God forbid people have to think about whether the idea being communicated to them on the internet is true, after all, everything on the internet was true before this decision.
No post body was provided.
U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
531–540 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#532Earlier quoted context omitted.
The opinion of three journalists working for the same retail tech conglomerate is hardly "research." WaPo has suffered a Pulitzer Prize revocation in 1981 for fabricating stories, has continuously circulated advertisements from China Watch (operated by the CCP), repeatedly settled on libelous claims made for profit, and on numerous occasions assisted in providing platforms for anti-Western and anti-Semitic groups sup…
It would take some time to fact check your assertions, so I only looked into the first one. It involved a single reporter, not systemic plagiarism by the paper, and she was fired when it came to light. The Post's ombudsman, who handles readers' complaints as well as internal problems, undertook an investigation.
Wait, so you mean a bunch of wild assertions posted on the internet were in fact false? But I did research!
Thanks for making my point.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#533Will this apply to bots? What if I have a big list of a complaints about a certain politician (use your imagination, there's more than one politician to complain about), but the "other party" doesn't follow me, in fact, I have very few followers overall. So I create a bot that spreads my opinions by replying to millions of other Tweets. Anyone who mentions the politician of interest will receive a reply from "me" (my…
This ruling appears to apply to the content of speech. There's nothing that says you couldn't rate limit replies to prevent spam. Limiting posts to 1 per 30 seconds, or linking the number of replies you are allowed per day to your rate of organic interactions with other people would be a way to effectively eliminate these sort of bots without censoring based on content.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#534Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet Reddit, that follows this model, still manages to engage in suppression of on-topic viewpoints that moderators and/or Reddit employees disagree with.
What evidence do you have of reddit employees censoring information they disagree with?
One look at r/worldnews or r/news? Those are not even some obscure subreddits.
It's a community ruled by progressives, posted into by progressives and mostly read by progressives. The content reflects that. This has been achieved by years of content filtering and banning of any centrist or right wing views. It's the definition of an echo chamber. Or another of the main subreddits, r/video, just recently I'm watching a post where a guy describes some valve or whatever and his little kid comes in yadda yadda cute video of dad with his daughter. In the comments it's all about how the guy said something about supporting truckers or whatever and how terrible that was. Yep. Meanwhile the video has basically no dislikes on Youtube..But by reading the r/video thread you'd think it's unpopular and the guy is a nazi or something. No. It's just that Reddit is a manufactured community of left wingers.
Btw try to talk about how "trans women are not women" and refer to transitioning people by their pre-transition name (because you don't recognize their transition or it is against your religion), which is absolutely a political/religious statement and 100% a point of view, see how long your account lasts :)
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#535Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#536Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, yes, everything is political whether we like it or not. Even not having a character in a videogame that represents a minority can be a political statement. It's far too broad a brush to paint to be useful for anything
No, like you said, everything CAN be a political statement but, more often than not, everything is not, by default, a political statement
But we’ve reached a political climate where anything characterized as political is so. It’s unavoidable, and I think that’s the intention of this law. It wasn’t created to provide some fair and balanced public experience for citizens on private platforms. It was created to threaten large tech companies that make some politicians uncomfortable.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#537Will this apply to bots? What if I have a big list of a complaints about a certain politician (use your imagination, there's more than one politician to complain about), but the "other party" doesn't follow me, in fact, I have very few followers overall. So I create a bot that spreads my opinions by replying to millions of other Tweets. Anyone who mentions the politician of interest will receive a reply from "me" (my…
Let each user block what they don’t want to see. With filters, ai, etc. Don’t have a centralized “overlord” decide what an individual is allowed to see. That should be obvious and not controversial.
I have argued similarly, based on comparisons with editorial decisions of newspapers in the days of yore. You could pick which opinions were amplified or shunned by picking your newspaper. On Twitter, you are stuck with the decisions made by Twitter. Saying 'just start Twitter competitors' would lose us the universal platform of Twitter and create more walled gardens.
Instead, let people pick their moderators / editorialization.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#538Earlier quoted context omitted.
The opinion of three journalists working for the same retail tech conglomerate is hardly "research." WaPo has suffered a Pulitzer Prize revocation in 1981 for fabricating stories, has continuously circulated advertisements from China Watch (operated by the CCP), repeatedly settled on libelous claims made for profit, and on numerous occasions assisted in providing platforms for anti-Western and anti-Semitic groups sup…
So have many other media outlets. It's an old company with many employees some of whom aren't going to be ethical. As for the Chinese government ads: do you want them to censor it?
You're too generous. It's all media, it's all for profit, and it's all unethical. No editor will willingly submit a piece that makes his/her company, or conglomerate overlords LESS money. That is, unless he/she plans to change careers. The circumstances imply that only the most submissive journalists, who are most willing to lie, are left in action.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#539Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ABA at this point is a partisan institution. Go read into some of their politics and realize that they are very much left-leaning. Edit: example https://www.wsj.com/articles/anticompetitive-woke-law-school...
Maybe instead of telling people to “go read into some of their politics” you can provide some examples and make the argument yourself?
Added a context link. Here it is for you
https://www.wsj.com/articles/anticompetitive-woke-law-school...
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#540Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the only reason. Without any moderation, sites would degenerate into cesspools that only cesspool dwellers would want to visit. Few site owners want their properties to be cesspools.
Just don’t follow anyone on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram with those views, how is that a ceespool?
Websites routinely disperse unconnected users' messages to encourage discussion. Hence the youtube alt-right indoctrination spiral.