49pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      John Smith couldn't care less. As long as it drives people back to his mailing lists so he can continue charging them an arm and a leg for his merchandise he admitted was overly expensive.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 10:22am

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          " If you build the digital version of a public square, and folks can voluntarily subscribe, then the platform shouldn't be censored"

          That's a good argument for making ISPs common carriers, not platforms.

          Are you going to start with an actual argument based in reality that has something to do with your klan buddies being allowed to violently force themselves into communities that have told them to GTFO? Because, as ever, that's what you're demanding.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 10:46am

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          Come back to us the first time someone builds their platform that's a digital public square.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 7:50am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

            It's called "the internet", and everyone is free to build their own soapbox in it.

            I'd argue you could make a case the network backbone under common carrier regulation is indeed a form of public square. The private addresses in it, not so much.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 12:54pm

              'No regulations for them! All the regulations for you!'

              It would be a whole lot easier to believe that the politicians railing against social media for 'controlling speech!' and 'abusing their monopoly positions!' were doing so in good faith if more than a few of them hadn't looked the other way if not actively supported the gutting of any regulations that internet access providers were bound by.

              As it stands it's the equivalent of the square itself being privately owned but the local politicians seeing nothing wrong in the owner deciding who gets to use it and at what prices, but the individual businesses on it that are also privately owned being told that they aren't allowed to show people the door because that would be unfair and infringe people's rights to free speech.

              I'd agree that if anything deserves to have common carrier regulations it would be internet access providers long before the individual platforms on the internet deserve that status, but for some strange reason that never seems to come up in the ranting about how if you can't access a particular platform to speak on you can't speak at all.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 12:59pm

        Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

        Please explain what part of social media is required to function in today's world that would force it to become a common carriere.

        Considering some countries in the world demand social media user credentials prior to entry, I'd say there's quite a bit that should make them common carriers. There are also some businesses that won't even look at an application without social media references. For some people FB is the cheapest means they have to communicate with others. Should they be required to pay to say what they want to family members without fear of censorship? I've personally had a class in high school where we were guaranteed a failing grade if we didn't have a known social media account linked to the class's feed. Want more?

        I can get by without FB, Twitter, etc, but I would find it very difficult to get by without electricity, or a phone line, or any other utility.

        Thanks for dating yourself. Unfortunately for you, there are many people, mostly of younger generations but there are a few boomers as well, that use FB, Twitter, etc. as their primary means of communication with others. If we were to go back a few centuries, we'd find that the concept of "common carrier" had a very different meaning than it does today. Why shouldn't society be able to expand or change the definition over time? Why should only industries you approve of be considered essential services?

        And where is it written that social media is required to provide an audience for everybody.

        Where is it written that you should be entitled to electrical service? Or telephone service? Or Education for children? Or Fire / Police / EMS service? Or Social Security / Medicaid? (That's a fun one!) Or any other utility? Society can change it's entitlements if it wants to. Complaining that you don't use it and therefore it shouldn't be up for discussion isn't a valid argument.

        My twitter account does not have 5 millions followers, to whom should I complain?

        Well that might have something to do with you purportedly not using it..... Also, according to this site 5 "millions" followers shouldn't be able to reach you, unless what you say is on their approved list. A fact which might also explain your lack of followers...... Intentional interference.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 1:56pm

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          A student could probably get an exemption if they wanted.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 2:15pm

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          In order to access FB or Twitter or any social media, one needs a smartphone or computer with internet access. You mean to tell me, that there are no other ways to communicate using a smartphone or computer other than social media? How about facetime? Or text messages? Phone calls? Skype? Or any other free communication platforms that are available online? You do realize that the Internet provides an infinite number of means to communicate?

          There is no requirement that says any business needs to accept you as a customer, outside of essential utilities such as water and electric. Go into Walmart and start yelling racial slurs and see how quickly you are removed from their property. Go into any restaurant wearing nothing but your underwear, and see how quickly you are asked to leave.

          Business have rules that must be followed in order to be a customer in good standing. Any they have every right to kick you out of their establishment, online or otherwise.

          As to essential utilities, yes, power / gas / water companies are required to provide you service as long as you maintain good standing w.r.t paying your bills. And even then, most locales have regulations that will not allow these utilities to disconnect your service for non payment, such as the gas company during winter.

          And if you think that FB, or social media in general is as essential as electricity / gas / water, I will ask you to perform one simple task. Turn off your electricity, gas and water, and try to cook yourself a meal using social media.

          If you feel that you can't survive as human in today's society with social media, then you, really have a problem. As to a requirement for certain activities, job interviews, etc., that should not be a problem if you are a decent person doing normal things on social media. If you are a Nazi, anti-semite, anti-LGBQT+, racists, misogynist, or are just a normal everyday asshole that gets you banned from social social media, then the problem is you and not the social media company.

          And as per dating myself, you are right, I am an old guy who first got my facebook account in college when it was a requirement to have a .edu address, and I was an adult when I went back to college. So, I have been using FB for much longer than the average person, and you want to know something really revealing, I have never once been kicked off or suspended. You want to know why? Because I am a decent normal person and generally don't act like a fucking asshole online.

          So basically, your entire premise is that social media should be forced by law to accept everybody that wants to join, and the users who act like assholes on a regular basis should still be allowed to use their service, even though they ruin the experience for all the other normal people.

          And as to my followers on social media, I use FB and Twitter regularly, and I still don't have 5 million followers. But you know what, I have read the 1st amendment 1000s of times in the last number of years, but nowhere is it written that I am guaranteed an audience on somebody's private property.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          sumgai (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 2:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          Jeebus, AC, I don't know where to begin....

          OK, from the top:

          Considering some countries in the world demand social media user credentials prior to entry, I'd say there's quite a bit that should make them common carriers.

          You don't need to enter that country, simple as that. Required for your job? Get your employer to either obtain an exemption, or else send someone else.

          There are also some businesses that won't even look at an application without social media references.

          The odds are that there's another business just down the street that won't have such a restriction. But more to the point, if the Internet and/or social media should be classified as a common carrier, then let's put the shoe on the other foot - why should I have to prove that I have electricity or running water at my home, just to get a job?

          For some people FB is the cheapest means they have to communicate with others.

          Those would be people who ignored what their ISP said about a free email account being included with their service. FB might not charge you for sending messages, at least not money, but they sure get their money's worth out of your communications, trust me on that one.

          For some people FB is the cheapest means they have to communicate with others.

          Do I really need to point you to the above response?

          I've personally had a class in high school where we were guaranteed a failing grade if we didn't have a known social media account linked to the class's feed.

          Well now we're getting somewhere. At least I am. What you suffered in high school was a lack of exposure to the law. Absolutely nowhere, at no time, has any law every been passed, nor a court case upheld the notion that a student (underage or otherwise) lose any rights guaranteed to the citizens of this country. You do NOT have to have a social media account in order to attend school, nor to gain the advantages of state-mandated schooling. Next time you hear "no account = no passing grads", tell them to go pinch a loaf and fall back in it.

          I can get by without FB, Twitter, etc,

          Thanks for dating yourself.

          That's not dating one's self, that's just good common sense. I've been online longer that you've been drawing breath, and I'm still getting along just fine with people all over the world. Whether friends, business associates, transportation facilities, or what-have-you, no one I need/want to deal with requires me to have a social media account. And yet they all still respect me for the person I am, not some shabby straw-man with a keyboard and a screen. (OK, OK, businesses only respect me for the money I spend with them, I'm sorrry.)

          Unfortunately.... there are many people.... that use FB, Twitter, etc. as their primary means of communication with others.

          Well, it would be unfortunate that I have to watch my fellow man suffer the consequences of their own stupidity, but that is their prerogative. Still and all, using FB is certainly not the only way to communicate, nor is it required for communication in any sense of the word. See (yet again) my response above.

          If we were to go back a few centuries, we'd find that the concept of "common carrier" had a very different meaning than it does today.

          Nope. The concept is well defined, and you're correct, it does go back almost 200 years - the railroads. But as we're applying it to the internet and social media today, we're comparing it to the most recent example, our regulated electricity, water, sewer and possibly garbage collection utilities. Your idea of "changes over time" doesn't hold water because it's still a matter of government regulation over an otherwise monopolistic realm.

          Why should only industries you approve of be considered essential services?

          Oops, we're getting personal here. It's not my approval, it's society's approval with which you disagree. I didn't get a choice, but I'm living with society's choices just fine. Should the majority of society choose to elect to regulate the internet for some reason, I'd have to go along with it, regardless of my personal likes or dislikes.

          And where is it written that social media is required to provide an audience for everybody.

          Where is it written that you should be entitled to electrical service? Or telephone service? Or Education for children? Or Fire / Police / EMS service?

          All of those are written into my State's Constitution. In fact, I'm required by that very same piece of paper to attend school until I'm 16 years of age. Education is funded by taxes laid upon society in general, apportioned in some manner between the citizenry and businesses. The other utilities are required to be presented to me, but I'm not required to take them. And if I do want/take them, then I need to meet additional conditions, such as paying for what I use out of my own pocket.

          Or Social Security / Medicaid? (That's a fun one!)

          No fun at all, it's required by law. In fact, because I'm subject to these "societal benefits", I happen to know that I'm not required to take advantage of them, but I certainly can choose to do so.

          Complaining that you don't use it and therefore it shouldn't be up for discussion isn't a valid argument.

          Where the Hell did that come from? I mean, left field bleachers isn't even close to a valid location.

          Your last paragraph contains statements of fact for which no logical argument can be presented.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 2:30pm

          Considering some countries in the world demand social media user credentials prior to entry, I'd say there's quite a bit that should make them common carriers.

          Nope. Nobody needs social media for anything.

          You can start a blog if you want to share your thoughts with the world. You can use email if you want to keep in touch with people. You can keep sites bookmarked if you want to keep up with the latest news in whatever interest floats your boat (including boating). Whatever you think you need Twitter or Facebook for, you don’t.

          Should they be required to pay to say what they want to family members without fear of censorship?

          I’m pretty sure that’s what paid services such as “cellphone service” are for.

          Thanks for dating yourself.

          …fucking what

          there are many people, mostly of younger generations but there are a few boomers as well, that use FB, Twitter, etc. as their primary means of communication with others

          Question: If Twitter or Facebook decided tomorrow to shut down all their services without warning, what — if anything — would give the United States federal government any right to prevent that? Remember that Twitter and Facebook are privately owned corporations that don’t run public utilities.

          Why shouldn't society be able to expand or change the definition over time?

          Ain’t no problem with that per se. But you want to turn an inessential communications platform into a public utility because you’re butthurt about said platform banning bigots who happen to hold conservative views. Your reasons aren’t rooted in clarity of language or purpose — it’s rooted in spite.

          Why should only industries you approve of be considered essential services?

          Because anyone on this godforsaken dirtball can live their entire lives without ever once using social media. Facebook isn’t essential for living. Neither is Twitter.

          Society can change it's entitlements if it wants to.

          For what reason should the government be able to force speech onto privately owned platforms? Please not that I’ve a long copypasta concerning the idea of public fora and private property waiting in the wings, so you may want to answer this question with something other than “because I want it that way” or the equivalent thereof.

          according to this site 5 "millions" followers shouldn't be able to reach you

          Flag on the play: gross mischaracterization. 15 yard penalty, repeat the down.

          If Trump wants 5 million followers to reach him, he can open his own social media service and let them all follow him there. Old 45 isn’t entitled to “free reach” — i.e., to have someone else give him an audience (or access to one). Nobody is entitled to that, no matter how much you might wish it otherwise.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 11:48am

      Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

      To what political affiliation does "big tech" seek to deny "network usage"? And even if they did, why can they not?

      Do you miss the old days when everyone else had very few avenues in which to speak, and your ilk were as loud as ever they still are? So they should be even louder now, since other people are now speaking and heard?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 1:43pm

        Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

        In those days people could build a grass-roots audience in actual public squares.

        If Trump ran a CONTEST, with say a $1,000 prize, I bet his audience would swell.

        While SPEECH should be free, the only acceptable way to prevent "censorship" from these big sites is to BUY ADVERTISING. Any efforts to regulate "big tech" should stop the second the sponsorship stops flowing.

        Trump's not censored, he's cheap.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 2:31pm

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          In those days people could build a grass-roots audience in actual public squares.

          Weirdly, people still can do that, and do so.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 2:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

            As the internet grows more popular, it becomes more cost-effective to build an audience that way.

            Buying ads also works. Trump could even start a hedge fund!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 10:26am

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          "In those days people could build a grass-roots audience in actual public squares."

          ...and they still can.

          I know you people only have arguments that depend on denying actual documented reality, but you should realise that people who understand the real world aren't going to fall for it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 8:05am

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          "Trump's not censored, he's broke."

          FTFY.

          Trump's 400 million dollars in the hole to Deutsche Bank, guaranteed by the Russian State Bank. So much for his "self-funded campaign". Putin must not have believed his luck that a few kind words and a mere 400 million gained him a US president willing to give him Syria and the Kurds.

          I'm still thinking the main part as to why he's still in politics, aside from catering to his ego-trip of being important is because the very second he stops trying to be useful to Vladimir there will be creditors at the door and he's no longer in a position to cut and run as he always used to.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 11:47pm

        Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

        The dangerous and deadly affiliation of "not doing exactly what I want without even telling them" of course.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 11:56am

      And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specific

      Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
      Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
      Con: LOL no…no not those views
      Me: So…deregulation?
      Con: Haha no not those views either
      Me: Which views, exactly?
      Con: Oh, you know the ones

      (All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 1:06pm

        Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specific

        Con: My views that it shouldn't matter what I say, if people want to listen to me, they should be able to do so.
        That One Guy: Oh, that one! Well of course that would be censored. I disagree with it!
        Me: He who forbids, will one day find himself forbidden.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Samuel Abram (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 1:14pm

          Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif

          You can listen to Donald Trump. He has his own web site where he tweets out stuff.
          You can also listen to Alex Jones, who still has InfoWars.

          How are those two monstrous assholes "censored" (your words, not mine) if I can still go to their web sites and access their bilious rants?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Samuel Abram (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 1:16pm

          Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif

          That One Guy: Oh, that one! Well of course that would be censored. I disagree with it!

          Storming a legislative house attempting to assassinate legislators is not a "disagreement". It's terrorism.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 1:42pm

          My views that it shouldn't matter what I say, if people want to listen to me, they should be able to do so.

          For what reason should they have the right to force Twitter into giving them a bullhorn? Switch out Twitter with Mastodon, Parler, Gab, Techdirt, etc. and the question remains the same.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 2:57pm

          Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif

          Please be considerate to your fellow posters and make sure to clean up any excess straw after constructing your strawman. In case you haven't noticed people can listen to Trump, that's what the article is about, they just don't care to which rather guts the 'Trump has been silenced!' claim and exposes it as nothing more than 'Trump's not allowed to use someone else's private property to speak from against their wishes and that's not fair'.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 10:28am

          Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif

          "Con: My views that it shouldn't matter what I say, if people want to listen to me, they should be able to do so."

          They can. They just can't co-opt the property of people who don't want to associate them to do so.

          Why do your arguments always revert to demands for communist takeover of the private property of your political opponents - and why do you think anyone else will fall for it?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Lostinlodos (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 1:54pm

          Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif

          I’ve long believed that. Unfortunately I’ve come to respect that property rights get in the way of speech rights.
          After reading 230 completely and listening to rebuttals to specific passages I pointed out: Repealing 230 won’t change that.

          It’s a matter of balancing.

          I’ve come to the conclusion that The solution is a public platform for politicians that guarantees freedom of complete access and freedom from all censorship. And that that platform should be extended to all registered candidates.
          And that that platform should be directly accessible to any and all citizens of this country. Free from charge. As a website: as a television broadcast, and as a mandatory cable channel.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 2:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be sp

            If that's your solution then you're not likely to find many people objecting, as the objections are based upon those that think they are owed the ability to speak on the property of others, which not only is not part of the first amendment despite some seeming to wish really hard that it was but would be a hefty violation of it.

            The thing is though politicians can already do most of that. They can already set up their own sites, they can already get on tv by simply setting up an interview, and though I don't watch tv I imagine cable has more than a few channels for politics already which could serve just fine, so I'm not really seeing what problem you're trying to solve here that actually is a problem.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Lostinlodos (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 3:06pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? B

              Right now the things you described above depend on private platforms. In order to remove the private property issues I suggest creating a federal site and media platform with total guaranteed access for all in the government m, or have gone through the proper price to run to become part of the government.

              This would do two things. First it would allow direct speech to the public by any member of the government.
              And secondly would allow for archival.

              Trump’s use of twitter and than ban has created a bit of a problem with archival. The President’s public communication is supposed to be recorded by the National Archive. Twitter isn’t interested.
              Such a situation could not happen on a government platform.

              Fox doesn’t not have to host Democrats, nor CNN have to host Republicans.

              It would allow national addresses to be made without political commentary. Equally without pulling away from a live address.

              I single place for government to conduct it’s public communication without third-party-partisanship and without censorship.

              A direct communication from the official to the public without interpretation by others.

              CSPAN is the closest we have at the moment with three stations but it is privately owned AND not nationally broadcast. Now is carrying mandated. Some services don’t offer all three channels.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 11:01pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chanc

                "This would do two things. First it would allow direct speech to the public by any member of the government.
                And secondly would allow for archival"

                So... two things that already happen...

                "Trump’s use of twitter and than ban has created a bit of a problem with archival."

                Trump's misuse of Twitter. That was on Trump, not Twitter, and I don't see any evidence that Twitter have blocked anything relating to archiving, only that they couldn't continue giving his free stuff.

                "Such a situation could not happen on a government platform."

                Trump had access to many different government platforms to use, he simply refused to use them.

                Your arguments here with the evidence you provided are not that the government needs to do something, it's that Trump was incompetent. I won't argue with you there, though I suspect that's not what you intended to argue.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2021 @ 3:13pm

            Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be sp

            The solution is a public platform for politicians that guarantees freedom of complete access and freedom from all censorship.

            Any politician or political party can and do set up their own sites. They can allow and moderate comments on those sites as they wish. Indeed anybody can set up their own site on the Internet and run it as they want. A conversation does not have to be threaded on a single site. However complete freedom from moderation is a guaranteed disaster, and significantly reduces or eliminates the usefulness of a site; see USENET and 8kun for example. Trying to enable conversations directly between people with opposing viewpoints usually end up with a few participants engaging in a screaming match and everybody else moving on to places where they can associate with people of similar, or at least not antagonistic viewpoints.

            Stripped to their basics, the arguments for section 230 reform come down to wanting sites to cure the problems of society by controlling what people can say, or a demand that anybody can force their way into any conversation to push their usually bigoted, racist or misogynistic viewpoint.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 3:51pm

            Repealing 230 won’t change that.

            Then you don’t understand the consequences of repealing 230.

            230 will allow the most baseless lawsuits to go forward against platforms both big and small. The big ones — “Big Tech”, as it were — would survive because they have legal teams and shitloads of money. The small ones would die the death of a thousand cuts. The only possible ways of avoiding that fate are undermoderation (can’t be sued for not having the knowledge that shit’s on your platform), overmoderation (can’t be sued if you don’t let the shit on your platform), or complete shutdown of third-party submissions (can’t be sued if you don’t give people a platform).

            Show me the balance between what we have now and the fates described above, and I’ll tell you the same thing I will keep telling you when you bring this up: A repeal of 230 will only benefit massive corporations.

            The solution is a public platform for politicians that guarantees freedom of complete access and freedom from all censorship.

            Congratulations, you’ve created 8chan.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2021 @ 4:22pm

              Re:

              Some proposals would make sites responsible for user posts whether they moderate or not, and for contentious posts, ensure that they can be sued whether they leave the post up, or take it down. Even big tech is likely to cash out, rather than enrich lawyers. The only safe option will be to become a real publisher, and that is select and publish some of the submissions received.

              The likes of wired would survive, by killing the comments section, but how many simultaneous cases in different courts can even the likes of FaceBook support? Offend a political party and that could be every court where a prosecutor that supports the party can start a case. The attack on Craigslist says it could happen.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Lostinlodos (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 5:34pm

              Re:

              How do you conflate that post with still calling for repeal?
              Did I not say I’ve been persuaded to change my mind?

              For more than your “fates” concerns which could easily be solved by a law or amendment stating ‘no entity shall be held liable for any other entities’ actions. Something I think we need in this court happy country anyway. But that’s a different topic I won’t discuss under this heading.

              It’s the property rights that makes me reconsider my stand.

              “ Congratulations, you’ve created 8chan.”
              Wow; nice to see how you view each and every politician. Do you really believe the government is incapable of communication without private corporations to dictate rules?

              Or did you somehow conflate my interest for sitting and potential politicians to have free, uncensored, and open access to the public as also calling for a commentary option?
              I thought I was quite clear I’m seeking a direct from the source platform for government, to the people.
              If you don’t like what they say write a letter, or take to twitter or gab or whatever. Or cast a vote against them.
              A site for them to communicate with us, not you or I with them.

              At the moment there is no way for any member of any governmental body to communicate directly with the citizens of this country without utilising private companies. Not every one has the internet, even today. A platform that would cover the internet, radio, and tv, and print that could, reasonably, reach every American.

              Are you against direct access to the people, or did you somehow read something into my comment that wasn’t there.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 5:51pm

                no entity shall be held liable for any other entities’ actions

                We have such a law right now: Section 230.

                Do you really believe the government is incapable of communication without private corporations to dictate rules?

                Stop committing yourself to misunderstanding me.

                If the government were to open an online public forum, it could not — by law — moderate any speech but that which has been declared unlawful (e.g., true threats of violence, CSAM). The most obscene, most objectionable, most outlandish speech possible could be posted without the government able to do anything in response aside from shutting down the forum. And since 8chan/8kun basically does that anyway, all the government would be doing is making its own version of that site.

                Or did you somehow conflate my interest for sitting and potential politicians to have free, uncensored, and open access to the public as also calling for a commentary option? … A site for them to communicate with us, not you or I with them.

                That’s called “starting a blog”. In case you haven’t noticed, that’s what Trump did. Hasn’t worked out well for him…

                At the moment there is no way for any member of any governmental body to communicate directly with the citizens of this country without utilising private companies.

                So what? As long as people follow the TOS of any site they don’t own, they’ll be fine.

                A platform that would cover the internet, radio, and tv, and print that could, reasonably, reach every American.

                Good fucking luck with making one of those that isn’t prohibitively expensive and time-consuming!

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2021 @ 6:14pm

                  Re:

                  At the moment there is no way for any member of any governmental body to communicate directly with the citizens of this country without utilising private companies.

                  And there never were, as paper, printing and distribution, use of billboards, or use of radio or television also involved the use of private companies. Those are still available, and the Internet has added the possibility of social media and blogs etc.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Lostinlodos (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 6:28pm

                  Re:

                  “Stop committing yourself to misunderstanding me.”
                  You compared a government run content publishing service for members of government agencies with 8chan.
                  It’s kind of hard to misunderstand “ Congratulations, you’ve created 8chan.”

                  The premise put forth was they can book on news shows. That still puts them under the control of those platforms.
                  Trump creating a blog is no different than any other contact site. Most senators, representatives, etc have that. Some beholden to a platform. Some privately run.

                  That’s not the same as creating a government platform.

                  And with the current spending going on for “infrastructure” and all the other things tossed into such bills, I’m sure it can be argued for such a platform to be funded.

                  It would eliminate any political concern for agains 230 if the government had its own platform for official communication to the people.

                  The big attack on 230 is coming from private companies removing content of sitting officials. A platform run by the government for the government would eliminate that issue.

                  It would likely reduce the drive for repealing 230.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 6:32pm

                    The big attack on 230 is coming from private companies removing content of sitting officials. A platform run by the government for the government would eliminate that issue.

                    No, it wouldn’t, but you keep thinking it would. Your naïve optimism is kind of adorable.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 11:11pm

                    Re: Re:

                    "The big attack on 230 is coming from private companies removing content of sitting officials"

                    No, section 230 is what allows them to do that. Their actions are in support of section 230.

                    The attack on section 230 is from people like you who believe that the rules of someone's house shouldn't apply if you agree with the abuser politically.

                    "A platform run by the government for the government would eliminate that issue."

                    No, it wouldn't. It actually means that such a platform will be far less useful since they would be prevented from moderating the platform based on political speech, and QAnon Trump cult trolls would roam free, destroying any useful discussion.

                    "It would likely reduce the drive for repealing 230."

                    No, it wouldn't because the whiny children who are demanding that they be allowed back on to private property whose owners don't want them are not satisfied with alternatives, as you and others have shown. You won't be happy until everyone is forced to put up with against their will.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 8:10am

          Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif

          "Con: My views that it shouldn't matter what I say, if people want to listen to me, they should be able to do so."

          But that's not your argument. That's our argument. Everyone can already speak, and everyone can already listen. Stormfront, last I looked, is still in business.

          "Con: My views that it shouldn't matter what I say, if I want people to listen to me, they should be forced to do so."

          ^THIS is your argument. Your beef is that most people choose to go to the private sites where they don't have to hear repulsive people speaking. And so you want to barge into someone elses living room because that's where all the cool kids are.

          That's beyond pathetic.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 1:45pm

        Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specific

        Yeah like thinking biological males shouldn't compete in girls' sports.

        The problem with moderation is that moderators will inevitably abuse their power.

        I still say give everyone an IRS page on which they can post whatever they want as long as their taxes are current. It can become known as the "free speech zone."

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 3:11pm

          Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif

          The problem with moderation is that moderators will inevitably abuse their power.

          And cars can and have been used to commit crimes, that doesn't mean you ban cars. That moderation can be abused does not mean it will be in every case, there is still plenty of good moderation that keep sites from being overrun by spam and other 'problematic' content that would make for a miserable if not outright traumatic experience if users had to deal with it themselves.

          I still say give everyone an IRS page on which they can post whatever they want as long as their taxes are current. It can become known as the "free speech zone."

          Well, it might start being called the 'free speech zone' but I guarantee inside a very short time period it would garner much less flattering names.

          Personally I'd love to see the government step up and create a 'free speech' platform where anyone can post any legal content of their choice and moderation outside of those limits was banned thanks to the first amendment, as it would show in a matter of day if not hours just how vital moderation is and why those calling for platforms being forced to host all 'legal' speech are in practice calling for every platform to become utterly unusable cesspits filled with spam and abhorrent content.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 3:12pm

            it would show in a matter of day[s] if not hours

            Try “minutes”.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 4:29pm

              Maybe we need it as a digital memoral.

              I'm reminded of an explanation of Ramadan, so that Muslims remember what it's like to be famished and can empathize with those with food insecurity.

              Similarly Hustler magazine served to remind us that whatever we were saying / drawing / posting, someone else was saying something raunchier, and their freedom of expression was upheld as well.

              A public spam pit would serve to remind everyone why we have moderators, even when large social media sites continuously make controversial and often bad moderation decisions due to system complexities we've yet to reconcile.

              Though for now, one only needs to go to 4chan/b and /pol and can get a good glimpse of what is public discourse on the conservative side. And numerous subreddits monitor the worst of Parler, GAB, TheDonald and so on.

              The conservative madhouse is not only not being silenced, but is actively being monitored to see just how mad they are today.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 4:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be sp

            Cars don't censor people or swing public discourse.

            Moderators can swing elections or pick winners and losers in business to the extent where they may easily do more harm than good, not the case with cars.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 5:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? B

              Moderators can swing elections or pick winners and losers in business

              That is not an effect of moderation, that is a larger societal problem where too many people do not have the ability to think for themselves nor do they have strong critical thinking skills.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 5:40pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? B

              Ignoring for the moment that moderation does not equal censorship and conflating the two merely weakens any impact that claims of 'censorship' might have pretty sure if you run someone over you've ended their ability to engage in any sort of speech, but if that's your objection then I can easily use different examples like open communication, whether news or simply someone standing in a park holding a rally to convince people to vote a particular way.

              A news show can far more easily and more effectively swing elections and/or public discourse than a moderator, and depending on how they present things they can have a definite impact on 'winners and losers' when it comes to business and yet for all that they are still allowed to speak, choosing what to say and how they say it. A person with enough people listening to them can likewise do the same, choosing what to say and how they say it and as a result shifting public discourse and potentially even elections depending on how many people are listening to them, yet again they are allowed to do so.

              Talking can swing elections and public discourse yet it is still allowed even when the speakers might not have squeaky clean motivations, so even ignoring for the moment the massive good that can come from moderation like allowing platforms to not be overrun by spammers and various flavors of assholes, and ignoring that you're likely giving way more credit to moderators in how much they can influence things I'm still left wondering what the core problem is and what alternative you think would be better.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 6:00pm

                A news show can far more easily and more effectively swing elections and/or public discourse than a moderator

                To wit: Fox News.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 10:31am

                  Re:

                  Indeed. Fox, OANN, Newsmax, etc. have created an alternate reality that's been used to violently attempt to overthrow the government and kill dissenting voices... yet those platforms are far more censored than Facebook.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 9:24pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chanc

                Look up the comments posted under John Smith's previous pseudonyms. Horse with no name. Whatever. Just Sayin'. MyNameHere. It's not hard to see why he's trying to use moderators as some sort of "gotcha!" moment.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 10:29am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? B

              "Cars don't censor people or swing public discourse."

              No, but they kill people every day.

              Is your argument that you whiny bitches not having a free audience is more important than human life?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 12:25pm

      Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

      but they also don't want people to listen

      What's stopping people from listening now, apart from shitty web design?

      He could always move to frankspeech. That's supposed to support billions upon billions of users once they figure out how to stop the looped video.

      But I guess it's easier to blame big tech and social media sites for trump's and crackhead's failures...they've got to deflect since they spent so much of their sucker's money for garbage sites that have a mid-90's, 'optimized for IE4' look to them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 1:17pm

        Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

        What's stopping people from listening now, apart from shitty web design?

        Oh, I don't know. Maybe all of the assholes who want to be the Internet PC police? Or how about all of those upstream service providers who are so thin skinned that they think the words of other people on sites run by other people who use their services are somehow their own words coming straight out of their mouth. Or all of the idiots who having read that last sentence will go "HA! Got the troll!" and immediately claim that the act of using an imageboard is justification for default censorship.

        He could always move to frankspeech. That's supposed to support billions upon billions of users once they figure out how to stop the looped video.

        Assuming that their upstream DNS or web hosting provider doesn't decide to censor the site for their butthurt.

        But I guess it's easier to blame big tech and social media sites for trump's and crackhead's failures...

        Funny, those who cry the loudest when accusing others tend to be themselves guilty of the same accusation....

        they've got to deflect since they spent so much of their sucker's money for garbage sites that have a mid-90's, 'optimized for IE4' look to them.

        Since when did a site's design become a censurable offense?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Samuel Abram (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 1:20pm

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          Oh, I don't know. Maybe all of the assholes who want to be the Internet PC police? Or how about all of those upstream service providers who are so thin skinned that they think the words of other people on sites run by other people who use their services are somehow their own words coming straight out of their mouth.

          DID YOU NOT MISS WHAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 6TH?!?!?!? That wasn't just a disagreement, that was fucking terrorist. FOH.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 1:53pm

          Oh, I don't know. Maybe all of the assholes who want to be the Internet PC police?

          I don’t like Breitbart. I think we’d all be better off if it were shut down. But if someone wants to read it, that’s out of my control.

          Or how about all of those upstream service providers who are so thin skinned that they think the words of other people on sites run by other people who use their services are somehow their own words coming straight out of their mouth.

          …fucking what

          Assuming that their upstream DNS or web hosting provider doesn't decide to censor the site for their butthurt.

          While we can question whether such decisions go too far vis-á-vis moderation, for now, those service providers have the right to decide what speech (and persons) they will and won’t associate with. Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the right to make AWS host, say, Stormfront?

          those who cry the loudest when accusing others tend to be themselves guilty of the same accusation

          Trump repeatedly accused Democratic voters of committing voter fraud. Turns out, one of his voters committed voter fraud.

          Now, what were you saying about accusations and confessions, again?

          Since when did a site's design become a censurable offense?

          The design of Trump’s microblog isn’t “censurable” (whatever the fuck you think that means in this context). But it is laughable, mockable, pitiable, and — if you take the stats mentioned in the article at face value — doing nothing to keep his supporters enthralled.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 2:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          Boy, you seem triggered...did my comments hurt your feelings, snowflake?

          Or how about all of those upstream service providers who are so thin skinned that they think the words of other people on sites run by other people who use their services are somehow their own words coming straight out of their mouth.

          So how are they blocking access to trump or frankspeech or infowars? You'd think if that was such a tremendous problem, I wouldn't be able to go to their sites and mock them for their content.

          Assuming that their upstream DNS or web hosting provider doesn't decide to censor the site for their butthurt.

          Oh, but the pillow moron built his own using his own servers. That's pretty fucking comical in and of itself. Their problem isn't really DNS, is it? It's the lack of forethought to register for all of those similar domain-names so people don't get directed to sites that make fun of them.

          Funny, those who cry the loudest when accusing others tend to be themselves guilty of the same accusation....

          Yeah, real funny that. Have you ever heard the phrase 'boy you fucking morons really lack self-awareness'?

          Since when did a site's design become a censurable offense?

          It isn't. And the fact that I have that opinion is because (wait for it, skippy, wait for it!!!) it's not censored. Perhaps they should consider that something that looks like an eight-grader set up as a reason why they have so little traffic.

          That's what I would do. Then again, I'm not an shit-flinging idiot who's getting fleeced by web developers for creating entry level garbage.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 2:35pm

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          Oh, I don't know. Maybe all of the assholes who want to be the Internet PC police?

          They are physically stopping people from going to Trump's site or listening to him whenever he makes an appearance? Holy cow that's some power right there.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 4:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          Oh, I don't know. Maybe all of the assholes who want to be the Internet PC police?

          You're free to stop trying to police platforms' free speech any time, asshole.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 10:34am

          Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

          "Maybe all of the assholes who want to be the Internet PC police? "

          That would be the smooth brained right-wing cultists who want to remove private property rights from people who told them they're not welcome on their property.

          Everyone else is saying you're free to use any property owned. by people who do want you. Facebook and Twitter don't control what happens outside of their property, no matter what the people who want to force them to host them against their will tell you.

          "Assuming that their upstream DNS or web hosting provider doesn't decide to censor the site for their butthurt."

          Maybe you should associate with service that do want you then? You have literally thousands of options.

          "Since when did a site's design become a censurable offense?"

          Never, but you don't get to design something that nobody would want to visit then whine that the government needs to revoke private property rights to give you a free audience when nobody wants to use it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 1:47pm

        Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

        Trump bought Reddit or Craigslist?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 12:33pm

      Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

      freedom of speech means little without access

      Next you'll tell us free speech means nothing if people don't want to visit the site he created.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 12:38pm

        Absolutely, why if I can't preach the good word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the local church(where everyone is) on sundays then it's no different than not being able to speak at all, and their refusal to let me have access to all those people is a direct infringement on my freedom of speech!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 1:33pm

          Re:

          An idiot that can't determine the difference between censorship of a specific place and widespread default censorship will only make mistakes when talking about free speech.

          Even more so when they use fucking religion as an example.... Do I really need to pull out all of the examples of religion being actively suppressed and censored by local authorities throughout history? Or the extent that said authorities were willing to go to in pursuit of that goal? If so, you need to go back to middle school. At the very least someone should fine your world history teacher for being an utter failure.

          Here's a better question for you considering you consider that a person's personal property allows them to censor people anywhere in the world: Why should Apple allow Conservatives, aka the people you disagree with, to use Apple products at all? Surely given enough use of them Apple could determine a person's Conservative views and assign a rating to them. Then Apple could brick the device if the rating goes too high. After all, according to that EULA for iOS you are just a licensee, not an owner. Why should Apple allow Conservative views on their platform? Or Google? Or Microsoft? Or AMD? Or Intel? What? If the entire IT industry blacklisted Conservatives, Conservatives could just go make their own IT industry that blacklisted Progressives. Of course liberals would need their own IT industry too... And Socialists.... And.....

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 2:03pm

            An idiot that can't determine the difference between censorship of a specific place and widespread default censorship will only make mistakes when talking about free speech.

            A person who can’t understand the difference between moderation, discretion, and censorship will make more mistakes. COPYPASTA TIME:

            Moderation is a platform/service owner or operator saying “we don’t do that here”. Personal discretion is an individual telling themselves “I won’t do that here”. Editorial discretion is an editor saying “we won’t print that here”, either to themselves or to a writer. Censorship is someone saying “you won’t do that anywhere” alongside threats or actions meant to suppress speech. Which one of those happened when Twitter gave Donald Trump the boot?

            Why should Apple allow Conservatives, aka the people you disagree with, to use Apple products at all?

            Because they’re people. For as much as I disagree with conservative views — moderate to extreme — people who hold such views deserve a spot in the public sphere as much as anyone else. That includes being able to buy products in marketplaces, digital and physical alike.

            But what that doesn’t include is the right to force Twitter into hosting speech it doesn’t want to host. The right of free speech ends where Twitter’s right to free association begins.

            Why should Apple allow Conservative views on their platform?

            Because they like money? Also, which views, exactly?

            If the entire IT industry blacklisted Conservatives

            …fucking what

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 3:15pm

              Re:

              Which one of those happened when Twitter gave Donald Trump the boot?

              Censorship. You won't say that, and we are taking action not just to ensure we won't let anyone willing to listen to you do so, but that you can't say anything else, that we would permit otherwise, either.

              Default full censorship. Not hard to figure that out. It was the entire fucking point of his ban. So much so that it was advertised as a feature of the ban on national television. Also, it wasn't just Twitter either. You had the entire set of major social media platforms making similar decisions.

              Imagine if they did that to a progressive or better yet a corporate democrat president? I bet there wouldn't have been a single whisper out of the major media outlets over it. With conservatives decrying anyone against it as unAmerican.

              But what that doesn’t include is the right to force Twitter into hosting speech it doesn’t want to host. The right of free speech ends where Twitter’s right to free association begins.

              So answer the question then: Does Apple have to be "forced" into hosting views on it's devices that it, presumably, doesn't want to host? Does Apple have to be "forced" to process speech that it, presumably, doesn't want to process?

              "Hosted" is a nebulous term. At what point does a "hosted" application on an OS runtime become "the speech" of it's creator? Does it's creator have a say in what data it will and will not process based solely on their agreement with the user's personal views? Is it justifiable to deny processing based on that?

              Because they like money? Also, which views, exactly?

              1. Money paved the road to hell, and is the direct cause of countless deaths, illnesses, and ecological damage the world over. Don't assume profits will always align with personal freedoms.

              2. It doesn't matter which views. Given enough time, any and all of them could be banned. Not because of some gotcha, but because of the fact that any view point can switch between acceptable and unacceptable given enough time. Case in point: Although it's unacceptable today, slavery was once acceptable and even defended in courts around the world. Hell even the Conservative views, that you are trying to force out of me to derail the conversation, are still very much unacceptable around the world but are becoming acceptable within certain undesirable groups. The context isn't important, it's the action of blocking it that is.

              …fucking what

              That is an over exaggeration of your position. The argument "Well they can just go elsewhere." makes sense when it's only one building or one site. The argument makes far less sense when you apply it to the entire world / the Internet in general. Scope is a thing when talking about the effects of censorship. As the bigger the scope the greater the chance that someone covered by that censorship will be a willing audience for the speaker. At which point, you don't have freedom of speech if the two cannot communicate because of the censorship.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 3:36pm

                Censorship.

                nope

                You won't say that, and we are taking action not just to ensure we won't let anyone willing to listen to you do so, but that you can't say anything else, that we would permit otherwise, either.

                And when, pray tell, did Twitter’s ability to moderate speech on Twitter extend to social interaction networks outside of Twitter, to ISPs, and to meatspace itself vis-á-vis the media?

                (Trick question. It didn’t.)

                It was the entire fucking point of his ban. So much so that it was advertised as a feature of the ban on national television.

                The same “national television” on which Donald Trump can still be heard to this day if he so wishes?

                it wasn't just Twitter either. You had the entire set of major social media platforms making similar decisions.

                So what.

                Imagine if they did that to a progressive or better yet a corporate democrat president?

                I’d wonder what he did to violate the TOS…like, y’know, Trump did.

                Does Apple have to be "forced" into hosting views on it's devices that it, presumably, doesn't want to host?

                Once someone owns an iPhone or an iPad, it’s theirs, not Apple’s. Apple can’t be “forced” to host a person’s views on devices that said person already owns.

                Money paved the road to hell, and is the direct cause of countless deaths, illnesses, and ecological damage the world over.

                So is Christianity. What’s your point.

                It doesn't matter which views.

                Ah, so I know the ones already, then…

                any view point can switch between acceptable and unacceptable given enough time

                And any social interaction network is free to decide what it believes is “acceptable” speech. Again: What’s your point.

                even the Conservative views, that you are trying to force out of me to derail the conversation, are still very much unacceptable around the world but are becoming acceptable within certain undesirable groups

                That you associate those views with conservatism says more about conservatism than it does about the services that don’t want to host such views.

                The context isn't important, it's the action of blocking it that is.

                Context is always important. That you’re not willing to state the views you believe are being blocked unfairly — that you’re trying to divorce the act of blocking from the context of what is being blocked — says a lot about you…and none of it is good.

                The argument "Well they can just go elsewhere." makes sense when it's only one building or one site. The argument makes far less sense when you apply it to the entire world / the Internet in general.

                Twitter is one site/service. So is Facebook. That millions of people make use of those services every day doesn’t make them the entirety of the Internet.

                Scope is a thing when talking about the effects of censorship.

                And if someone were being censored here, you might have a point. But Donald Trump can literally call a press conference tomorrow and have plenty of news outlets ready to put his voice and face on TV. He wasn’t censored. He was told he violated the terms of service and shown the door — which isn’t censorship. It can’t be censorship unless you believe a bar owner showing belligerent assholes the door for yelling racial slurs in the bar is also censorship.

                you don't have freedom of speech if the two cannot communicate because of the censorship

                You aren’t owed a right to communicate with someone on Facebook. If you were, nobody could block you on Facebook.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 4:44pm

                  Re:

                  And when, pray tell, did Twitter’s ability to moderate speech on Twitter extend to social interaction networks outside of Twitter, to ISPs, and to meatspace itself vis-á-vis the media?

                  Hmm... looks like someone needs a lesson on cause and effect:

                  Twitter's decision prevented sites that link to it's feeds from being able to see Trump's comments or interact with him (networks outside of Twitter). ISPs can't transfer data that is HTTP 403'd. (to ISPs) The entire point of the ban was, again, to forbid communication between Trump and his supporters. (meatspace itself) An act overwhelmingly cheered on by, most of the media. With Conservative media outlets correctly calling fowl over silencing a key means of communication they had with the then current president who, again, often used said social media platforms as the primary means to interact with his supporters. (vis-á-vis the media)

                  (Trick question. It didn’t.)

                  Said like every authoritarian denying reality to suit their narrative ever.

                  The same “national television” on which Donald Trump can still be heard to this day if he so wishes?

                  Sure. One way communication, vetted because of editors, and only if he's willing to pay for it. Very different means of "communication" do not equal replacements for each other. But that's just you being disingenuous again.

                  I’d wonder what he did to violate the TOS…like, y’know, Trump did.

                  So any company has the right to take away your freedoms as a citizen of the USA? Good to know you agree with that, because chances are they'll be happy to take as many as they can. *eyeroll*

                  Once someone owns an iPhone or an iPad, it’s theirs, not Apple’s. Apple can’t be “forced” to host a person’s views on devices that said person already owns.

                  Then you've misread that ToS, and EULA that you hold with such high regard. I'm certain Apple would gladly point that out if you took them to court over who they think actually owns those iDevices. Particularly over copyright / jailbreaking / repairs / DRM / the signature that they bless their will on the OS with.

                  Of course, you still didn't answer the question.

                  So is Christianity. What’s your point.

                  Don't assume money will always result in a favorable outcome. Which you implied in your response to my question.

                  What’s your point.

                  Read it again and maybe you'll find it. Of course you won't if you continue to discard it out of hand. You won't even try to consider that others may have differing versions of "acceptable" points of conversation that shouldn't be banned in a country that purportedly believes in the freedom of speech. All of your arguments can be boiled down to "I disagree with it. If I disagree with it, I should be able to ban it regardless of who is communicating with whom." Which means you don't support freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is to allow all arguments for the sake of debate. That implies all statements as well. Banning Trump was an affront to freedom of speech because the entire point was to prevent him from communicating with his supporters. An act that as this article points out was very successful, and an egregious act that should give everyone that cares about freedom of speech pause. For fear of such tactics being used against them by less saintly regimes in the future.

                  That you associate those views with conservatism says more about conservatism than it does about the services that don’t want to host such views.

                  So only the correct views can be spoken and debated? Gee, I wonder what views will be chosen by the Ministry of Truth?

                  Twitter is one site/service. So is Facebook. That millions of people make use of those services every day doesn’t make them the entirety of the Internet.

                  Earth is one planet. Care to find another one if you "get evicted from the island"?

                  We're talking about policy here, it effects the entire internet and it's future. Trying to downplay that because you hate Trump and his policies (again, I do too.) is dangerous.

                  Context is always important. That you’re not willing to state the views you believe are being blocked unfairly — that you’re trying to divorce the act of blocking from the context of what is being blocked — says a lot about you…and none of it is good.

                  Funny given you won't acknowledge the reason why I said nothing: To let the reader fill in the blank with whatever they dislike so the statement is more relevant to them.

                  Personally, I disagree with Trump in this regard. But such is the plight of those who try to defend rights, they always wind up defending scoundrels.

                  You aren’t owed a right to communicate with someone on Facebook. If you were, nobody could block you on Facebook.

                  Again, there is a difference between Facebook itself blocking someone from posting, and you blocking someone on Facebook. Then again, this is pointless, as you can't understand the difference between a 1 to Many relationship and a 1 to 1 relationship.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Samuel Abram (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 3:39pm

                Re: Re:

                Imagine if they did that to a progressive or better yet a corporate democrat president? I bet there wouldn't have been a single whisper out of the major media outlets over it. With conservatives decrying anyone against it as unAmerican.

                Al Gore and John Kerry are corporate Democrats who lost elections. Yet none of them incited mobs who stormed the capitol threatening to kill legislators who were certifying elections also certified by the courts (including justices Trump appointed), state legislators, and state attorneys general (including GOP ones). Al Gore conceded when he lost Bush v. Gore, which-may I remind you-was actually a close election unlike all the battleground states Trump lost. As for Kerry, he conceded almost immediately. There were definitely irregularities in Ohio, and Barbara Boxer did indeed object to the certification of the election (not unlike Hawley and Cruz not certifying Biden's win), but it was bloodless, and that's not something Trump can claim when we transitioned to Biden.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 10:40am

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  "Al Gore and John Kerry are corporate Democrats who lost elections."

                  More to the point - Gore only lost to due a really suspicious Florida race overseen by his opponent's brother and won the popular vote, while Kerry's opposition was mostly down to outright lies about his military service.

                  Their supporters had way more to riot about than the supporters of the failed con artist who lost by 8 million votes after killing half a million of his constituents, yet here we are.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Toom1275 (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 7:53pm

                Re: Re:

                Censorship

                If that were, as you lie, their intent, then they sure did a shit job if achieving it, as they're 0% of the way there.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 2:08pm

            Re: Re:

            An idiot that can't determine the difference between censorship of a specific place and widespread default censorship will only make mistakes when talking about free speech.

            Yeah, and an idiot who thinks he's being censored, but in reality is an asshole no one wants to listen to because of that might think that way.

            Don't mistake being kicked off the island means you're being censored. You're just assholes. The sooner you people realize it, the sooner you'll be able to get over your bitching and complaining.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Toom1275 (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 4:46pm

            Re: Re:

            An idiot that can't determine the difference between censorship of a specific place and widespread default censorship will only make mistakes when talking about free speech.

            As your idiotic drivel keeps proving.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 12:33pm

      Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

      [Projects facts not in evidence]

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 12:40pm

      Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

      freedom of speech means little without access.

      Why should the existence of the Internet grant you any more access to an audience than what you has before it became popular? It is up to you to attract an audience, and failure to do so is not an excuse to force yourself in where you are not welcome.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 1:01pm

      Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

      The big tech censors don't want certain people to speak

      Who exactly do they not want to let speak. Come on, Koby, be specific, and before you answer, note that nearly every high profile Republican remains on social media. There are a few who have been removed, but in every case for breaking the rules of the site. There is not a single shred of evidence that any platform "doesn't want certain people to speak."

      That's just you acting like a whiny snowflake victim.

      They seek to deny network usage based upon political affiliation;

      Name ONE person banned for their "political affiliation." I still see Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Marjorie Greene and tons of other high profile Republicans on both Twitter and Facebook. No one is being banned for their political affiliation, Koby.

      Stop lying.

      freedom of speech means little without access

      They have access. Anyone can access Trump's page. What ignorant people like you are demanding are TWITTER'S USERS. But they're not yours.

      This is why it's so important to repeal section 230, and subject social media to common carrier utility rules.

      This is ignorant nonsense. Repealing 230 would mean MORE bans because the idiots you have been brainwashed by would create massive liability with their lies and defamation.

      And common carrier rules do not and cannot apply to social media because they don't mean any definition of a common carrier. And if they did, it would destroy those platforms value immediately.

      Stop being such a whiny victim, Koby. I thought your whole schtick was about not being a victim, and believing in freedom.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 1:48pm

        Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

        Notice and takedown protects sites from liability as with the DMCA.

        Section 230 needs to be cleaned up so that individual reputations do not become collateral damage.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        fairuse (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 5:48pm

        Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

        Free Reach. Thanks I did not know who coined the term.

        I was hoping to page thru without hitting the "Blue Wall Of Death", AKA Voice in Koby's head.

        Whatever that means - Fell asleep on Prophesy 4 again. (sorry)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 7:34am

      Re: We Knew It Was Just Political

      *"and subject social media to common carrier utility rules."

      Because Bars, Restaurants, shopping malls and social media platforms are so very much like water and electricity? /s

      No, seriously, Koby. We all know very well by now why you can't carry a single argument against 230 without stacking it on top of a bunch of lies. If you had your way the bar owner wouldn't be able to toss out the nazis calling out ethnic slurs and disturbing the other patrons.

      And of course that's exactly what you're after here. To make sure no one can have a social circle online without the Proud Boys spamming it asunder with bigotry and racism.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 11:09am

    When

    This site makes a comment about certain people, why not send them a request to comment.
    Talk about a way to get more users.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Max, 14 May 2021 @ 11:53am

    "And, as far as I can tell, there is no right to having as large an audience as possible"

    Only because we're still living in the digital stone age. There absolutely should be. Not a guaranteed audience - nobody has that; but a guaranteed potential audience, the chance to speak somewhere people are, instead of the middle of the forest where absolutely nobody else ever is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 12:02pm

      Re:

      Uhh, no? If a bar or club becomes the social gathering place of an area that would not strip them of the right and ability to show the door to someone for being a disruptive jackass, the same applies to digital platforms. That a particular piece of private property may be more popular than another piece does not give anyone a right to it, they are there or not there at the owner's discretion, with only a narrow set of exceptions.

      As for 'where the people are' no-one's stopping people from flocking to Trump's new cesspit, if people actually wanted to listen to him his site would be where people would be congregating so if that's not the case that would seem to say plenty about just how popular he really is outside of his cult.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Tanner Andrews (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 5:07pm

        Re: Re:

        if people actually wanted to listen to him his site would be where people would be congregating

        This assumes that his site provides a place for congregation, as opposed to a sort of microblog for one cheetoh. And a pretty poor sort of blog it is, with very little ability to interact. Essentially you can sign up for e-mail or you can send money.

        A normal place for congregation is one where people can interact. I fault the people who implemented the wimpy website, but frankly would not expect Mr. Trump to be able to do even what is there.

        Fortunately, people need not listen to him. He has nothing new or interesting to say. The inability to congregate at his web site is therefore little loss.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 6:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Essentially you can sign up for e-mail or you can send money.

          How very Trump, you can listen to him and/or you can give him money, but when it comes to someone else potentially speaking it's not even an option.

          Personally I hope that an area for his cultists to chime in and praise their Dear Leader is implemented down the line, as it will be funny to see both how quickly they start violating the TOS and how quickly the excuses for why that's totally okay starts flying and/or why it's totally different and justified when he enforces his site's TOS even though it's nothing less than horrid censorship when other platforms do it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 12:34pm

      Re:

      What law gives you the right to get into the face of people, because that is known as behaviour likely to disturb the peace?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 2:10pm

      Thank you, based PhraseExpress.

      Damn, man, y’all must want me to use all my copypastas today.

      [ahem]

      The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 10:43am

      Re:

      " Not a guaranteed audience - nobody has that; but a guaranteed potential audience"

      Everyone has that when they first log on to the internet. You have to do something for the privilege to be removed. Maybe they should stop doing that?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 12:14pm

    '... eh, not wor

    Imagine that, when people have to make some effort to listen to him and it's not so important to do so because he's not the gorram president only a relatively small number of people choose to do so, I wonder what ever could that mean?

    While I suppose it's possible that the numbers might grow as more of his cult learn about his cesspit this did provide one very nice rebuttal in that it showcases that if he or his cultists keep insisting that he deserves back on civilized social media platforms it will not be because he can't speak but because he/they think he's owed an audience of a certain size, and he's mad that he can't use someone else's property to get it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 1:30pm

    freedom of speech means little without access.

    Um, we have a word for people who want guaranteed access. They're called "spammers." We have a word for people who want guaranteed access to an inwilling, antagonistic, or uninterested audience. They're called "offensive spammers" (in polite company: elsewhere that already-redundant phrase would be prefaced by a sequence of the most offensive pejoratives in the speaker's vocabulary.)

    What we don't have, alas, is an instant death penalty for spammers. Just utter the words "not enough people WANT to listen to me, and I don't care what they want, or who else is inconvenienced by enabling me to offend their desires", and you deserve a bullet to the liver (brain and heart probably not being vital organs.)

    You want access that nobody will give you for free? Tough. Nobody owes you access, in ANY non-iniquitous and non-inequitable world. Someone will probably sell you access--if you're willing to pay for what you want--but, of course, most religious systems with a moral code would consign them to negative repurcussions.

    If I thought anyone here cared, I'd say what I really thought....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 2:33pm

      Re:

      Um, we have a word for people who want guaranteed access. They're called "spammers." We have a word for people who want guaranteed access to an inwilling, antagonistic, or uninterested audience.

      Funny, you seem to assume that everyone in existence is inwilling, antagonistic, or uninterested in what others have to say. Tell me, do you stand up at Trump rallies and do everything you can to shout down and disrupt the proceedings because of your personal tastes?
      That's what you are doing to the entire Internet. You assume that the entire internet doesn't want to allow certain people to speak.

      Before I get hit with "say who they are" as if names are important here, Trump. Of course just saying the name is grounds for hating and disregarding everything that comes out of my mouth. Not that I've ever agreed with Trump or his policies, but I'm sure Mike will be around to claim authoritatively otherwise in a moment. I put certain people in italics because it's a relative term to the person applying it. I'm sure Mike would put Trump in that list, just as much as a Conservative would put Biden in that list. The implication is the same however: Certain people regardless of who they may be, or what views they may have, should not be allowed to speak because the entire universe is inwilling, antagonistic, or uninterested in what they have to say. Or at the very least, there is a sole objector in the room that is inwilling, antagonistic, or uninterested and therefore the speech is forbidden so as to not offend the overly sensitive.

      There is a difference between not wanting to listen to someone trying to talk to you, and not wanting to overhear someone trying to talk to others. You have the right to refuse the former, but forbidding the latter is interfering with the rights of others. Banning speech on an open forum is the latter. Especially when your ban targets them (their social media account) and their willing audience (their followers) that you refuse to acknowledge.

      What we don't have, alas, is an instant death penalty for spammers. Just utter the words "not enough people WANT to listen to me, and I don't care what they want, or who else is inconvenienced by enabling me to offend their desires", and you deserve a bullet to the liver (brain and heart probably not being vital organs.)

      So, for the crime of offending your personal tastes, you desire the right to execute others?

      Hmm.... Where have I heard that bullshit before?..... Seems like it's the motto of White Supremacists.

      Not sure why you're so keen on banning them, given you have so much in common with them.

      If I thought anyone here cared, I'd say what I really thought....

      Well, you should be careful about that. I hear there are some sites out there that will ban you for that kind of talk....

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 2:43pm

        you seem to assume that everyone in existence is inwilling, antagonistic, or uninterested in what others have to say

        I guarantee that out of the 7 billion people in this world, only a handful give a flying rat’s ass about what I have to say. Not everyone gives a fuck about what Lady Gaga says, either.

        You assume that the entire internet doesn't want to allow certain people to speak.

        LOLno. Certain segments of the Internet doesn’t want certain speech shitting things up.

        Before I get hit with "say who they are" as if names are important here, Trump.

        A large amount of people not wanting to hear Trump lie, lie, and lie again — all in service of the creeping fascism within the GOP — is not the same as “everyone” wanting Trump off the Internet, nor does it justify actually kicking him off the Internet entirely. He has every right to start his shitty little blog and say what he wants, and my wanting him to fuck off forever doesn’t deprive him of that right.

        There is a difference between not wanting to listen to someone trying to talk to you, and not wanting to overhear someone trying to talk to others.

        Not…really? If there is one, it’s negigible at best.

        forbidding the latter is interfering with the rights of others

        When did Twitter interfere with the right of Donald Trump to speak freely? Because from where I sit, Trump can still speak freely.

        Banning speech on an open forum

        That’s two. One more and you get the Kavanaugh copypasta.

        for the crime of offending your personal tastes, you desire the right to execute others?

        You’ve never heard of hyperbole, have you, Squidward?

        I hear there are some sites out there that will ban you for that kind of talk

        What kind of talk are you referring to? Be specific.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 2:48pm

        Re: Re:

        Funny, you seem to assume that everyone in existence is inwilling, antagonistic, or uninterested in what others have to say.

        Not everyone in existence, Mr. Strawman Factory, just a lot of people are uninterested in the things some people say, and more to the point, some platforms think some speakers are outright harmful either to society or their bottom line, or both. And those platforms have their own rights. Your nonexistent right to be on their platform doesn't override those.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 3:07pm

        Re: Re:

        Pretty sure Trump doesn't need Twitter to be heard. Nor does anyone else, for that matter.

        Also, Trump didn't get banned by Twitter because he was espousing Conservative values. He got banned because Twitter determined he was inciting violence. And you know what? It's Twitter's house. If they want to kick someone out of it, they can.

        There is a difference between not wanting to listen to someone trying to talk to you, and not wanting to overhear someone trying to talk to others.

        If someone is in a public place, for example a restaurant or a grocery store, quietly inciting violence among their little group, they're not likely to be noticed by the site owners, and probably won't be kicked out. However, if the site owners do become aware of what they're talking about, they absolutely have the right to kick them out. It's not a question of "not wanting to overhear." It's the right of a property owner to say "You're horrible. Get out of my house."

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 10:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "He got banned because Twitter determined he was inciting violence"

          He got banned because he spent years spouting lies and misinformation up to and including the lies that inspired a murderous mob to try and overthrow a legal election. Then, he was given constant chances to change up until the point where they decided that people actually dying in riots and from preventable diseases was worse for their business than letting Trump continue to rile up his cult. Before and after which he's had free access to numerous national and international platforms to speak whenever he wants, including his own.

          If people want to complain about effective censorship and actual bias against Republicans, Trump is probably the worst example.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 1:25pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm actually of the opinion that the only thing that resulted in him finally getting the boot was him losing the election and with it direct political power, and that if he had won he'd still be on all the social media platforms even with everything he'd done(the insurrection would need to be shifted to some other election, perhaps a state one but even then).

            They had so many chances and reasons to show him the door before that point(it's not like he only started downplaying a deadly disease in the last few weeks of his presidency, or only started trying to undermine the election at that point either), that it only occurred when he was on his way out leaves me thinking that it was only because he was about to be replaced that they finally felt they could pull that trigger.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2021 @ 7:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I'm actually of the opinion that the only thing that resulted in him finally getting the boot was him losing the election and with it direct political power, and that if he had won he'd still be on all the social media platforms even with everything he'd done(the insurrection would need to be shifted to some other election, perhaps a state one but even then).

              I seem to recall Twitter actually having stated at one point not long after the election that if Trump wasn't POTUS, they'd have banned him for all the TOS violations. So, I'm inclined to agree with you.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 11:19pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              He was basically gone once Biden was sworn in, they just sped up his removal after he inspired violent insurrection. That event gave them a clear issue to point to without having to play semantic games with people.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Hugo S Cunningham (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 3:25pm

    Trump? Good riddance! But "reach" may be 1st Amendment "press"

    I am glad Trump is muted, because he is a rebel who attempted to overturn Constitutional government between 2020/November 3 and 2021/January 6.

    Access to Twitter is not an issue of First Amendment free "speech."

    But the drafters of the First Amendment recognized, that equally important as free "speech," was the means to disseminate said speech to a mass national audience, i.e. "the press." Due to robust competition, there was no reason in the 1800s and 1900s to give speakers compulsory access to particular media outlets. (On the contrary, such compulsory access, by diluting a medium's message, would violate the First Amendment's "free press".)

    But, to the extent new media giants become effective monopolies, they may deserve regulation as "public utilities" available to all. (On the other hand, US public discourse has never been flooded with so much lying and lunacy since the days of Adams vs. Hamilton vs. Jefferson. Censorship by private monopolies might be the least bad option after all.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 3:37pm

      Re: Trump? Good riddance! But "reach" may be 1st Amendment "pr

      AFAIK, back when the constitution was written, the press meant a printing press. So all freedom of the press meant that the government could not tell press owners, who were also often created and printed their own newspapers, what to print, or stop anyone from owning and operating a printing press. That is if nobody else would publish your words, you could publish them at your own expense.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 3:40pm

      to the extent new media giants become effective monopolies, they may deserve regulation as "public utilities"

      Being large ≠ being a monopoly

      Twitter and Facebook compete with each other as much as they compete with YouTube, Mastodon instances, Discord, Skype, 4chan, 8chan, Gab, Parler, and any other service you could consider a communications/social media service. That Twitter and Facebook dominate do not make them a monopoly over all those over services — or each other.

      But since you want to play the “public utility” card here…well, you all but asked for this copypasta.

      [ahem]

      Social media services are not public fora; if you need a citation for that, look no further than a Supreme Court ruling from 2019 where Justice Brett Kavanaugh(!) wrote the majority opinion:

      Under the Court’s cases, a private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises “powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” … It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function.

      The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. … Under the Court’s cases, those functions include, for example, running elections and operating a company town. … The Court has ruled that a variety of functions do not fall into that category, including, for example: running sports associations and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating nursing homes, providing special education, representing indigent criminal defendants, resolving private disputes, and supplying electricity.

      When the government provides a forum for speech (known as a public forum), the government may be constrained by the First Amendment, meaning that the government ordinarily may not exclude speech or speakers from the forum on the basis of viewpoint, or sometimes even on the basis of content[.]

      By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine[.]

      The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it “is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment[”.]

      In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.

      If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” … Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as “a stagecoach, with seats for everyone.” … That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be “to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country.” … The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property.

      A private entity … who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.

      (And that is the last time I plan to post that copypasta…this week.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 5:14pm

      Re: Trump? Good riddance! But "reach" may be 1st Amendment "pr

      Your argument seems to be shooting itself in the back, as if access to a platform to speak to a wide selection of people was so vital then it would have been written in that access to the newspapers of the time was part of the first amendment, yet by your own admission that would be a direction violation of the right.

      The fact that the 'newspapers' in this example are digital now doesn't really chance that, the right to speak does not and never has carried with it the right to a platform to speak from, and especially not a right to a platform of your choice whether the owner wants you there or not.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 10:51am

        Re: Re: Trump? Good riddance! But "reach" may be 1st Amendment

        To use the parlance of the previous era of news - you can write a letter to the editor any time you want. You just can't force them to print it. If they don't do so, it's not a violation of your rights if your personally printed zine doesn't get the same circulation as the NYT.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 10:50am

      Re: Trump? Good riddance! But "reach" may be 1st Amendment "pr

      "But, to the extent new media giants become effective monopolies"

      Such monopolies don't really exist, unless you ignore the realities of the marketplace (for example, most people use multiple social media platforms at the same time) or redefine the terms to become so restrictive as to be meaningless.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Tanner Andrews (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 6:44pm

      Re: Trump? Good riddance! But "reach" may be 1st Amendment "pr

      to the extent new media giants become effective monopolies, they may deserve regulation

      I cannot bring myself to believe that any of the new media giants are effective monopolies. Twitter has Parler competing with it, I believe there are other social media entities, and they also face some sort of competition for their users' time and attention.

      And regulation seems counterintuitive under the First Amendment. Twitter's message of disfavoring traitors who wage war, bringing revolt to the seat of government, would be diluted if they were required to also host the speech of the traitor. The Supreme Court has upheld such a right to control the associative messages. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bi-sexual Organization of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 4:45pm

    I don't think Trump's blog is failing, as it was launched in early 2021.

    Any 2024 Olympic blogs up yet?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 7:42pm

    Couldn't Trump just get a burner phone and post anonymously? If he just wants his IDEAS out he can get them out.

    The one legal angle people could use is the Knight case, saying Twitter can't block replies to "official" accounts (but could block all other chat etc.). They'd have to be on a par with AT&T or the Post Office for that to happen, also Comcast and Verizon don't generally care about speech and treat themselves as a common carrier.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2021 @ 7:45pm

      Re:

      Couldn't Trump just get a burner phone and post anonymously? If he just wants his IDEAS out he can get them out.

      The fact that this doesn't happen is basically why John Smith's constant, persistent claim of "burner phones dealing reputational damage" is a terrible argument to make and frankly he should be ashamed of making it in the first place.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2021 @ 5:55am

        Re: Re:

        Right, it would be impossible for a terminally ill person to Google-bomb a bunch of <insert deserving target here> on his or her way out. Heck if they're terminally ill, even a "life" sentence is no deterrent, not the same for some script-kiddie eh?

        Section 230 enables that.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 6:32am

          Two things.

          1. No, it doesn’t.

          2. Do you have any proof that anyone has ever tried to do something like that, never mind having succeeded?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2021 @ 6:03pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The James Wood case is already a thing, in which James Wood pursued someone who made perceived insults about him. The court ruled in favor of Wood, especially since the pursued target passed away.

          So... no, even the "gotcha!" case you came up with in your fevered wet dreams not only isn't common reality, it's not even the threat you want people to believe it is.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 8:40pm

      Trump's access to the soapbox

      Trump doesn't need a burner phone, just an official platform where it's relatively plausible something it claims Trump said actually was said by him.

      But an account used to echo Trump's statments on Twitter was shut down for serving as an ad hoc Twitter account.

      But if Trump wantsnto express an idea rather than an assertion of his authority, it is very easy for anyone to say something anonymously.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2021 @ 5:51am

        Re: Trump's access to the soapbox

        So they aren't just banning Trump, but anyone who mentions him?

        Too Soviet for my taste.

        If "hate speech" cannot be defined when it comes to government censorship, it can't be defined privately, either.

        The Knight ruling is intriguing because Trump, as a citizen, is being blocked from participating in public debates. A court could easily rule that Twitter cannot ban this speech even if it can ban other speech.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 6:30am

          Stop putting up strawmen; you’ll start a fire.

          So they aren't just banning Trump, but anyone who mentions him?

          Re-read the key sentence of the post to which you replied: “[A]n account used to echo Trump's statments on Twitter was shut down for serving as an ad hoc Twitter account[.]”

          The key word there is “echo”. The account wasn’t merely mentioning Trump — it was being used as a route-around for Old 45 to circumvent his ban.

          And FYI: When he was still on Twitter, an account designed to parrot his tweets verbatim was suspended multiple times while Trump himself remained untouched.

          If "hate speech" cannot be defined when it comes to government censorship, it can't be defined privately, either.

          The government can’t define “hate speech” partially because of the First Amendment. But individual people aren’t bound by those restrictions. You can define “hate speech” however the fuck you want; so can the admins of a service like Twitter.

          Trump, as a citizen, is being blocked from participating in public debates

          This would be true only under two conditions:

          1. He has a right to free reach — i.e., a spot on Twitter.

          2. A Twitter ban infringes on his right to free speech.

          What sucks for your “argument”: Neither condition is true.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2021 @ 7:39am

          Re: Re: Trump's access to the soapbox

          If "hate speech" cannot be defined when it comes to government censorship, it can't be defined privately, either.

          Why not? You're just making up shit, and you're well aware of it.

          The Knight ruling is intriguing because Trump, as a citizen, is being blocked from participating in public debates.

          Yeah, and I think as a society, we're better off for it. It's not like the guy has anything of value to add. I mean, have you really ever come across someone more full of shit than Trump? He promises everything and delivers nothing. Just ask the folks sitting in jail still waiting for him to pardon them.

          That asshole would stab any one of you in the back, if he had the opportunity. Why don't you let him fight his own battles and quit being a sucker? If you guys aren't convinced it was a scam after everything that's happened, it just proves what I've thought all along - Trump supporters are stupid stupid people.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2021 @ 8:13am

          Re: Re: Trump's access to the soapbox

          because Trump, as a citizen, is being blocked from participating in public debates.

          As Trump can get his words out via his own site, he is not being blocked from public debate. What you keep on demanding is a right to force your speech into others, and that is not part of public debate but rather a long step towards the re-education camps.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2021 @ 6:04pm

          Re: Re: Trump's access to the soapbox

          Too Soviet for my taste.

          Given how bruised your knees are, I find that hard to believe.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 10:54am

      Re:

      "Couldn't Trump just get a burner phone and post anonymously?"

      He could, but that wouldn't stop Twitter from banning his account as soon as they realised it was him, and he likely wouldn't be able to get a sufficient audience without telling people who he was.

      A better option would be to just use the platforms that want him, or simply stop being such a dangerous asshole getting people killed on a regular basis, so that Twitter would decide he's not going to keep violating their terms of service..

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2021 @ 6:04pm

        Re: Re:

        The thing about shitposters like Trump - it's easy to tell when it's his content. Which is why John Smith feels such a kindred bond between him and the 45th president.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 15 May 2021 @ 6:12pm

        Re: Re:

        Also not helping his case for reinstatement on the major social media platforms is implementing a function on his site that allows people to cross-post his content over there, as such a blatant attempt to bypass his bans is not really helping the case that he is at all sorry for what he's done and will follow the rules if they're stupid enough to let him back on.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sumgai (profile), 14 May 2021 @ 9:20pm

    This thread has seen more than 90 responses to Koby and at least one AC (perhaps more than one, who can tell). The fact that we need to keep refuting his/their nonsense strongly suggests that only one facepalm just won't do the job.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bloof (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 3:52am

    Losing the retweet was the worst day of Donald Trump's life. People are no longer subjected to racist uncles signal boosting his every word with the click of a button, they no longer have to worry about being ruled by 3am toilet tweet, now the only people who see his decrees from his gold plated porcelain throne are people who want to go to even the most minimal level of effort there aren't that many.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 11:25pm

      Re:

      If the Trump cult didn't exist, it would be a sadly amusing form of entertainment to see his descent into whining about competent leadership, with his pathetic attempts at reactionary ego boosting being stripped away and the country returning to some semblance of normality as the damage he did is slowly repaired.

      Unfortunately, given that 72 million people apparently looked at the COVID body count, the loss of respect on the international stage, the economic collapse and the reveal of how little support the average American gets in times of crisis and said "we'll have more of that, please", it's best that he's not given a free megaphone. I'm happy with him gatecrashing weddings at Mar A Lago to rant incoherently, if only because I suspect that anyone still paying him for such a venue probably deserves to have their day ruined.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2021 @ 6:58am

    “Free reach?” You mean that Techdirt finally admits that these platforms are actually monopoly publishers controlling the modern, digital town square and need breaking up and their section 230 exemptions curtailed? Yep, I’m on board with that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Lostinlodos (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 9:39pm

    New platform

    “And there never were”
    And yet, there should be. Now is as good a time as any. When media companies have dug trenches and declared sides now more than ever, we need direct access for information from those in the government.

    “No, it wouldn’t, but you keep thinking it would. Your naïve optimism is kind of adorable.”
    I find your lack of faith in humanity very very concerning.
    Maybe you should talk to an expert. It’s not healthy to wonder around thinking every one is out to get you.

    The 230 assault took off, more than ever, and gained public notice, when “social” media companies blocked communication of a sitting President. An unfathomable thought prior to it happening.

    That that could happen, and now his public history being at stake. Are signs that the country needs a platform for politicians to speak to the masses.
    Free from censorship by private organisations of any leaning.

    I don’t understand how anyone could consider the words of politicians being recorded permanently could be a cause to fight against.
    No more fox or MSNBCNN misquoting people. No more out-of-context reports. It is true or false. Period. Permanent record.
    Want to fact check a statement? Go to government.gov. Read the statement.
    Sounds good to me!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 9:45pm

      Re: New platform

      “social” media companies blocked communication of a sitting President.

      [Hallucinates facts not in evidence]

      Free from censorship by private organisations of any leaning.

      That's that we already have today. "Problem" solved.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Lostinlodos (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 11:12pm

        Re: Re: New platform

        “Hallucinates facts not in evidence”
        Trump’s account on twitter was suspended when he was President.

        “That's that we already have today. "Problem" solved.”
        Free from what those who agree with the actions call “moderator” and those who disagree with call censorship.
        Only a non-private governmental platform could supply such a situation for censorship-free communication.

        And save it. If I’ve been blocked from reading it is censored.

        Why the pile on here. I’ve seen many statements that this 230 thing is about the right of privet property.

        I suggest an alternative that doesn’t infringe PPR. What logical reason does anyone have for bating federal employees from communication with the people outside of the left/right media bubble?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Rocky, 17 May 2021 @ 1:41am

          Re: Re: Re: New platform

          Trump’s account on twitter was suspended when he was President.

          So what, it was the least he deserved. Personally, if I have had any sway with Twitter, I would have banned is ass the first moment he broke the TOS.

          An unfathomable thought prior to it happening.

          No, presidents have been denied access to media before.

          And save it. If I’ve been blocked from reading it is censored.

          Is it? So for example, if someone uses a paid blogging-service and doesn't pay the bills, have they been censored when the owner of the service disables their blog?

          Now extend this to any kind of lapse towards the owner of the property and the TOS. If you think it's censorship because the words of some asshole was moderated because they can't follow simple rules, it says that you think the word of an asshole is more important than the ability for others to freely associate and control their own property.

          Why the pile on here. I’ve seen many statements that this 230 thing is about the right of privet property.

          And this tells me that you don't understand what is being said.

          I suggest an alternative that doesn’t infringe PPR. What logical reason does anyone have for bating federal employees from communication with the people outside of the left/right media bubble?

          There is only one media bubble, the right-wing one which is constantly pushing out lies to the gullible but useful idiots. Federal employees have federal sites to communicate with people, they can ask to use social media but they aren't entitled to use them.

          And so far, no social media company have actually blocked any federal employee that doesn't lie and make shit up which means they can communicate with the public freely.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 2:01am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: New platform

            "Trump’s account on twitter was suspended when he was President.

            So what, it was the least he deserved. Personally, if I have had any sway with Twitter, I would have banned is ass the first moment he broke the TOS."

            Also, Trump was suspended when he was in the "lame duck" part of his presidency. He has been voted out by a massive margin in the popular vote, all the relevant races had been certified, his claims of fraud had been kicked out of over 60 courtrooms for lack of evidence, and the final attempt to overthrow the legislative process had failed.

            He was "president" only due to the technicality that the confirmed loser waits until January 20th before his replacement is sworn in. The period of time where he was "president" while not being allowed on Twitter was the period of time during which any competent administration would be deep into the process of peacefully transitioning power to the new administration. Which, he notably refused to do.

            None of this is a problem, unless you believe that presidents should not be accountable for their actions or that government figures should be able to seize any private property they feel is valuable to them against the wishes of the property owner. Both of which are far more problematic than whether or not Twitter got tired of putting up with Trump's shit before he was kicked out of his position like the public requested.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 8:11am

          Trump’s account on twitter was suspended when he was President.

          Show me the law that says Twitter is obligated to host the speech of any person, never mind the sitting president of the United States.

          If I’ve been blocked from reading it is censored.

          I’m sure someone has archived the Twitter account of Donald Trump if you’re eager to read it. But I won’t find that for you.

          What logical reason does anyone have for bating federal employees from communication with the people outside of the left/right media bubble?

          I have none. But a federal employee who wants to reach out to others while on private property must play by the rules set by the owner of said property. Twitter doesn’t have to host their speech. Neither does Facebook, YouTube, Soundcloud, Mastodon, Gab, Parler, or even fucking 4chan.

          Any federal employee unhappy with that can buy their own property and say whatever they want. That’s how life works.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            Lostinlodos (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 10:50am

            Re: STS

            You’re not paying attention. are you. I said property rights are the reason I have changed my opinion on repealing.
            “Free from what those who agree with the actions call “moderator” and those who disagree with call censorship.
            Only a [b]non-private governmental platform[\b] could supply such a situation for censorship-free communication.”
            Emphasis added.
            How is that paragraph misconstrued to say I’m supporting forcing a private company to host speech it doesn’t want to?
            Such a platform would eliminate private property concerns.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 11:35am

          Re: Re: Re: New platform

          If I’ve been blocked from reading it is censored.

          Cling to your lies as desperately as you want, but you'll never achieve any comprehension of the world so long as you do.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            Lostinlodos (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 12:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: New platform

            The argument would have better chances if people called it what it is!
            We’ve been through the this on other 230 posts here

            *Censor

            VERB
            examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
            "my mail was being censored”*
            ~Bing definitions

            With that in mind, and further understanding of other conflicts in rights, it can be seen that it is not the act of censorship that is the problem but where one does so.
            By taking it out of the internet context it quickly becomes clear that forced speech isn’t acceptable. One would not expect to find The Satanic Bible or Setian Edda at the christian book store.
            When that structure is moved back to the internet such censorship becomes clearly constitutional regardless of what anyone may think of the content being censored.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 2:03pm

              You said you had changed your mind about Section 230, but then you wrote this…

              By taking it out of the internet context it quickly becomes clear that forced speech isn’t acceptable. One would not expect to find The Satanic Bible or Setian Edda at the christian book store.

              When that structure is moved back to the internet such censorship becomes clearly constitutional regardless of what anyone may think of the content being censored.

              …which sounds a hell of a lot like a complaint about “censorship” (read: moderation) of speech on private property. If a bookstore can legally refuse to stock The Satanic Bible, for what reason should the law deny Twitter the right to legally refuse hosting speech from a third party?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                icon
                Lostinlodos (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 2:55pm

                Re:

                I’ll always complain about censorship. It’s evil.

                But based on property rights it appears to me to be constitutional.
                As such I withdraw any complaint about it, regarding 230. And since my only complaint….
                Some minor disagreement on what good faith has to do with that perspective.

                I believe it’s difficult for many of freedom of all speech people, like myself, to separate such platforms into what they are, private companies. Not public forums.
                We get hung up on the act of censorship so tightly we ignore the private property aspect of it, as I did.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 3:06pm

                  Moderation doesn’t involve the violation of civil rights. Censorship does.

                  Moderation is when Twitter kicks out someone who violated its TOS even if they used legally protected speech. Censorship is when the government acts to silence the legally protected speech of a critic.

                  The First Amendment doesn’t give anyone — including you — the right to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else. Twitter doesn’t have the power to violate your rights, and whatever it can do vis-á-vis moderation doesn’t violate your rights. Twitter can’t censor you. Stop thinking it can.

                  Every time you refer to moderation as censorship, you weaken the word “censorship”. You make it cover more and more actions that don’t violate civil rights because those actions hurt your feelings. When you do finally come across an actual instance of censorship, all that time you spent crying “wolf” (i.e., “censorship”) will bite you on the ass because people will refuse to believe you’re referring to actual censorship.

                  Your ignorance before may have been accidental. After this point, it will be intentional. Think about that before you post again.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    icon
                    Lostinlodos (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 4:48pm

                    Re:

                    "The First Amendment doesn’t give anyone — including you — the right to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else."
                    I just said that.
                    'But based on property rights it appears to me to be constitutional.'

                    "Twitter can’t censor you"
                    As soon as they delete a comment it's been censored. Which I now agree is legal under the understanding of private property rights.

                    "every time you refer to moderation as censorship, you weaken the word"
                    "Your ignorance before may have been accidental. After this point, it will be intentional. Think about that before you post again."
                    "suppress unacceptable parts"

                    I simply don't narrow my viewpoint to a tiny little aspect of inability to access something.
                    See definitions.
                    Kind of self explanatory. Twitter removes-by-moderation content they consider unacceptable.

                    I'm not ignorant. I have a broader view of what it means to censor. One more closely aligned with the definition.

                    Censor: VERB:
                    Examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
                    "my mail was being censored”

                    ~Bing definitions

                    "also : to suppress or delete as objectionable"
                    ~merriam-webster
                    a fit to what twitter does. exactly

                    "to ban or cut portions of (a publication, film, letter, etc)"
                    ~ thefreedictionary

                    "to remove anything offensive from books, movies, etc."
                    ~ cambridge

                    Not liking my broad interpretation doesn't make it incorrect.
                    None of those definitions mandate it be a government agency. None state exceptions in terminology for private property. It is what it is.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2021 @ 5:25pm

                      Re: Re:

                      As soon as they delete a comment it's been censored.

                      No, you have been moderated, and you are free to post that comment on other platforms, including your own blog. A platform deleting a post does not have have power to take any action should you post it elsewhere.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 5:26pm

                      The more you keep stepping up with bullshit, the more commenters like I will keep smacking you down. Can’t stop, won’t stop.

                      As soon as they delete a comment it's been censored.

                      No, it’s been deleted from Twitter. The same person who made that comment can post the same comment on another website — including a website they own. Twitter can’t censor anyone.

                      suppress unacceptable parts

                      Your definition of “censorship” is unacceptable and untenable. I did not, however, try to suppress your speech. I asked you to think about going forward with that definition — one borne of ignorance, intentional or accidental — before posting again. You didn’t heed my advice, it seems.

                      I'm not ignorant. I have a broader view of what it means to censor.

                      A homeowner kicks out someone who yells obscenities. A bar owner kicking out someone who does a Nazi salute. Neither property owner has prevented anyone from speaking their mind, though — they’ve only told the offending parties to go speak their mind elsewhere.

                      • If you believe those acts aren’t censorship, by all means: Explain the difference between those acts and Twitter moderating the speech of a third party who has no right to use Twitter.

                      • If you believe those acts are censorship, by all means: Tell me exactly which civil rights were violated by the property owners.

                      Not liking my broad interpretation doesn't make it incorrect.

                      Having a broad interpretation makes possible the classification of any attempt at moderation as “censorship”. By watering down the definition of the term to include acts that don’t violate any civil rights, you cheapen the term and make taking your claims of “censorship” all the harder to believe.

                      Your definition must also lead to the idea that (what you think of as) “censorship” must be stopped at all costs. That cost, under your logic, seems to include the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. For what reason should the law force Twitter to host third-party speech its owners don’t want to host?

                      None of those definitions mandate it be a government agency.

                      Censorship can be carried out by people who aren’t government employees, sure. But that typically involves either the use of government resources (e.g., lawsuits) or threats/acts of violence (e.g., “print this and I’ll kill you”). Someone saying “we don’t do that here” and kicking you out if you do “that” again isn’t censorship — it’s someone telling you that you fucked up and you’re not welcome in that space any more.

                      You don’t have a right to use the property of others as your personal soapbox. Nobody does. And so long as the owner of that property isn’t trying to shut you up everywhere else, their kicking you out or telling you to shut the fuck up isn’t censorship. You can still believe it is, if you want. But before you say you still believe in that definition, ask yourself this: What actions would that belief justify?

                      If the answer involves actions that would violate the civil rights of another — like, say, trying to compel the hosting of speech — you have bigger problems than my shittalking.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        nasch (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 5:46pm

                        Re:

                        By watering down the definition of the term to include acts that don’t violate any civil rights, you cheapen the term

                        Except he's not the one doing that. You saw the definitions he quoted, right? The idea that censorship can be performed by someone other than government is a mainstream one, no matter how much you may disagree with it.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 5:54pm

                          The idea that censorship can be performed by someone other than government is a mainstream one

                          And I’m not here to disagree with that. But for someone not in government to censor another person, they must employ either government resources (e.g., the courts) or use threats/acts of violence. Telling someone to fuck off doesn’t censor that person, no matter how much that person (or anyone else) might believe otherwise.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            nasch (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 6:24pm

                            Re:

                            But for someone not in government to censor another person, they must employ either government resources (e.g., the courts) or use threats/acts of violence.

                            By some definitions, perhaps, but not all. "to suppress or delete as objectionable." Twitter finds a tweet objectionable and deletes it. By that definition, that is censorship. No government, no threats, and no violence.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 6:32pm

                              Twitter finds a tweet objectionable and deletes it. By that definition, that is censorship.

                              No, it isn’t — because the person whose tweet Twitter deleted can still repost the tweet verbatim outside of Twitter.

                              Even if I were to grant that Twitter deleting a tweet is censorship (and I don’t), it would only be censorship on Twitter. That’s the problem with such a permissive definition of “censorship”: It can apply to situations that feel like censorship but aren’t.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                nasch (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 6:53pm

                                Re:

                                No, it isn’t

                                What part of the definition does it fail to meet?

                                "to suppress or delete as objectionable."

                                So for that action to not qualify, it must:

                                • be neither suppressing nor deleting
                                  OR
                                • be suppressing or deleting, but not due to being objectionable

                                Which are you claiming?

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 6:55pm

                                  I’m claiming Twitter moderation isn’t censorship and the interpretation of that definition is far too permissive in what qualifies as censorship.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    nasch (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 10:10pm

                                    Re:

                                    the interpretation of that definition is far too permissive in what qualifies as censorship.

                                    What do you mean, interpretation of that definition? Do you interpret it in some way that makes Twitter deleting a tweet not fit the definition? If so, how? It's only six words, after all, there doesn't seem all that much room for interpretation unless you have an unusual definition for "suppress", "delete", or "objectionable".

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 5:04am

                                      Do you interpret it in some way that makes Twitter deleting a tweet not fit the definition?

                                      I interpret “censorship” in a way that led me to craft this copypasta:

                                      Moderation is a platform/service owner or operator saying “we don’t do that here”. Personal discretion is an individual telling themselves “I won’t do that here”. Editorial discretion is an editor saying “we won’t print that here”, either to themselves or to a writer. Censorship is someone saying “you won’t do that anywhere” alongside threats or actions meant to suppress speech.

                                      It serves a simplified-yet-accurate portrayal of my beliefs about what equals censorship. To see the more drawn-out version, please read the two articles Techdirt let me write on the matter — which you can read by clicking on my profile.

                                      Oh, and in re: the word “suppress” — that generally implies someone has prevented the speech in question from being either published or republished anywhere. Twitter deleting tweets does neither.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        nasch (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 7:12am

                                        Re:

                                        Yes, I know what YOUR definition of censorship is. My question is why you continue to deny the existence or validity of other definitions.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • icon
                                          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 7:47am

                                          Definitions aren’t the real issue. Interpretations of them are.

                                          When a definition of “censorship” includes the word “suppress” (or “suppression”), ask yourself: What speech does Twitter suppress — i.e., “prevent the dissemination of” — when a moderator deletes a tweet that violates the TOS?

                                          • If you say “none”, your interpretation of “suppress” covers only censorship. Good show.

                                          • If you say “the speech in the tweet”, your interpretation of “suppress” covers both moderation and censorship, which ultimately treats the two acts as the same. That’s no good.

                                          An alt-right chud who has a tweet defending Old 45’s Big Lie deleted by a moderator can still post the same speech elsewhere. Twitter can only censor/suppress speech if it can control whether that chud can repost their tweet elsewhere. Twitter can’t do that; you know that for a fact. To say otherwise — to treat censorship and moderation as one and the same — is to advance a dishonest argument. I cannot, and will not, do that.

                                          Yelling “censorship” about anything that only feels like censorship ends up cheapening the word. (When everything is censorship, nothing is.) To avoid that issue, I define/interpret “censorship” to cover actual attempts to suppress speech and leave out acts that amount to being told “we don’t do that here”. I can’t refer to something that only “feels like” censorship as “censorship” — I have to look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the act. If someone can still speak their mind after being told to fuck off from private property that they don’t own, that isn’t censorship. I would change my mind on that if someone could offer an argument capable of making me change my mind. To date, no one has done so.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • icon
                                            nasch (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 8:26am

                                            Re:

                                            Suppress OR DELETE. My example was of Twitter removing - one might even say deleting - a tweet.

                                            If someone can still speak their mind after being told to f*** off from private property that they don’t own, that isn’t censorship.

                                            At the risk of a broken record impression, that is true by your definition, and not true by others.

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • icon
                                              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 10:47am

                                              Suppress OR DELETE

                                              Deletion is moderation in my Twitter/alt-right chud example. One company deleting speech from its platform doesn’t delete it everywhere.

                                              Your argument expects me to side with the belief of “moderation is censorship”, and since censorship is bad, we must therefore stop censorship by Twitter. But by that logic, the only way to stop censorship — i.e., moderation — by Twitter is to compel the hosting of speech. Not only does that conclusion violate the First Amendment, it violates my own morals and ethics. I have no right to force anyone into hosting my speech; neither does anyone else. I cannot, and will never, agree with or support any argument that says otherwise.

                                              Moderation isn’t censorship. You want me to believe otherwise? You’ll have to come up with a better argument than “nuh-uh to your uh-huh”.

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • icon
                                                nasch (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 11:11am

                                                Re:

                                                Your argument expects me to side with the belief of “moderation is censorship”, and since censorship is bad, we must therefore stop censorship by Twitter.

                                                So now you've gone from cherry picking to straw man. If you want to have a conversation based on what I've actually written let me know.

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • icon
                                                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 12:49pm

                                                  If I’ve misrepresented your logic, by all means — point out the mistake.

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                  • icon
                                                    nasch (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 1:29pm

                                                    Re:

                                                    Your argument expects me to side with the belief...we must therefore stop censorship by Twitter.

                                                    See if you can find where I argued that.

                                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                    • icon
                                                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 1:49pm

                                                      Okay, lemme break this down for you:

                                                      Your argument expects me to side with the belief of “moderation is censorship”, and since censorship is bad, we must therefore stop censorship by Twitter.

                                                      You and Lodos seem to agree that the definition of “censorship” should be expansive enough to include moderation. I’m pretty sure you don’t see censorship as a good thing. If you view moderation as “censorship” (regardless of who does it) and you believe censorship is a bad thing (which I would hope you do!), the only logical conclusion to draw from those two ideas is that you believe “censorship” on Twitter is bad. Anyone who thinks censorship is bad generally wants to prevent/stop censorship — ergo, if you believe “censorship” on Twitter is bad, you likely want to prevent/stop Twitter from “censoring” people.

                                                      If my logic is flawed, so be it. But I’m working with what you and Lodos gave me; if my argument on this point is flawed, your logic being anything close to flawless is…unlikely.

                                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                                        icon
                                                        Lostinlodos (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 3:05pm

                                                        Re:

                                                        “Your argument expects me to side with the belief of “moderation is censorship”, and since censorship is bad, we must therefore stop censorship by Twitter.”

                                                        Ah, you’re making one key mistake in this.
                                                        Censorship bad. Twitter censoring bad. Twitter censoring is legal.

                                                        Twitter censoring legal. Oh well.
                                                        All I can do is point out the many bad things that can happen with censorship. My point is to point out the situation Vila, and have people think for themselves. Not for their politics.
                                                        Not that it is likely but what if Twitter was purchased by a Republican company and started selectively “moderating” anything Biden posts the Republican Party disagrees with?
                                                        Being legal doesn’t make it good.

                                                        Tumblr is a prime example. There’s enough people posting face palms over takedowns of bathing suits, bras without the people in them, etc.
                                                        When suggestion becomes a base you reached a point of stupidity!

                                                        Twitter isn’t there; yet! But they already selectively enforce their rules. That’s a major concern for those worried about censorship.
                                                        From censoring based on “community moderation” to censoring to corral and dictate. A thin line that is dangerous to cross.

                                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                        • identicon
                                                          Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2021 @ 3:35pm

                                                          Re: Re:

                                                          Twitter censoring legal. Oh well. All I can do is point out the many bad things that can happen with censorship.

                                                          You keep calling moderation censorship, where in reality is is a means of building a community. Remove it a and you get USENET, where groups keep moving to new subgroups to lose the trolls for a bit, or 8Kun, domination by trolls who then want to go to moderated sites to find people to troll.

                                                          Beside which, if you keep on referring to moderation as censorship, you make it easy for politicians to destroy the net by making moderation decisions.

                                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                                            icon
                                                            Lostinlodos (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 4:29pm

                                                            Re: Re: Re:

                                                            UseNet (and today USENET) doesn’t exist today as it did at it’s height.
                                                            What is left of it is either public education servers (as it started out), or private commercial file sharing sites.

                                                            The generic onramps with cross location searching, form pulling, and multi-source compiled listings are dead.

                                                            However outside of the educational servers (and including a few of them) UseNet was rather uncensored, yet still worked quite well. Software allowed for true flagging from the 80s and users were able to show or hide posts based on those flags.

                                                            Moderation was conducted without censorship via many ramps. And many communities moderated internally not by censoring (deletion) but by moving out of context, disruptive, or out right “bad” comments to the proper place or the sandbox. In many cases using a shadow link and including a reason for the move.

                                                            There is the line I draw between censorship (based on the prevailing academic definitions) and moderation without censorship.
                                                            Hiding, moving, flagging, walking, are all forms of moderation that do not censor the item of issue. There’s also deletion. Deletion falls under censorship by the prevailing academic definition.

                                                            The commercial USENET services? I’ve only ever used one once. In the mid 2000s. I can’t make any comment on how they work since nothing actually worked in the service I tried. I obviously wasn’t the only one with issues even getting in since the service is dead now.

                                                            The problem with (some? All?) the “Chan” sites is they do no gardening at all.
                                                            Illegal materials should be removed as per law. Problematic posts can be moved, or flagged and hidden from immediate view. All of which is non-censoring-moderation.

                                                            I will note that an argument could be made that even moving is censorship. could!
                                                            Even I’m not that all or nothing. So we’ll ignore moving the cacti from column A to column B for the point of legitimate discussion.

                                                            I’m not suggesting twitter should leave everything up and alone and ignored. At no point did I EVER make that statement.
                                                            There are many ways to ‘properly’ moderate that do not involve the destruction of the data. Twitter chooses the most destructive method, which happens to be included in the definition of censorship.

                                                            Bi vary yuz defare.
                                                            Be wary of danger.
                                                            Be it “this content has been flagged by the community as:” or “by the moderator as:”

                                                            Potentially: defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, disruptive, off topic, adult, pornography, spam, advertising, disturbing, unsettling, etc etc
                                                            Or simply “this content was removed for violating (locality) law” the poster may file a counter notice if they believe this to be in error.”

                                                            I again state that moderation is not an easy task. Unless you’re moderating a blind group-think site or a utopia. Or one that chose censorship. zap zap zap. Poof gone. Sure makes it easy. But not right.

                                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                            • icon
                                                              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 5:37pm

                                                              Moderation was conducted without censorship via many ramps. And many communities moderated internally not by censoring (deletion) but by moving out of context, disruptive, or out right “bad” comments to the proper place or the sandbox. In many cases using a shadow link and including a reason for the move.

                                                              And many others moderated by deleting bullshit they didn’t want to host, not even in a sandbox. That wasn’t censorship. It was moderation — the intentional curation of a community via proper consequences for violating the rules of that community. The people whose posts were deleted could repost their speech somewhere else; no suppression of speech ever occured in such situations.

                                                              Deletion falls under censorship by the prevailing academic definition.

                                                              And the interpretation of that definition should be narrowed to exclude deletion-as-moderation because moderation isn’t censorship. Unless Twitter is actively trying to keep a banned (ex-)user from posting somewhere else, Twitter isn’t trying to censor anyone when it bans people for violating the TOS. Unless Twitter has actively prevented someone from posting somewhere else, it has never censored anyone by preventing them from posting on Twitter. Moderation isn’t censorship.

                                                              I’m not suggesting twitter should leave everything up and alone and ignored. At no point did I EVER make that statement.

                                                              Your arguments present two ideas: censorship is bad, and moderation is censorship. For what reason would you want to stop censorship in all its forms except one?

                                                              Also, let me draw your attention to a comment you avoided addressing directly:

                                                              Beside which, if you keep on referring to moderation as censorship, you make it easy for politicians to destroy the net by making moderation decisions.

                                                              I have One Simple Question for you now. Yes or no, Lodos: Do you believe the government should have an absolute and irrefutable legal right to prevent any privately owned interactive web service from deleting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?

                                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                                                icon
                                                                Lostinlodos (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 6:58pm

                                                                Re:

                                                                UseNet/USENET
                                                                Funny, wasn’t UseNet being used to show a lack of moderation above?
                                                                I was pointing out that consolidation access programs had a tendency to allow moderation that didn’t result in deletion. (Some ISPs fought hard to block things but with net to UseNet software, ip-2-ip programs, and direct dial software: it rarely blocked access completely.

                                                                “ Your arguments present two ideas: censorship is bad, and moderation is censorship”
                                                                Not quite. I argue that censorship is bad, and that deletion is censorship. Deletion being one form of moderation used by social media sites (and others).

                                                                That’s a small, but vitally important difference
                                                                I only consider moderation censorious when it’s deletionary.

                                                                “ do you believe…”
                                                                I’ll separate this from the current post.

                                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                        • icon
                                                          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 5:20pm

                                                          Censorship bad. Twitter censoring bad. Twitter censoring is legal.

                                                          Legality is irrelevant. Logically, if you believe censorship is bad, and you believe censorship must be stopped, you must therefore believe even “legal ‘censorship’ ” (i.e., moderation) must be stopped. I can safely assume the first two propositions are correct. For what reason is the third incorrect? (“Property rights” is not an answer.)

                                                          Not that it is likely but what if Twitter was purchased by a Republican company and started selectively “moderating” anything Biden posts the Republican Party disagrees with?

                                                          People would likely stop using Twitter — or at least use it less — as they search for a less nakedly partisan alternative. (And hey, all the Parler and Gab assholes could finally have Twitter back.) I already left Twitter and have an account on a Mastodon instance, so it wouldn’t really bother me…except for having to keep track of which artists I follow would be leaving and where they’d be going.

                                                          they already selectively enforce their rules

                                                          Show me a moderation team that doesn’t.

                                                          From censoring based on “community moderation” to censoring to corral and dictate.

                                                          And if Twitter, Tumblr, etc. were able to “corral and dictate” on their own, you might have a point. But they can’t, so you don’t.

                                                          Now, if you want to talk about how payment processors and credit card companies use their immense power to help put the kibosh on adult content? That is either censorship or aiding censorship; it’s a damned important topic, too. But Tumblr choosing not to host porn, regardless of the reasons why? That shit ain’t censorship. Neither is Twitter deleting posts that support Old 45’s Big Lie.

                                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                      • icon
                                                        nasch (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 3:33pm

                                                        Re:

                                                        You and Lodos seem to agree that the definition of “censorship” should be expansive enough to include moderation.

                                                        No. I am not promoting any particular definition of censorship. I am just trying to get you to understand that there are other definitions than the one you use, and content moderation fits some of those definitions. I did not expect that to be such a difficult task, but here we are.

                                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                        • icon
                                                          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 5:08pm

                                                          there are other definitions than the one you use, and content moderation fits some of those definitions

                                                          I don’t support any definition (or interpretation thereof) of “censorship” that classifies moderation as censorship.

                                                          I do, however, apologize for putting words in your mouth that didn’t first come from it. I don’t like it when people do it to me, and I should be more careful about doing it to others. My bad; will do my best to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

                                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                          • icon
                                                            nasch (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 6:53pm

                                                            Re:

                                                            I don’t support any definition (or interpretation thereof) of “censorship” that classifies moderation as censorship.

                                                            I know you don't, but you do see that there are dictionaries that have such definitions in them, right?

                                                            I do, however, apologize for putting words in your mouth that didn’t first come from it.

                                                            Thanks.

                                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                            • icon
                                                              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 4:42am

                                                              there are dictionaries that have such definitions in them, right?

                                                              Two things.

                                                              1. Don’t use that “right?” rhetorical gimmick on me; I’m well aware of it and I don’t like it.

                                                              2. The definitions of “censorship” that I have seen mention acts that can be part of moderation, but they don’t explicitly mention moderation — and yes, I’d prefer to split hairs so I don’t equate moderation with censorship and thus sound like I’m against moderation/in favor of the compelled hosting of speech.

                                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                                                icon
                                                                Lostinlodos (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 5:04am

                                                                Re:

                                                                I know this response isn’t directed at me but I have to say: I’m so totally confused 😐
                                                                There really is a systemic “right?” movement? If that’s actually the case (non-political sources please) a may well and truly cut off all my limited modern web use.
                                                                I want no part of any platform that turned legitimate questions into flame bait.
                                                                I kind of like it in my disconnected web 0.995 hole. Appears safe to me!
                                                                At least people say what they mean and mean what they say: the majority of the time.
                                                                Makes me even MORE nostalgic for the good old days when people said FU instead of I thumb my nose.

                                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                              • icon
                                                                nasch (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 7:19am

                                                                Re:

                                                                Asking for confirmation of agreement is not a rhetorical gimmick. You need to up your level of textual analysis beyond keyword matching.

                                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                • icon
                                                                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 10:31am

                                                                  Asking for confirmation of agreement is not a rhetorical gimmick.

                                                                  As far as I’m concerned, it is. The trick to that gimmick lies in asking me to agree with a conclusion that I don’t share so you can have the upper hand in an argument. (Your aimed-below-the-belt snipe about “keyword matching” isn’t helping your case in that regard.)

                                                                  I know how bullshit that trick is. That’s why I don’t use that gimmick outside of the rare case of passive-aggressive sarcastic bullshitting. I mean, that is the best use for that kind of rhetorical trickery, right~?

                                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                  • icon
                                                                    nasch (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 11:45am

                                                                    Re:

                                                                    The trick to that gimmick lies in asking me to agree with a conclusion that I don’t share so you can have the upper hand in an argument.

                                                                    No, I was inviting you to state whether you agree or not. Nothing more. The argument is over as far as I'm concerned.

                                                                    (Your aimed-below-the-belt snipe about “keyword matching” isn’t helping your case in that regard.)

                                                                    Your response indicates that it was correct. You can choose to look at the context of the conversation and determine what was meant by it, or just see "right?" and assume bad faith. You chose the latter, and are continuing to do so.

                                                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                    • icon
                                                                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 12:36pm

                                                                      You can choose to look at the context of the conversation and determine what was meant by it, or just see "right?" and assume bad faith.

                                                                      Or — and stick with me, because I know this might shock you~ — I can do both. I don’t appreciate that rhetorical gimmick, but I can route around it if the argument before it is sound. Yours wasn’t, which is why I called out your use of the gimmick: You wanted me to agree with you on a point of argument I couldn’t agree with, and using “right?” would make me seem unreasonable no matter how minor my disagreement. (“He can’t even agree to this? He must be out of his mind!”)

                                                                      You wanna suckerpunch Koby or Brainy with that shit? Go right the hell ahead. But come to me with that shit and I will always be “unreasonable”.

                                                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                      • icon
                                                                        nasch (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 1:29pm

                                                                        Re:

                                                                        You wanted me to agree with you

                                                                        See, you're still doing it. All you had to say to my question was "no, I don't agree with that." But you didn't even try doing that, you just skipped straight to "rhetorical gimmick." And despite me trying to assure you repeatedly (I've lost count of how many times) that it was a genuine question, you're still insisting that it wasn't, and that I was laying some kind of trap for you.

                                                                        make me seem unreasonable no matter how minor my disagreement.

                                                                        Only if your disagreement was unreasonable. Next time consider assuming good faith instead of bad. Just a suggestion. I'm out.

                                                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                        • icon
                                                                          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 2:36pm

                                                                          despite me trying to assure you repeatedly (I've lost count of how many times) that it was a genuine question, you're still insisting that it wasn't

                                                                          I rarely see anyone using that rhetorical trick in good faith. Experience has taught me to consider it a bad faith move regardless of who does it.

                                                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                        • icon
                                                                          Toom1275 (profile), 20 May 2021 @ 1:12am

                                                                          Re: Re:

                                                                          You've picked weird, dumb hills to die on.

                                                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                                icon
                                                Lostinlodos (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 11:42am

                                                Re:

                                                “ we must therefore stop censorship by Twitter. But by that logic, the only way to stop censorship — i.e., moderation — by Twitter is to compel the hosting of speech”
                                                Ah, I see the confusion directed at us. I can’t speak for nasch:
                                                I’ve changed my opinion, based on property rights.
                                                I currently understand and believe that a private location can censor as it wants. And again I agree removing 230 doesn’t change the private property aspect.

                                                Again my issue is my distaste for censorship. Being legal doesn’t make it any more palatable. It simply makes it legal.

                                                I question using RationalWiki as a “reliable” source just as I would question using conservapedia as one. Both were set up with an intended slant to the text. Unlike Wikipedia, which claims and at least attempts some course towards neutrality, both these two site were ideologically intended to present the perception of a viewpoint.
                                                I’ll concede a win for you though. A large organisation has a narrower definition in place.
                                                But it is just that. Reducing the definition. Narrowing it.

                                                My concern is what happens when people accept removing, hiding, moderating, etc… as an acceptable daily occurrence. A worthy one.
                                                On how an intention can turn into a problem, one need only view the fall of Tumbler. First “extreme porn”. Then porn. Then erotica. Then nudity. Then suggestion. Then…
                                                It’s a single case on a single topic but a well documented one.
                                                Drawing the line between “moderation” and censorship is very difficult when the moderation is deletion.
                                                For two reasons. First because the evidence has been removed.
                                                And second because the removal is based on what a single entity states. This isn’t a concern for me on what is legal. But what is done.

                                                Censorship is a cliff with an outledge to stand on. One that is constantly being eroded away. At the bottom of the cliff are millions of good intentions swords for the masses to die on.

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • identicon
                                                  Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2021 @ 12:12pm

                                                  Re: Re:

                                                  one need only view the fall of Tumbler. First “extreme porn”. Then porn. Then erotica. Then nudity. Then suggestion. Then…

                                                  Those who want to view and post such material went to sites that are friendly to that community.

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • icon
                                                  nasch (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 12:28pm

                                                  Re: Re:

                                                  My concern is what happens when people accept removing, hiding, moderating, etc… as an acceptable daily occurrence.

                                                  It's not only acceptable, it's absolutely necessary if the space is to be a civilized one.

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • icon
                                                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 1:16pm

                                                  my issue is my distaste for censorship. Being legal doesn’t make it any more palatable. It simply makes it legal.

                                                  Do you stand against censorship? If so, what makes “legal” censorship any more acceptable than illegal censorship — and for what reason will you not stand against both?

                                                  That is the logical issue I take with broader interpretations of censorship such as the one you hold: Ethically and morally, one cannot say they stand against censorship and still support the idea that some forms of “censorship” (e.g., moderation, editorial discretion) are acceptable.

                                                  Reducing the definition. Narrowing it.

                                                  As we should. Again: When everything is censorship, nothing is. Expanding the definition cheapens the word and eventually downplays the situations it accurately describes. To consider both a belligerent asshole getting booted from a local bar and a thin-skinned Congressman trying to silence an anonymous critic as censorship cheapens the censorial situation (the Congressman’s attempt at suppression) by conflating it with a less serious non-censorial situation (the asshole getting Jazzy Jeff’d out of a bar).

                                                  My concern is what happens when people accept removing, hiding, moderating, etc… as an acceptable daily occurrence. A worthy one.

                                                  Do you want other websites to resemble 4chan (/b/ in particular) or 8kun? Do you want Twitter to become a cesspool of spam, racism, queerphobia, and other forms of bigotry where only the worst content lives because everyone else didn’t want to deal with the “Worst People” Problem? Because that’s what happens when moderation — i.e., curating a community — doesn’t happen on a daily basis.

                                                  Moderation doesn’t censor. It gives a community a chance to thrive without its worst elements and outside agitators shitting up the place. But under your logic, moderation is censorship — and under the idea that censorship is bad, moderation is also bad, so preventing those “worst people” from speaking their mind on a platform is bad. Yes or no: Is that the position you really want to take?

                                                  Drawing the line between “moderation” and censorship is very difficult when the moderation is deletion.

                                                  No, it isn’t. Moderation is about the intentional curation of a community. Censorship is about stopping someone from speaking their mind. Moderation doesn’t — can’t — censor.

                                                  But deletion can become censorship when the deletion is done to hide a message (often political) and someone attempts to prevent the republishing of that message. That is bullshit, and I stand against it. But I don’t consider that moderation.

                                                  As for the Tumblr example: I consider that a rather heavy-handed form of editorial discretion. Tumblr is legally allowed to choose what speech it will and won’t host, after all.

                                                  Censorship is a cliff with an outledge to stand on. One that is constantly being eroded away. At the bottom of the cliff are millions of good intentions swords for the masses to die on.

                                                  You know what else has “good intentions” behind it? Defining moderation as “censorship” and standing against both. At the bottom of that cliff is compelled speech and the erosion of free association rights. How willing are you to say the government should compel Tumblr to host porn because Tumblr choosing not to host porn is “censorship”? Because up to now, it seems like you’d be going in that logical direction if not for your sudden turnaround concerning property rights.

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • icon
                                                  PaulT (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 1:54pm

                                                  Re: Re:

                                                  "My concern is what happens when people accept removing, hiding, moderating, etc… as an acceptable daily occurrence"

                                                  It's been a daily occurrence since Gutenberg. The only difference today is that the moderation happens after publication instead of before, since there's no need to have an editor approve things before publication. So, you either need to argue that platforms are forced to approve things before publication, or that they be prevented from moderating afterwards. Neither of which is a positive compared to the current situation.

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                Lostinlodos (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 7:23pm

                                Re:

                                Again I, personally, am using the definition as posted above. Multiple, very similar, agreeing, definitions. From multiple sources including ones any logical person would call reliable.
                                Being censored by Twitter doesn’t mean being censored everywhere. Twitter censoring a person on twitter is twitter censoring a person on twitter.
                                If a Republican asks for an interview on CNN and are refused they have been censored by cnn.
                                If a Democrat asks for an interview on Fox and is refused they have been censored by fox.

                                Equally if fox posts an op/Ed and then removes it that op Ed is censored by fox. Take it elsewhere.

                                Going back to films; a film cut to make an R rating has been censored. A film cut in the UK for an 18 rating has been censored. That film in whole can still be found uncensored elsewhere.

                                Wikipedia sums this up quite nicely
                                “Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies” the board of twitter sets its TOS, making the the controlling body.

                                Censorship doesn’t have to cross boundaries. Be it private property boundaries or political (meaning borders).
                                It doesn’t have to be gone everywhere to be gone anywhere, somewhere.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 7:57pm

                                  Being censored by Twitter doesn’t mean being censored everywhere. Twitter censoring a person on twitter is twitter censoring a person on twitter.

                                  No, it isn’t. Twitter moderating speech isn’t censorship because censorship implies a violation of civil rights — either an inability to express a message or an inability to repeat an already-expressed message after it has been suppressed. Twitter banning some douchecanoe who whines about the existence of trans people hasn’t censored said douchecanoe — after all, someone getting banned from property they don’t own over speech the owners don’t want said on their property doesn’t violate anyone’s civil rights. The douchecanoe can sail on over to Parler and say the same damn thing.

                                  If a Republican asks for an interview on CNN and are refused they have been censored by cnn. If a Democrat asks for an interview on Fox and is refused they have been censored by fox.

                                  No, they haven’t. They’ve been refused a spot on those networks. They don’t have an absolute right to a spot on those networks any more than they have a right to a spot on Twitter. And they can still get their message out by going to the press or posting on social media or whatever else is at their disposal.

                                  Equally if fox posts an op/Ed and then removes it that op Ed is censored by fox.

                                  I’d consider that editorial discretion instead of censorship. Then again…

                                  Take it elsewhere.

                                  …if Fox prevented that from happening, the act would be censorship.

                                  a film cut to make an R rating has been censored

                                  If the film was published as an R-rated film, it wasn’t censored — it was editorial discretion from the studio/director. It might feel like censorship, but I wouldn’t consider that so.

                                  That film in whole can still be found uncensored elsewhere.

                                  If it can’t, it wasn’t censored.

                                  And before you think to bring up “TV cuts”: That, too, is editorial discretion — albeit on behalf of Standards and Practices departments.

                                  Censorship doesn’t have to cross boundaries. Be it private property boundaries or political (meaning borders).

                                  But it does, generally, have to infringe upon civil rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Someone who uses multiple outlets to claim they were “silenced” by one platform hasn’t been denied their right to speak freely. They can’t credibly claim to be censored.

                                  It doesn’t have to be gone everywhere to be gone anywhere, somewhere.

                                  A person isn’t censored if, out of 100 places their words are published, one of those places removes that speech. That person can still find a different place to post that speech or build their own platform to post that speech.

                                  You continue to interpret “censorship” in a way that turns virtually anything you feel is censorship into censorship. I mean, you’ve literally said that a bar owner tossing a Nazi out of said bar is “censorship”. Can you imagine how that bar owner would feel if you called them a “censor” — a suppressor of speech? Can you even think about how ridiculous you would sound in defending, however inadvertently, a Nazi’s non-existent right to sieg heil in a bar that doesn’t want to associate with Nazis?

                                  Ask yourself whether holding on to this belief you have — this interpretation of “censorship” — will do you more good than harm. If you answer “yes it will”, you have problems that I can’t solve for you.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    PaulT (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 10:49pm

                                    Re:

                                    "If the film was published as an R-rated film, it wasn’t censored — it was editorial discretion from the studio/director. It might feel like censorship, but I wouldn’t consider that so."

                                    Also, in the US, there's nothing to stop the film being shown unrated at festival or other screenings, being released digitally or physically uncut, etc. It just means that the version the mainstream multiplex chains will accept is cut for their needs. That's a business decision, not censorship, and you have to be truly ignorant not to understand the massive role that the business had in assembling the final cut of a movie.

                                    Meanwhile, as someone who has experienced actual censorship, I can only laugh at his weak will. If your idea of censorship is that you have to wait for the uncut Blu Ray of a movie because AMC wanted a version they could play to a room of teenagers, you have no idea what it entails.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                    icon
                                    Lostinlodos (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 12:31am

                                    Re: definitions or dictionaries are wrong

                                    “Censorship “
                                    Now it’s on you to prove your belief.
                                    Point to a single reliable source that defines censorship with … “implies a violation of civil rights!”
                                    The facts not in evidence tag fits nicely here. For sure.

                                    It is well and truly now shown it is you, that have the narrower view of censorship. One so small as to be country specific.
                                    The bill of rights only applies in America. English isn’t even a North American sourced language!
                                    The foundational source for the word “censor” as a verb is from Gothen. Itself a derogatory term for the act of Roman Censors separating people by class as to rights.
                                    Though the Latin term for the position of a censor is borrowed from early pre-Sicilian culture. Sensa literally means decide. The Greeks began using it four “count following the second sack of Osl. Or Athens.
                                    By the early mid Millennium it had become a form of sort in most post-Hebrew-Aramaic languages. The Middle Ages clearly defined all verb variants as removing unholy materials from all locals. Public or private.
                                    To box such an ancient and archaic concept into the view of the United States over the last 250 years is quite a limited world view.

                                    This site doesn’t support the extended Unicode coding for me to take it back pre-Latin. I tried previewing but it just show squares.
                                    If you want to ignore the history of a word, of origin over 2400 years ago, fine. I can’t change it that you accept CNNs 2020 definition.
                                    You’re in a bubble as to what words mean.

                                    “Bingo. So, removing section 230 won't do anything to stop it. ”
                                    Congratulations. You can copy paste what I said. Repeal won’t solve that.

                                    “I do find it interesting how this conversation has changed from this guy across threads, though.”
                                    That’s because an intelligent person chose to point directly to a few things I was not considering.
                                    Without forcing partisan language reform into the discussion.

                                    Or did you miss the whole 1st grade level retraction?
                                    My change of opinion was acceptance of the property based rights in law, to accept the constitutionality of allowing selective censorship by private companies.

                                    No amount of partisan clamouring is going to modify a long internationally accepted definition outside of of the tiny group that accepts such a narrow view. One printed in both online and physical dictionaries the world over.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 5:28am

                                      Point to a single reliable source that defines censorship with … “implies a violation of civil rights!”

                                      Per RationalWiki: “Censorship usually refers to a state's engaging in activities designed to suppress certain information or ideas. … More generally, the term is also used any time people in positions of power try to prevent facts or ideas embarrassing to them from coming to light. This can be done by editorial boards of periodicals and journals, by restricting what their writers can actually research or write about, or by restricting and censoring what they do write, preventing it from being published. … This type of censorship is not (and probably should not be) illegal; to force a journal or web site to promote ideas the owners and editors find anathema would be a violation of free speech. Actual censorship, however, is usually done much more maliciously, and threats (financial, legal, or physical) can be made to prevent something going to publication.”

                                      I’m loathe to agree fully with all of that — it’s a fine, fine line between editorial discretion and censorship — but you asked and I obliged, so there you go.

                                      It is well and truly now shown it is you, that have the narrower view of censorship. One so small as to be country specific.

                                      No, it isn’t. What I believe is censorship applies to situations around the world; my “expertise” and focus on the matter lies within the U.S. because I live there. To wit: A government shutdown of access to the Internet in a non-U.S. country is as much censorship as it would be if the U.S. government (tried to) shut down Internet access.

                                      You’re in a bubble as to what words mean.

                                      Even if I am, at least I’m not referring to acts that aren’t censoring anyone as “censorship” — like, for example, a bar owner kicking out an unruly patron.

                                      My change of opinion was acceptance of the property based rights in law

                                      You’re missing the forest for the trees, then. Property rights are tangential to, but don’t override the importance of, the right of free association. You’ve accepted an argument based on one but seemingly refused to acknowledge the other.

                                      A church can choose to associate (or not) with a preacher who professes God’s love — or hatred — for queer people. A bar can choose to associate (or not) with people who denounce — or promote — fascism. And if you and I are standing in an open field not owned by anyone, I can decide to walk away from you if I don’t like what you say — or stick around and listen if I do. In all three examples, property rights are irrelevant; what matters is the right to choose the association one wants with those people and their speech. The First Amendment guarantees that right to all Americans. To deny that right is to force association — to make others listen, to force others into hosting/publishing speech, to override property rights.

                                      Any argument in favor of repealing 230 must first overcome one specific hurdle: “Will this fuck up the freedoms of speech and association?” Property rights are tangential to the argument, but they aren’t the whole argument.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Toom1275 (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 9:44pm

                            Re:

                            By republicans' false definition, not publishing a book is "censorship."

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              PaulT (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 10:51pm

                              Re: Re:

                              ...which they'll respond to by buying every book by the author in protest, except for the ones going out of publication, thus proving the point that it was a financial decision..

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            Lostinlodos (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 12:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: New platform

            The argument would have better chances if people called it what it is!
            We’ve been through the this on other 230 posts here

            *Censor

            VERB
            examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
            "my mail was being censored”*
            ~Bing definitions

            With that in mind, and further understanding of other conflicts in rights, it can be seen that it is not the act of censorship that is the problem but where one does so.
            By taking it out of the internet context it quickly becomes clear that forced speech isn’t acceptable. One would not expect to find The Satanic Bible or Setian Edda at the christian book store.
            When that structure is moved back to the internet such censorship becomes clearly constitutional regardless of what anyone may think of the content being censored.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 10:52pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New platform

              "One would not expect to find The Satanic Bible or Setian Edda at the christian book store."

              One would not expect Nazis and plague spreaders on Facebook, yet here you are demanding they be forced to host them.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2021 @ 10:54pm

      Re: New platform

      we need direct access for information from those in the government

      Is that what Jan 6th was supposed to be, then?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 16 May 2021 @ 11:18pm

      Re: New platform

      "The 230 assault took off, more than ever, and gained public notice, when “social” media companies blocked communication of a sitting President"

      Except, they really didn't. He was kicked off a couple of weeks early from a handful of services after people died at the insurrection he inspired, but it was only just before he stopped being a sitting president anyway. He still had dozens of ways to communicate if he so wished, it's just that even he realised it was time to stop lying about his loss.

      You people spent a lot of time whining about his lies being fact checked, though.

      "An unfathomable thought prior to it happening."

      No, the unfathomable thing would be that a president would refuse to use the government apparatus supplied to him to communicate with the public, then not only misused the private property he co-opted but did so in order to amplify hatred and misinformation that led to many unnecessary deaths of his own citizens.

      The owner of the private property he was using having a say in what he could do while being a guest there is the least concerning thing in that scenario.

      "Want to fact check a statement? Go to government.gov. Read the statement."

      So... your idea of fact checking corrupt government officials is to read their official explanation as to why they're not lying? You think this is better than having a functional fourth estate?

      "Sounds good to me!"

      Actually, your track record here is pretty good. If you like it, it's a sign that either you're misrepresenting the facts, or that it's something really bad for people on speaking terms with reality.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2021 @ 3:14am

      Re: New platform

      now more than ever, we need direct access for information from those in the government.

      That is available for those who want it via personal blogs, party web sites, and government agency websites etc. Also, most politicians manage not to break the terms of service of the social media platforms and continue to use them. Why should any private platform be forced to support outright fascist, racist, anti lgbtq speech, especially when many of those speakers launch direct attacks on their targets on social media platforms?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Lostinlodos (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 7:27pm

        Re: Re: New platform

        Where in the comment you are replying to did I say:
        “…private platform be forced to support…”
        Anything?
        A government platform would not be private!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 8:03am

      I find your lack of faith in humanity very very concerning.

      Forgive me if my faith in humanity is more than a little broken. As of late, humanity hasn’t exactly done a lot to earn that faith. I mean, the people who voted for Trump in 2020 didn’t think his first (and hopefully last) term was a dealbreaker.

      “social” media companies blocked communication of a sitting President

      Yes, they did — on the services those companies own and operate. They can’t moderate speech outside of those services. And by the same token, they aren’t (and shouldn’t be) obligated to carry anyone’s speech. A president and a trash collector have the exact same right to “free reach”: None.

      I don’t understand how anyone could consider the words of politicians being recorded permanently could be a cause to fight against.

      That’s why we have the National Archives. That’s why we have C-SPAN. That’s why we have any number of ways for government officials to contact the media — “mainstream” or not — and speak their minds.

      If the government wants to give politicians a way to host blogs on government property, great. But it’s not required for a politician’s voice to be heard…and it’s not going to be cheap to set up, say, over 500 individual websites for the entirety of Congress. Or to upkeep them such that they’re “reset” when someone leaves a seat and loses access to that site. Or to keep the security for those sites up-to-date so they can’t be hacked.

      You seem to want it done badly enough, though. So maybe heed the words of Thanos: “Fine…I’ll do it myself.”

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 10:57pm

        Re:

        "Forgive me if my faith in humanity is more than a little broken"

        It's funny, isn't it? Four years of incompetent leadership that left hundreds of thousands dead, yet despite that a shambling horde of 72 million people voting for more, then turning against democracy itself when Trump fed them a lie about the election result.

        Yet, the thing that causes him doubt in humanity is people saying that Trump shouldn't be given a free platform to do more of the same.

        "That’s why we have C-SPAN. That’s why we have any number of ways for government officials to contact the media"

        Including, these people should be reminded, an official government Twitter account created expressly for the purpose of the president to communicate and which had been used by his predecessor without issue.

        The problem wasn't the availability of access, it was the mindset of the idiot they voted for, and creating more platforms won't help if they vote for another incompetent con artist.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 10:30am

      Re: New platform

      An unfathomable thought prior to it happening.

      It wasn't, though. People had been discussing it for months.

      Are signs that the country needs a platform for politicians to speak to the masses.

      Politicians are already free to post whatever they want on their web sites. They each have their own page on house.gov or senate.gov, and they're free to set up campaign web sites as well. So the problem you're trying to address has already been solved.

      I don’t understand how anyone could consider the words of politicians being recorded permanently could be a cause to fight against.

      That's because that isn't what anyone is fighting against.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Lostinlodos (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 6:44am

    On archiving: according to MSN: “ A spokesperson for the Archives confirmed to the Post that it and the tech giant are “still exploring the best way” to preserve Trump’s tweets.”

    Granted it was equally unheard unprecedented for a US President to use a private media account for official business
    Again, a government platform would solve this.

    That the government is relying on personal or party blogs is still problematic. And private.
    The government should self host.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2021 @ 7:00am

      Re:

      Again, a government platform would solve this.

      How does that stop a government official or the president from using their private accounts for government business. In the case of the president that would require action by congress, something his own party were refusing to do.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 7:10am

      Re:

      "On archiving: according to MSN: “ A spokesperson for the Archives confirmed to the Post that it and the tech giant are “still exploring the best way” to preserve Trump’s tweets.”"

      Yes, because Trump insisted on using a private account for which no direct archiving procedure had been implemented, it takes time to agree on the correct procedure. If Trump had used the existing @POTUS account on Twitter or the numerous other communication methods available to him instead of co-opting his pre-existing private account, this would not be an issue.

      That quote does not mean it won't happen, just that it's yet another mess that needs to be cleared up due to people not following established procedures.

      "That the government is relying on personal or party blogs is still problematic. And private"

      Yes, they shouldn't be doing that. Making up another random platform which the public might not bother using anyway would not help, if all that happens is another incompetent egotist decides the rules are too good for him to follow.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Lostinlodos (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 10:59am

        Re: Re:

        “Granted it was equally unheard unprecedented for a US President to use a private media account for official business
        Again, a government platform would solve this.”
        Point accepted.
        I don’t believe the President should be using it he POTUS handle either.
        Twitter should not be the sole or first source of any member of government.
        It’s now clear to me now, the problem is not private companies censoring: it’s the government using private services for government communication.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 11:07pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Twitter should not be the sole or first source of any member of government."

          It should not. Creating another alternative won't make a blind bit of difference if you vote in another incompetent con artist who chooses to do that again, though.

          "it’s the government using private services for government communication."

          Bingo. So, removing section 230 won't do anything to stop it. Removing the property rights of private platforms won't stop it. Creating more platforms under the government won't stop it. The issue is the people you vote for.

          Here's hoping everyone realises that and you continue to vote for competent professionals instead of incompetent grifters. Let see how this goes...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Lostinlodos (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 6:07pm

    “ If you believe those acts aren’t censorship, by all means: Explain the difference between those acts and Twitter moderating the speech of a third party who has no right to use Twitter.
    If you believe those acts are censorship, by all means: Tell me exactly which civil rights were violated by the property owners.”

    all three cases are acts of censorship.
    And perfectly legal based on rights of private property.

    You appear to believe I’m still calling twitter’s actions a violation of constitutionally protected free speech. I am not.

    Your definition must also lead to the idea that (what you think of as) “censorship” must be stopped at all costs.

    Ideally, but it’s not constitutionally possible to force that. It violates property rights.

    “For what reason should the law force Twitter to host third-party speech its owners don’t want to host?”

    It should not; which is why I said my view on 230 was in error, multiple times, above.
    A less me-right-you-wrong post reply on another 230 article on this site pointing out the property issues without attacking the terminology, with a bit of pressing, convinced me to reconsider that stance.

    I see I have to spell it out much more plainly since you appear to think I still believe twitter is doing something in violation of the constitution or law.

    I was inaccurate in my assessment of the situation based on a combination of politically charged reporting by competing sides, and my ignorance to the reality of twitter’s private stance in the context of its existence.
    I renounce my prior opinion that twitter’s actions were in violation of constitutionally protected freedom of speech and recognise that a private company has the right to censor and that twitter is such a private company.

    I may not like it. But it’s constitutional. And thereby legal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 6:21pm

      You appear to believe I’m still calling twitter’s actions a violation of constitutionally protected free speech. I am not.

      By referring to moderation as “censorship”, that is exactly what you’re doing. Moderation doesn’t violate civil rights. Censorship does.

      Ideally, but it’s not constitutionally possible to force that. It violates property rights.

      No, it violates the freedom of association. (Property rights are a tangential concern, though.)

      a private company has the right to censor

      No, it doesn’t. No private entity has a clear-cut inalienable right to prevent anyone — including the gotdamned president of the United States — from expressing themselves. That would be a violation of the First Amendment and censorship.

      A private entity has a right, however, to choose which persons and speech it will associate with. And on property owned by that entity, that right remains theirs no matter how much other people might wish otherwise. That choice is not censorship.

      Twitter can moderate speech on Twitter. That moderation doesn’t prevent anyone from speaking their minds on platforms outside of Twitter — or in meatspace. It also doesn’t violate any civil rights. While you may feel that such decisions are censorship, they aren’t. Feel free to explain how Twitter can censor someone who can provide an example of the “I have been silenced” fallacy…if you think you still can.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Lostinlodos (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 7:03pm

    “ Someone saying “we don’t do that here””
    Good read. And:
    Makes me realise I’m probably coming across more argumentative than I actually intend to.

    Recognising that twitter is actually not an open public platform, I was looking for ways to keep this from ever being an issue going forward.
    For starters something needs to be put in place so members of the government are not using private platforms for government business. Including official comments to the public.

    Figuring out what was Trump the President from Trump the person was difficult enough for those of us who weren’t blindly following, rather agreeing more with than against.
    That is Trumps fault, to be clear. But it shouldn’t happen again.
    We also have members of both the Senate and House, both Parties, using personal “social media” for both ‘the person’ and ‘the office’ reasons. Elected or appointed, twitter shouldn’t be the first place official messages are posted.

    Right now the federal government has departments spread across hundreds of .gov sites. Many with little to no traffic. The majority the population doesn’t know exists without scrolling to the second or third page of a net search.

    Those who have the need, or even want, for direct access to the public should have a single official site to do so at.
    Be it the President, a Senator, or the head of the Department of Overpriced Toilet Plungers. A platform where the citizens can go, type in a Name, Office, position, and pull up a listing of official postings.
    A place where what is posted is permanent and free from censorship (including moderation) for anything posted of official intent. Where it can be recorded permanently and directly via the LoC/NA.

    Where what you see is what you get, free from editing or commentary. A simple source for the public. Rather than taking down comments it serves as a permanent source of evidence. What is posted is posted.
    Being permanent it would be impossible to state something did or did not get posted as the evidence is right there. Date and time stamped.

    Expanding that to broadcast and radio would all for the permanent record of government, recorded/posted/streamed to the site in real-time time, of what each and every member of branch says.

    A single easy to access site of everything on the internet.
    Combined with national radio and television broadcasting on government stations.

    CSPAN, which I mentioned first, is hampered by not being on broadcast, and by being privately operated.

    Along with this platform we would then have full, and recorded, coverage of each department. The Senate, the House, and the SCOTUS. As CSPAN tries to do.
    Every commission, every committee. The full recorded of every act.

    The definition of national security needs to be redefined and narrowed. And Congress must be barred from “closed sessions” other than for national security.
    Elected officials are completely, uncompromisingly, beholden or o the populace that elects them. Their activities are and must be, public.

    Doable? Yes. Feasible? Absolutely. Will it happen? Not any time soon.
    The older generations in government see it as a cash machine for personal gains. The result of that has attracted activists to both parties who are far outside the mainstream.
    The dive cable “news” stations are all deeply entrenched to a political party line. All stuffed with people who’s only goal is maintaining their position or advancing. By any means necessary.

    Republicans don’t trust CNN/MSNBC. Democrats don’t trust Fox/OAN.
    It’s growing hard to find anything on any cable “news” station that doesn’t have some slant. Furthered by the fact those who watch don’t see any slant, or approve of it.

    It’s a one for the government to talk directly to the people on a government service. Free from any manipulation. Be that private tos or commentary.
    Again: a place where it is or is not.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 7:21pm

      For starters something needs to be put in place so members of the government are not using private platforms for government business. Including official comments to the public.

      That is what .gov websites are for.

      Right now the federal government has departments spread across hundreds of .gov sites. Many with little to no traffic. The majority the population doesn’t know exists without scrolling to the second or third page of a net search.

      So what? They exist. That they’re not heavily trafficked is more a PR problem than a “I wish this thing existed” problem.

      Those who have the need, or even want, for direct access to the public should have a single official site to do so at.

      And how do existing .gov websites prevent this from happening? Keep in mind that “because social media” is not a valid answer.

      A place where what is posted is permanent and free from censorship (including moderation) for anything posted of official intent. Where it can be recorded permanently and directly via the LoC/NA.

      Moderation isn’t censorship. Otherwise: Good idea. So what’s stopping .gov websites from doing this right now?

      Free from any manipulation.

      Had you used “manipulation” instead of “censorship”, you wouldn’t have to keep defending an overly broad, overly permissive, and largely bullshit interpretation of the meaning of “censorship” that turns things that aren’t censorship into censorship.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Lostinlodos (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 7:37pm

        Re:

        “And how do existing .gov websites prevent this from happening“
        It’s not a single place.
        And! many choose to use social media in an official capacity. That needs to end.

        That I chose to us a consistent dictionary standard definition of censorship doesn’t change what I state. I made it clear multiple times I’m not using the definition in a broad stroke to cover anything the the immediate act at the single time and place of occurrence.

        See the above film ratings and editing comparison, as well as the Wikipedia opening on the subject. Also conveniently posted above for reference.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          icon
          Lostinlodos (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 7:39pm

          Re: Re:

          Copy edit self reply
          “anything the the”
          -> anything beyond the

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 8:08pm

          It’s not a single place.

          Irrelevant.

          And! many choose to use social media in an official capacity. That needs to end.

          Because you said so? Nah, fam, shit don’t work that way.

          Politicians use social media because it’s where to find the biggest audience. But no one is entitled to an audience. If a politician ditches Twitter for a .gov blog and nobody shows up to read it, that sucks for the politician…and that sure as shit ain’t censorship.

          I made it clear multiple times I’m not using the definition in a broad stroke to cover anything the the immediate act at the single time and place of occurrence.

          You’ve literally used your interpretation of “censorship” to cover the act of a bar owner kicking out an unruly patron for espousing Nazi beliefs. Stop bullshitting me; it won’t work.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 17 May 2021 @ 11:15pm

            Re:

            "If a politician ditches Twitter for a .gov blog and nobody shows up to read it, that sucks for the politician…and that sure as shit ain’t censorship."

            It also doesn't mean they can't do their job. A modern president has access to many more ways of communicating directly with the people than most former presidents could even dream of. Even if they are not allowed to use a couple of the larger social media platforms, they can communicate way more effectively than even Reagan could have done.

            The problem isn't social media platforms moderating on their own property. The problem is the belligerent grifter who decided that rules and procedures didn't apply to him.

            I do find it interesting how this conversation has changed from this guy across threads, though. We're no longer talking about people like Milo being kicked off social media as a direct consequence of his actions, now we're splitting hairs over whether Trump needed a special government run platform to sooth his fragile ego.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2021 @ 1:48am

              Re: Re:

              Strange that all these "bipartisan" or "non-partisan" people keep showing up only when it's Trump's fee-fees getting hurt. It's almost like the claims of being impartial were actually all bullshit...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 5:04am

                Re: Re: Re:

                Sadly, part of the problem is that they actually buy into the propaganda and don<'t realise how wrong they are. Take this guy on the top of the thread, for example - in other threads he's talked about how he gets his news from different sources to remain non-partisan, but when pressed he admitted he gets most of his news from Rupert Murdoch outlets and referred to the NYT as "alt left".

                Imagine how misinformed you must be in that bubble, yet he was convinced he was getting every viewpoint.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  icon
                  Lostinlodos (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 11:00am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  “Imagine how misinformed”
                  And yet it doesn’t take much more than a few clicks of a mouse and taps on a keyboard to see my views on censorship long predate your hatred for Trump.
                  Like the long penned discussion at AVM in 2001, or the editorial in 2009 at A/V-T.
                  The bickering from less open people when I allowed subs in the AOL VGS section to discuss other technology. Including early net censorship issues. In the early 90s.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2021 @ 7:39pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    And yet it doesn’t take much more than a few clicks of a mouse and taps on a keyboard to see my views on censorship long predate your hatred for Trump.

                    And? The point being raised here is that your "views" were nowhere to be seen when it wasn't Trump getting his feelings hurt. It's not my job to look up your history of thought-provoking content when your third comment on this site is the usual Republican talking points:

                    If Canada was going to be as correct and accurate as Trump has been, I’d be somewhat interested. But I have a feeling they want to shut down real news and remove anything they don’t like; leaving ONLY fake news. Much how the progressive movement in the US continues to push the beyond debunked story of collusion.

                    "But but but I'm not always a Trump supporter!" is not a good look for you, my guy, especially if you expect others to track your resume for you off-site.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Lostinlodos (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 9:58pm

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

                      “ And? The point being raised here is that your "views" were nowhere to be seen when it wasn't Trump getting his feelings hurt. ”
                      My opinions and legitimate work: my sweat. My tears. And occasional my blood! My history is easily accessible to anyone interested!
                      Unlike cowards I have no issue with my history.
                      I think ‘right to be forgotten’ is the biggest piece of white joke in History.

                      My various platform posting ms against the brother movement are easy to find. My hatred for the Bush family and the damage the created is also well and easily available.

                      Congratulations. Not only are you a fool you’re not willing to post who you are. My censorship views! Again! anonymous chickenshite turd, are public.
                      I don’t hide. I’m easy to find to anyone willing to put the effort in. And I’m afraid of no man, no god, an no institution.

                      As a secondary note here: I have GREAT respect for those who are willing to discuss, or fight, head to head.

                      Be it Stephen T. Stone or Mike Masnick or anyone else with the bollocks to state their opinion under their own name. I am LostInLoDOS. The one the only.
                      Some call me John Clark or Jon Clark. In Asia it’s Darian: ダリアン
                      Unlike you I don’t hide.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2021 @ 6:53pm

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

                        lol bro. I'm not the one anxiously trying to kiss up to Trump, or attempting to use his history as justification for being an asshole. You've been here since, what? 2019? And only now, because your Trump spider senses have been overstimulated, are you putting yourself forward like it's some major sacrifice to be acknowledged. It's not my damn responsibility to do your homework for you, or look up your post history outside of this website, if you can't put up a good argument forward. If your disagreement with Republicans mattered so much to the crux of your argument you wouldn't wait this long to mention it after making your opening move while surgically attached to Donald "Grab 'em by the Pussy" Trump.

                        And I’m afraid of no man, no god, an no institution.

                        Considering that you've spent hundreds of posts desperately braying because Trump got his ass kicked off Twitter for the Jan 6th incident, I'm calling shenanigans.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          icon
                          Lostinlodos (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 8:05pm

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

                          How sad when some people are so defined by a single party they can not recognise that others are not lock step too.

                          Let me help the blind sheep:
                          https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2021 @ 9:35pm

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

                            Learn to reply to the actual post being made, wise guy. I've already acknowledged that the "Trump calling the virus a hoax" thing is incorrect. But for someone eagerly chomping at the bit to call everyone else lockstep you sure jump like a whipped puppy every time Trump's feelings get besmirched.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Lostinlodos (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 6:09pm

    “you must therefore believe even “legal ‘censorship’ ” (i.e., moderation) must be stopped.”

    See, you use “must” as a hammer to my perception of it as a transcontinental roadway.
    Immediate vs long and slow.

    The difference here is I support moderation that is not by it’s nature destructive. I see it as a perfectly acceptable to purging from existence in the immediate environment.

    Even obscenity is being struck down at state levels (Started in Oregon in the 80s).

    We’ll likely never reach no censorship because someone always wants to come along and stomp out something they don’t like.
    But I can balance non destructive moderation as acceptable against deletion.
    Even if you don’t agree, or understand that thought process, it’s my belief.
    Much like I support the intent behind railings and being over 18 for porn. Despite the premise behind it being extremely flawed scientifically.
    The method of moderation is to keep such materials available for adults and out of reach of children in book and magazine shops.
    Works fairly well in most cases.

    IMDB hides adult films behind a toggle switch site wide. Sure, things get caught up in that. Some films that are simply erotic and non-pornographic get hidden. And a commercial release that went through the ratings process can clear the filter despite being pornography.
    But by preserving it behind a filter such mistakes can be addressed by the users so that the issue is rectified.

    Ideally all sites would use the very method used here on techdirt. Enough flags or down votes or etc and it gets hidden away out of public view. Yet still capable of being retrieved by anyone interested.

    The method balances things.

    An interesting omission from your thoughts on “People would likely stop using Twitter…”
    True, just like many Republicans did.
    But many many would undoubtedly take to the public about how wrong it is to “censor”. Or do you truly believe hardened democrats like the “squad”, and their support like Pelosi would simply quietly go to another platform? I don’t.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2021 @ 7:41pm

      Re:

      Or do you truly believe hardened democrats like the “squad”, and their support like Pelosi would simply quietly go to another platform? I don’t.

      When the Democrats fuck up you can expect Techdirt to talk about it. Which Techdirt already does, and did so, during the Obama administration. Which Techdirt literally does every time some Democrat dumbass proposes killing Section 230. This level of "But but but" whataboutism is just sad at this point.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2021 @ 3:46am

      Re:

      But I can balance non destructive moderation as acceptable against deletion.

      Either that is carried out by the platform, and acts the same as deletion, or it is carried out by users, most of whom would have no idea or ability to keep up with the changing tactics of the trolls. A third possibility would be to allow a third party to filter a feed, but that in effect requires them to duplicate the data, and have a fire-hose feed from the site they are moderating, making it an impracticable approach.

      Besides which, anybody can keep copies of what they post, or recreate a post on a site where it is acceptable. Having a post deleted from a site is not destructive of speech in the grand view of things, just a means of moving the conversation to a different platform.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 4:54am

      I support moderation that is not by it’s nature destructive

      Therein lies my entire point: You see “destructive” moderation as censorship. If you dislike censorship and would want to see it stopped (which I hope you would!), you cannot then turn around and say “oh that form of censorship is okay” — it weakens your entire stance on censorship.

      I see it as a perfectly acceptable to purging from existence in the immediate environment.

      Assume a platform owner don’t want to host speech such as Ku Klux Klan propaganda — even if it’s “hidden away” by sandboxing it. Do you want them forced to host that speech so they aren’t “censoring” a white supremacist terrorist organization?

      I can balance non destructive moderation as acceptable against deletion.

      Yes or no: Can you perfectly balance the desire of platform owners to not host offensive/repugnant speech with your desire to keep them from deleting/“censoring” it, such that platform owners aren’t forced to host speech?

      But many many would undoubtedly take to the public about how wrong it is to “censor”.

      Like, say, the same people you claim have been censored by Twitter — the people prevented from speaking by way of having their tweets/accounts deleted by Twitter? Because that sounds like the “I have been silenced” fallacy in action.

      do you truly believe hardened democrats … would simply quietly go to another platform?

      No. But I’d also call them ignorant if they equated Twitter moderation with censorship. I don’t care about political ideology on this point; I’m not playing that game.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Lostinlodos (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 7:29pm

    On rights and balance

    “Do you believe the government should have an absolute and irrefutable legal right to prevent any privately owned interactive web service from deleting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?”

    Big question. I don’t know. An nothing in any of the 230 discussion, this site and others, has made any real impact on me.
    From my viewpoint, and to be clear this is MY PERSONAL viewpoint, it’s a balancing act between private property rights and free speech rights.

    On one hand I believe deeply in the right of communication and that that is a natural right. One used by every animal on the planet, and a surprising number of plants.
    I have a serious problem with deleting. Mainly because it causes something to cease to exist and I consider all speech to be something that should never be destroyed. Good, or bad. Great, or ugly.

    On the other, I strongly support property rights. From my choice of grass height to my ability to defend it at any cost via castle doctrine.
    By placing 230 into the brick and mortar world my opinion on 230 has changed.

    Thinking of a social platform as my home: I see a serious problem with allowing someone to come by and place a Jesus saves or he is risen sign at my front door.
    Should I be required to keep it, and put a bigger sign up that so no he doesn’t?
    Or should I be allowed to take it down, and put it in the recycling bin?

    Or should I be required to roll the sign up, place it inside, make a tiny little paper note for the door that someone has previously posted a sign I disagree with, Ask to see it?

    If I go with the latter as long as I can make a record of the post in question, say a 3x5 photo, and discard the original? I’m not sure that would constitute “undue burden”.
    I could even eliminate myself from having to be the one to show it by placing it in a box on a post with the note “this is a reduced size replica of another’s post which I do not agree with! Open to view”.

    It’s a legitimate debate.

    We have multiple things to look at here
    Right to expression
    Right to not be burdened by others’ expression
    Right of private property, including one’s self
    Right to not suffer undue burden

    The answer is quite literally I don’t know. I’ve yet to see anyone present an argument that fully placated all people, nor one that protected the very right in the list.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2021 @ 8:46pm

      Re: On rights and balance

      I’ve yet to see anyone present an argument that fully placated all people, nor one that protected the very right in the list.

      You somehow have to keep going back to the far right, don't you?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 9:34pm

      Re: On rights and balance

      From my viewpoint, and to be clear this is MY PERSONAL viewpoint, it’s a balancing act between private property rights and free speech rights.

      There's nothing to balance, honestly. Everyone has their own right to speak, but private property rights means that they cannot force others to host that speech. They can speak freely in their own space, and the government cannot interfere with that. And that prohibition on gov't interference includes compelling websites to host speech.

      A private property owner saying "you cannot say that here" is not the same as saying "you cannot say that anywhere." The latter would be an infringement on free speech rights. The former is not.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Lostinlodos (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 10:40pm

        Re: Re: On rights and balance

        I get the point. And contrary to the left assaults by others her and elsewhere, often anonymous, I am capable of understanding other viewpoints.

        We may disagree, but I try not to be disrespectful unless I am personally attacked.

        The ultimate solution to this is for A: Democrats to understand where so many Republicans are coming from and B: Republicans to understand the Democrat’s POV.

        Most of us, though a simple majority, not bound to any party tend to be closer to the side Republicans take at the moment.

        This isn’t about Trump, specifically, for many of us non-republic. Republicans counting us in their numbers is deceitful. At best.

        For us, those who are anti-deletion, over 40, and politically fluent, who gets deleted, blocked, bared, is of no issue! It’s the action.

        I know from private discussions (hundreds of people over the last decade alone) that this is a difficult topic for us. We may ourselves be a minority, in not agreeing with the majority of Republican views. Many keep silent for fear of being labelled a Republican.

        My anti-religion stand alone eliminates any Republican platform. Dems hate my stance on national image, limited immigration, and drive for arming any willing American citizen.

        Censorship is not political for us. It’s deeper and broader.

        We, a minority granted, have a long history of fearing and feeling the results of censorship in this country.
        Be it Thelma in the 40s, communists in the 50s, non-heterosexuals in the 60s, socialists and D&D in the 70s, Race track and Holocaustal Cannibal in the 80s, Doom and Carmageddon in the 90s, GTA and American Pie in the 2000s,

        That it happens to pull in alt-left (socialism) and alt right (communism) is a byproduct.
        Be it Women’s power on the left or pro sex feminism on the right. Be it atheism on the left or christian nazis on the right.

        Like UseNet there are many alts for both sides. An that we tend to all fight what we see as oppression is a sign that something is wrong.

        If every person who considers themselves a minority in some group is counted up you have the majority of the country.
        If the majority of the country feels oppressed, something is wrong.

        I don’t have the answers. All I can say is the current system, appeasing half the country, isn’t working.

        The fastest way to fix the problem is to leave politics a d bigotry at the door, listen, to each other, and find a solution. Otherwise we face a long broken government forcing a simple majority resolution against half the population and solving nothing.

        The Greek, Roman, West Toman, Ottoman, and British empires all show what happens when compromises can’t be reached.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2021 @ 11:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

          This isn’t about Trump, specifically

          That's what you lot claim, every time. Yet you'd never show up if Trump wasn't the one being besmirched. Now why is that? Why do you continue to think that speaking in defense of Trump, because Democrats are misbehaving, is the default method of making your first impression?

          The fact that you're over 40 isn't a notable factoid. You realize that people from all demographics and walks of life have stood firmly by Trump, right?

          My anti-religion stand alone eliminates any Republican platform

          I don't know why atheism gets trotted out as a reason to take someone seriously. We've seen black people, gay people, various minorities step out in favor of Trump after drinking the Kool-aid. Never mind that Republicans make an absolute fucking mockery of the religion they're supposed to uphold.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Lostinlodos (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 11:12pm

        Re: Re: On rights and balance

        I ask you this, as the founder of the site. As a man with undeniable influence in this country and somewhat world wide.

        Which is better: being correct in the current climate, or reaching compromise with those who are either against, or question, the current situation.

        The Trump situation is only the easiest to hold up for being so recent and so internationally public.

        You, more than anyone is likely to have down at least a simple search. From both paid and voluntary positions, with some of the biggest public facing companies in the world: Compuserve, AOL, Sega US, Sega Jp, CyBEx, Go2… I have a long standing comprehension of moderation.
        Again I’ve gone out of my way to not delete outright. And over the decades I’ve butted heads with not equal counterparts and superiors. Most of the time I’ve been cleared in the end. Eventually.

        I readily admit my comprehension of the line between censorship and moderation is not the same as others, even many or most. But I’m far from alone.
        Ultimate my strive has been to allow the expression, and limit damage. A process that creates considerably more work than simply deleting.

        One need not agree for validation of fact.
        Right now we, as a country, face a major first amendment issue. If Democrats dictate a law it will allow for unlimited censorship. If it manages to be held off for Republicans to decide it will end moderation as a whole.

        So again. Which is better: being correct in the current climate, or reaching compromise with those who are either against, or question, the current situation.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 18 May 2021 @ 11:38pm

          Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

          "The Trump situation is only the easiest to hold up for being so recent and so internationally public."

          ...and for being an extraordinarily clear case of a platform bending over backwards to make special exemptions to their rules for him, until the point they finally had no choice other than to drop him for extreme and consistent violation of their policies.

          At which point you come out and whine that he's been treated so poorly.

          "Again I’ve gone out of my way to not delete outright"

          Good for you. Other people prefer to moderate differently, and until you manage to get the law changed so that they lose that choice, they can set their own house rules. People who dislike that have a wide variety of choice as to alternative venues to visit.

          "But I’m far from alone"

          Yes, we know. The Murdoch echo chamber from which you admit you get most of your news has told a lot of people that simple moderation of private communities is wrong when people they like are the ones being told to behave or GTFO. That doesn't make the spin true.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            Lostinlodos (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 12:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

            “ The Murdoch echo chamber …”
            My viewpoint our viewpoint FAR predates Fox and trump.

            “ That's what you lot claim”
            Only a completely ignorant ultra-left-wing child or brainwashed partisan hack idiot would lump me in with Republicans on consistency.

            I didn’t drink any poisoned sugar drink.
            Did you total miss the fact that Clinton was manipulated to a nomination? Because most entrenched Democrats thought she may loose to the populace Republicans? None of the Dems expected trump to win.
            My choice was simple. As simple as the never Trumpers! I will not then, now, or ever vote for H Clinton the genocidal war criminal who should be drawn and quartered without trial by a military tribunal.

            That I recognise that TRU o land some historic achievements is a side issue. So did Obama, Bush, Reagan, and Father of progressive alt-left bullshite Carter.

            That doesn’t make me a Republican (I voted for Sanders prior to November). It makes me non-partisan.
            That I voted for trump again was simply a choice of someone who proves ability despite public perception over someone any independent non-partisan doctor would state had dementia: something that runs in my family and is easily understood by those who have seen it themselves.

            Atheism? First I’m not, by definition. Your wrong again.
            Second the number of Republicans who admitted to being atheist
            S historically is so small as to be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. Statistically they don’t exist outside the margin of error.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              icon
              Lostinlodos (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 12:39am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

              Damn you Siri sometimes
              TRU o land
              Trump had

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2021 @ 1:04am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

              That I voted for trump again was simply a choice of someone who proves ability despite public perception over someone any independent non-partisan doctor would state had dementia

              Is this the part where you start boasting about how Trump handled the pandemic too?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 1:22am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

              "My viewpoint our viewpoint FAR predates Fox and trump"

              Yet, you parrot them perfectly, and you stated that you get your news from almost nowhere else.

              "Only a completely ignorant ultra-left-wing child or brainwashed partisan hack idiot would lump me in with Republicans on consistency."

              Well, you share their partisan attitude, and the belief that childish namecalling has a place in adult discourse, anyway.

              "None of the Dems expected trump to win."

              No sane, intelligent person on the planet believed that you'd be stupid enough to vote for a bankrupt narcissistic con artist with decades of history of corruption and failure - and in many ways they were right, since he only won due to a quirk of the electoral college. The people didn't vote for him.

              "That I voted for trump again"

              It doesn't rally matter which reason you invent to make yourself feel better. You weighed up your options and thought that this bankrupt con artist who had recently driven the country to its knees because he gambled 500k lives on the pandemic not being real, so that he could save his reelection chances after impeachment, was the best choice for you.

              Justify it all you want, I'm just glad there's adults back in charge for a short moment so that the damage can start to be repaired.

              "Atheism? First I’m not, by definition. Your wrong again"

              Well, your poor reading comprehension and writing might only be matched by your inability to define who you're replying to. I didn't mention atheism.

              But, thanks for demonstrating yet again the kind of adherence to facts, logic and basic competency that a Trump voter possesses.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                icon
                Lostinlodos (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 3:29am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                “ only won due to a quirk of the electoral college…”
                A system that protects the masses from small scale major population masses.

                Multiple studies since 2000 have broken down states.
                The consistent result is that large “Blue” states are such do to one or two very dense cities.
                That would be NY, IL, CA, OR, WA…
                It’s gotten so extreme in difference that both Illinois (jettison Chicago) and Oregon/Washington have (create a new state) have contemplated methods to rid themselves of those Democrat entrenched locales.

                I’ll ignore the attack on the single greatest medical achievement in history. Trump, worked to to push a vaccine in beyond record time.
                All Biden did was become President after Trump’s success.
                That MSNBCNN managed to convince the public that electing a man with dementia is the best choice is to their credit.
                People who recognised the condition voted against him or not alt all. No person of sound mind would put a man with dementia in the highest office, no matter how much they dislike the opposition.

                @ PaulT no you didn’t. Rather than make multiple post reply’s I quoted specific comments. I do, sincerely, apologise to you if you misunderstood my quoted reply’s as being towards you. The atheism comment was to the sorry poc not even willing to stand by their comments by logging in or registering
                This reply thread has grown quite long and everyone (being a generic exaggerated statement) is replying in condensed method now.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2021 @ 5:01am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                  Trump, worked to to push a vaccine in beyond record time.

                  While promoting bleach injections and having masks off and rubbishing everyone who disagreed with him.

                  Look, if you take a shit in my house and rub your diarrhea into the floor, I'm not going to go on my knees and beg for the privilege of thanking you even if you paint my front door afterwards.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 6:06am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                    The thing is, he didn't even do that. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/12/01/trump-takes-credit-for-vaccine-created-by-oth ers-including-immigrants/?sh=2f86e608374c

                    He played the usual con game he played, where he took public credit for things other people did without his input. He also botched the distribution of the vaccine and refused an extra 100 million doses (IIRC) when the administration had the opportunity to procure them. Doses which might not have been necessary if there had been competent responses to the initial pandemic rather than lies and attempts to attack China (while the disease was already spreading from Europe).

                    Some people really do seem to live in an alternative reality, and I'm glad I live in the one where Trump is not the best available.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2021 @ 7:45am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                      Apparently Biden is bad for taking over the Presidency when vaccine development started under Trump, but Trump is good because Fauci and other companies did all the work for him while he peddled bullshit lies.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      icon
                      Lostinlodos (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 1:53pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                      Oh, how narrow a pinhole used here. Typical: use part of an original statement and quote it out of context to fit what you want it to be.
                      Trump’s administration put together the task force, the funding, cut the legal tape obstacles. His administration worked to accelerate trial timelines and then leaned heavily and aggressively to push the vaccine out the door.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 2:40pm

                        His administration also ignored COVID-19 until it got so out of control that even Donald “I lie as easily as I breathe” Trump couldn’t ignore the existence of a global pandemic. The only reason he did all that shit with the vaccine is because he forced his own hand in that regard. Thousands of people died before he ever thought to order the development of a vaccine. Don’t give a murderer credit for preventing deaths his own indifference would’ve caused.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 11:22pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                        One of us cherry picking facts to meet a certain narrative, but it's not me.

                        Again, stop getting your news from Rupert Murdoch, you'd be surprised at what the actual facts say, and they don't make con artist who pretended the virus wasn't real, withheld aid from states that didn't vote for him and sacrificed the lives of 500K Americans look good, even if his misdirection at his role in getting the virus funding works on you weak minded types.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 5:50am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                  "A system that protects the masses from small scale major population masses."

                  Or, the system that overturns the votes of 3 million educated voters in favour of a a few hundred thousand ignorant hicks who were taken in by an obvious con artist.

                  It's all down to perspective, and it is the way the game is played now, but the fact is that Trump did not win by the will of the people. Which makes it even funnier when you people whine that he lost the popular vote and the electoral college this time around, as if the only way that such an abject failure could lose is by some mysterious fraud.

                  "I’ll ignore the attack on the single greatest medical achievement in history"

                  I'm all ears as to what that would be...

                  "Trump, worked to to push a vaccine in beyond record time."

                  Oh dear. You fell for that bullshit as well. Sigh... I can link to a detailed explanation as to why you're wrong, but you do seem to prefer fiction in every piece of news media you consume.

                  "All Biden did was become President after Trump’s success."

                  ...then after weeks of the outgoing administration refusing to do any kind of translation, he came into a situation here the vaccine distribution plan didn't actually exist. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-klain-idUSKBN29T0FY

                  So, he did the work required to greatly exceed his campaign promises. Not perfect on every subject, but it's notable how much movement has been made, compared to the idiot who was telling you the virus wasn't real this time last year.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    icon
                    Lostinlodos (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 1:46pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                    I’d be happy to hear a source where any other vaccine was created, produced, tested, trialed, and released, in history, faster than C19.

                    I’ve hear people on the left claim he said the virus was fake but I’ve yet to see where he had said that.
                    Just like the multiple times he called out white power extremists and they kept claiming he didn’t. Even after he did so on international broadcast during the debate they kept the same “never” story.

                    Feel free to correct me, but I’ve yet to see a post or video clip of him saying it was fake.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2021 @ 9:32pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                      I’d be happy to hear a source where any other vaccine was created, produced, tested, trialed, and released, in history, faster than C19

                      That's... hardly a damning point. Nobody denies that the COVID-19 vaccine process was accelerated. But saying Trump was primarily responsible for that vaccine going through is stretching it. Especially considering that he claimed, on multiple occasions, that:

                      • The virus isn't that bad
                      • The pandemic was under control, even as cases in the US surged
                      • The US had the lowest case-fatality rates worldwide
                      • The suicide numbers from economic downturn would outweigh casualties to the virus
                      • The media overblew the severity of the pandemic
                      • 85% of mask-wearers caught the virus
                      • Increased testing caused US case numbers to rise and therefore testing should be halted
                      • Using powerful lights, hydroxychloroquine and bleach injections to cure the virus

                      That's not forgetting Trump personally cutting CDC funding, crippling the pandemic response capabilities of the US.

                      I’ve hear people on the left claim he said the virus was fake but I’ve yet to see where he had said that.

                      To be fair, what Trump referred to as a "hoax" was over the Democrat's claim that his administration largely bungled the pandemic response. Trump didn't call the virus fake, he simply responded to it in a way that looks incredibly incompetent. As I said, if you take a shit in my living room and rub your solid waste into the floor, I'm not going to thank you even if you paint my front door afterwards. I'm not going to be overcome with gratitude if you tell me "I could have taken a dump on your bed but I didn't!"

                      If you want to argue that Biden inherited the presidency from Trump and thus shouldn't be praised, sure. I don't hold Biden as personally responsible for how the US is currently handling the pandemic. Then why should we praise Trump, when all he did was be president at the time while Fauci, pharmaceutical companies, and medical staff were the ones doing all the work?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 11:31pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                        "But saying Trump was primarily responsible for that vaccine going through is stretching it."

                        He basically had nothing to do with it, and his constant attempts to block and undermine his own CDC experts might actually have hindered a lot of the progress, if not with the development then certainly with the overall takeup of the available vaccines. Not to mention that he's personally responsible for dismantling the pandemic response team and their infrastructure that would have helped without him having to lift a finger.

                        "I don't hold Biden as personally responsible for how the US is currently handling the pandemic"

                        I do, the difference is night and day, especially if reports about the vaccine rollout plan discovered when he took office are correct (there was no plan).

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Lostinlodos (profile), 20 May 2021 @ 6:10am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                        Too funny.
                        “considering that he claimed, on multiple occasions, that”

                        Not that bad? At the time it wasn’t. If the Democrats didn’t stand in the way of closing travel from China and the boarder stayed remain in Mexico; it’s likely it would have remained rather low numbers.
                        The numbers were still well within manageability. The surges were all near International airports.

                        The self harm comment would have likely been accurate if we closed down international travel.

                        We have today both the CDC and WHO noting that mask use is also dangerous. Most of us considered any protection better than no protection. I now recognise I was wrong in that. Disposable masks in general did not and will not stop the virus. And have considerable drawbacks of their own.
                        Only 95% filtration (or higher) masks are proven to be effective.

                        hydroxychloroquine has proven benefits for helping those who were infected. It was suggested as a potential stop gap measure or even secondary candidate for review.
                        Ultra violet lights are used world wide in the medical industry for sterilisation.
                        And Trump never said you should inject bleach. Not once.
                        That’s an intentionally out of context misrepresentation of
                        “…And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning…” during a discussion over cleaning viral contact areas, which also included Alcohol, direct sunlight, and UV.

                        Biden inherited everything from Trump’s administration. If you truly believe the timeline we have would have been different under a second Trump term I can’t do anything to change your mind. It’s a what if situation.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          nasch (profile), 20 May 2021 @ 6:58am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balanc

                          We have today both the CDC and WHO noting that mask use is also dangerous.

                          Citation, please.

                          Only 95% filtration (or higher) masks are proven to be effective.

                          Citation, please.

                          hydroxychloroquine has proven benefits for helping those who were infected.

                          Citation, please.

                          “…And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning…”

                          When referring to chemical disinfectants. Not bleach specifically, but yes he suggested we research injecting disinfectant into humans.

                          Biden inherited everything from Trump’s administration.

                          Including no plan for vaccine distribution.

                          If you truly believe the timeline we have would have been different under a second Trump term I can’t do anything to change your mind.

                          When they had no plan for distributing the vaccine, I can't see how you could believe otherwise. Oh wait, yes I can.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 20 May 2021 @ 7:04am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balanc

                          "the boarder"

                          I'm always curious - why is your type so obsessed with borders but so unable to spell the word?

                          "We have today both the CDC and WHO noting that mask use is also dangerous"

                          Bull. Shit. Read some facts. There was some doubt early in the pandemic if they'd help as much as other methods, and since we'd all seen the toilet paper hoarding there was concern that people would take N95 stock away from people who actually needed them. That advice was changed when the true benefit of using non-N95 masks because clear, and the advice has been pretty consistent up until recently when vaccinated people in open areas are advised they' re not mandatory for them.

                          Nowhere is wearing a mask stated as being dangerous, unless you're going to give us a glimpse of the propaganda you've been ingesting.

                          But, you seem to swallow a lot of false information, so I wouldn't be surprised if you've been told something that's not true. Another reason to be glad to have adults back in charge.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2021 @ 7:53am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balanc

                          And thus the Trump fan shows his true colors. Seriously, pushing your buttons should not have been this easy. The "both sides" argument just falls apart because your precious "grab 'em by the pussy" hero might be mildly insulted.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 11:27pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                      "I’d be happy to hear a source where any other vaccine was created, produced, tested, trialed, and released, in history, faster than C19."

                      There were several successful trials, some of which had absolutely fuck all to do with Trump's push to pretend to be doing something after he dropped the ball so many times early on.

                      The speed of rollout is easily explained by the being a worldwide pandemic, which obviously led to some of the normal red tape being suspended on an international level to fight the disease.

                      Trump is a con artist and grifter who regularly takes credit for things he didn't really have anything to do with, and you've fallen for it again.

                      "Just like the multiple times he called out white power extremists and they kept claiming he didn’t"

                      After he called black people silently protesting the police murdering black people "sons of bitches" and the murdering white supremacists "very fine people", does it really matter what he was told to say in future comments to stop getting the bad press? He'll condemn George Floyd, but wish Ghislaine Maxwell the very best.

                      You have to be pretty deep in the echo chamber not to see what's going on here.

                      "Feel free to correct me, but I’ve yet to see a post or video clip of him saying it was fake."

                      Then you're being wilfully ignorant, and you should stop getting your news from outlets known to outright lie to their viewers.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Lostinlodos (profile), 20 May 2021 @ 6:17am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                        The actual quote is “But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.”
                        In context of the discussion he stated his support for the rights of peaceful protesters on both sides.
                        You can check out the entirety of the situation at:
                        https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 20 May 2021 @ 7:00am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balanc

                          "Trump has said his “very fine people” comment referred not to white supremacists and neo-Nazis but to “people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee"

                          Oh, so he's not referring to Nazis and white supremacists, he's actually referring to the type of person who supports the Confederacy in the 21st century using symbols that mainly became prominent during opposition to civil rights. I'm sure there's a difference somewhere in your mind.

                          Meanwhile, he has many other words and actions that reveal how he really felt about such things. Maybe they didn't penetrate the Murdoch echo chamber you built for yourself, but a lot of the rest of us have seen and heard them. You might be able to point to prepared statements he made when he got competent adult supervision after a tragedy, but we've also seen the mask slip when he's left to speak off the cuff or Twitter rage at 3am.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          nasch (profile), 20 May 2021 @ 7:00am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balanc

                          The actual quote is “But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.”

                          Yep, and one of the sides was neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Then when condemning the violence, he couldn't bring himself to just condemn the neo-Nazis, he had to also pretend the peaceful protesters were violent:

                          “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides.”

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        nasch (profile), 20 May 2021 @ 6:53am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                        The speed of rollout is easily explained by the being a worldwide pandemic, which obviously led to some of the normal red tape being suspended on an international level to fight the disease.

                        Not only that, but they had already been working on a vaccine for another coronavirus, which gave them a big head start.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 20 May 2021 @ 7:11am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balanc

                          That is true. A lot of the "just asking questions" crowd seem to think that the medical community was starting for literally nothing, which is so far from the truth it's laughable.

                          The other problem is how some of them get confused and bring up 10 year old coronavirus documents that mention dangers with then-current research and think that it has to do with the vaccines we have now, because obviously medical science doesn't change in a decade...

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  nasch (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 7:21am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                  A system that protects the masses from small scale major population masses. Multiple studies since 2000 have broken down states. The consistent result is that large “Blue” states are such do to one or two very dense cities.

                  Can you explain why people choosing to live in large cities should make their votes count for less?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 7:24am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

              I will not then, now, or ever vote for H Clinton the genocidal war criminal who should be drawn and quartered without trial by a military tribunal.

              So your interest in the constitution ends after, what, the second amendment? You're obviously not a fan of the fifth, sixth, or eighth.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                icon
                Lostinlodos (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 2:04pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance

                Without should be with. Auto type.
                Wow that makes a bit of a difference doesn’t it. Oops.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 5:25am

          Right now we, as a country, face a major first amendment issue. If Democrats dictate a law it will allow for unlimited censorship. If it manages to be held off for Republicans to decide it will end moderation as a whole.

          I assume that, with this paragraph, you’re referring to the efforts to repeal Section 230.

          Democrats want to repeal 230 because they think services such as Twitter aren’t moderating enough speech — that those services are “letting” TOS-violating speech stay up because…reasons. Their thought process in repealing 230 goes like this: “We repeal 230 and they’ll be forced, by threats of lawsuits, to moderate far more than they do right now.” But any repeal of 230 wouldn’t repeal the First Amendment — i.e., it wouldn’t “allow for unlimited censorship”.

          Republicans want to repeal 230 because they think services such as Twitter are overmoderating speech — that those services are “censorsing” conservative speech and ideas (you know the ones…) because of an anti-conservative bias. Their thought process in repealing 230 goes like this: “We repeal 230 and they’ll be forced, by threats of lawsuits, to carry conservative speech no matter what.” Their repeal of 230 wouldn’t “allow for unlimited censorship”. It also wouldn’t “end moderation as a whole”…although it would prevent most moderation, even the “non-destructive” kind, from ever happening because of the threat of being sued over it.

          Repealing 230 would do nothing to stop actual censorship. If anything, it might encourage censorship by encouraging companies to stop hosting third-party speech, since 230 would no longer prevent services from being held liable for such speech.

          And moderation still wouldn’t be censorship, no matter how much moderation feels like censorship to you.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            Lostinlodos (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 1:34pm

            Re:

            Thank you for expanding what I said.
            I see we are in agreement On Dems, Reps, and repeal.

            The only disagreement is how we got to agreeing. And the choice of definition.
            See. Opposing views doesn’t have to be a roadblock to understanding.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 5:09am

      I’ve yet to see anyone present an argument that fully placated all people, nor one that protected the very right in the list.

      Okay, let’s look at that list.

      Right to expression

      Twitter moderation doesn’t infringe upon this right. A person who has a tweet/account deleted from Twitter still has the right to go elsewhere and say the same things that made Twitter moderate them. Thinking otherwise is to believe in the “I have been silenced” fallacy.

      Right to not be burdened by others’ expression

      I’ll assume here that you refer to the right of association. Twitter moderation doesn’t infringe upon this right, either. What would infringe upon this right is the idea that Twitter must sandbox speech it would otherwise delete — that it must host speech against the wishes of the owners/operators — or else it is (somehow) a censor.

      Right of private property, including one’s self

      Tangential to, but not wholly the same as, the above question. The right of association gives me the right to tell someone to fuck off while in an open field owned by no one; property rights give me the right to kick out someone who I’ve told to fuck off but won’t leave my home.

      Right to not suffer undue burden

      People suffer undue burdens all the time — sudden deaths of family members, debilitating diseases, financial hardships, you name it. Nothing in the laws of Man or God (whichever one you worship) says people have a right to be free of such burdens.

      Moderation doesn’t fuck with anyone’s rights. Forcing “non-destructive” moderation to prevent “censorship” would, at the bare minimum, violate the right of association and property rights. You can’t balance the idea of “non-destructive” moderation and the right of Twitter to choose which speech it will and will not host without infringing upon that right. Nobody can.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Lostinlodos (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 12:54am

    I’m no atheist. If a higher power exists it’s of female form.
    Given that women are better than men in almost all comparisons.

    If the JIC god existed he’d let me know. And I’d tell him to come down here and know his roll and open his mouth and “know” me.

    As I’ve said before. And stand by, the quote from “Kings of the North”:
    What would I do in heaven when all my friends are down in hell.

    Well, and I’m quite sure I can convince enough of the demonic hordes to fight along side me I’d take over.
    So sure.

    I’m agnostic and anti JIC same god different name interface in advancement.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2021 @ 2:45am

      Re:

      And I’d tell him to come down here and know his roll and open his mouth and “know” me.

      Stay classy, bro. You don't want to let that masculine insecurity out of sight now...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Lostinlodos (profile), 19 May 2021 @ 3:41am

        Re: Re:

        Oh, rotflmfa!
        In an attempt to stay somewhat r15
        I’ll limit my brief reply to, I’m not insecure. I’m quite content with my slightly shorter than average rifle and slightly larger than average grenades. My mouth and skilled use of it provide enough to make any consideration of “deficiency” a none factor.

        I pity your self confidence that you need to turn the generic suck/kiss/lick my into something of more, specific and directed usage.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2021 @ 5:02am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I pity your self confidence that you need to turn the generic suck/kiss/lick my into something of more, specific and directed usage.

          It's funny that you got anything "specific and directed" out of

          Stay classy, bro. You don't want to let that masculine insecurity out of sight now

          I'd say to tell the class what you thought was being "specific and directed", but hundreds of shitposts from you later, it's very clear that you let your Trump do the talking for you instead of your brain.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.