301–310 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These guys are sawing off the branch they are sitting on - a few weeks ago they were defending net neutrality and went postal on any attempt to silence inconvenient voices. Now, they don't even want to listen to their former idols Snowden and Assange.
Who is “these guys”? I’m not sure what you are referring to here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also means government can't encourage or incentivize a unconstitutional action or violation on its behalf, which includes waiving private party liability. (Which is the real, misunderstood issue with Sec 230.) This includes arrangements with no formal or even informal agreement. Imagine a law waiving criminal and civil liability for lynch mobs, and then government claiming due process isn't violated because it isn…
My understanding is that section 230 doesn’t waive liability, it assigns liability to the content creator rather than publisher, and only for civil, not criminal cases. You believe this is unconstitutional? Is there discussion of this you can point me to?
"Get rid of § 230" is a backwards way to solve the problem that they have. They don't actually want publishers to be liable for the content on their sites (which would, if anything, lead to greatly increased censorship and filtering). They want to STOP companies from censoring what the companies deem misinformation or otherwise offensive content.
In other words, they want the law to be "if you control a channel for speech, you are not permitted to censor or filter out what you view as misinformation, incitements to violence, or otherwise offensive content."
Again, this has no support in the free speech rights of the first amendment. In fact, it could be viewed as contrary to free speech, since the government would be forcing people and corporations to carry content on their websites that those people or corporations do not agree with and/or find offensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should go actually read what Popper said about the paradox of intolerance, instead of projecting your own interpretation onto it based upon your assumptions. Edit: here, I'll do it for you: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant,…
> People who use this paradox to try to suppress speech that isn't directly connected to violence In your quote from Popper, he doesn't tie the suppression specifically to violence, does he? "they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument" isn't a violence related criteria; merely "they insist on arguing in bad faith". Or "they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it…
that said, I don't agree with your assessment that people saying the news is fake meets the test. from my vantage point the mainstream news is fake, for the most part, at this time, at least when it comes to politics. "the news" is not the forum for rational argumentation, not in my country at least. it seems to be close to pure propaganda, at least on the issues that are the most divisive. the forum for rational argument are the online public squares and in-person gatherings. and this is where Popper's argument in my opinion holds increasing relevance.
people retreating into filter bubbles and presuming their ideological opponents are evil, immoral to even engage with, etc, seems more in line with Popper's argument and is as prevalent as the news media propaganda. it doesn't take more than a few minutes to find examples of people on the right saying those on the left are secret communist pedophiles, and people on the left saying those on the right are white supremacists. (not the fringes, but that the mainstream views are in alignment with those labels.) this is the kind of intolerance the tolerant ought to push back against.
To people who complain about deplatforming Parler, how would you feel about de-platforming a forum to recruit members for ISIS, or the Taliban? To me, Parler has equivalencies - AWS linked to calls for violence that were made on Parler - The platform was actively suppressing non-conservative viewpoints I would recommend looking at r/ParlerWatch on Reddit
These goings-on make me very aware of the fact that I'm still not settled on the matter of free speech. I used to be very pro-free-speech, but on the other hand, I'm anti-fascism, and I don't know what's worse: Giving fascists a platform to spew hate, or set a precedent for potentially limiting my own speech down the line? It's nowhere near clear-cut, and I'd like to hear some opinions on this.
If you ever want to question an election result in the future you should be worried sick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also means government can't encourage or incentivize a unconstitutional action or violation on its behalf, which includes waiving private party liability. (Which is the real, misunderstood issue with Sec 230.) This includes arrangements with no formal or even informal agreement. Imagine a law waiving criminal and civil liability for lynch mobs, and then government claiming due process isn't violated because it isn…
My understanding is that section 230 doesn’t waive liability, it assigns liability to the content creator rather than publisher, and only for civil, not criminal cases. You believe this is unconstitutional? Is there discussion of this you can point me to?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/06/22/big_te...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that section 230 doesn’t waive liability, it assigns liability to the content creator rather than publisher, and only for civil, not criminal cases. You believe this is unconstitutional? Is there discussion of this you can point me to?
It seems that some people's problem with § 230 is that it permits a publisher to filter content without also risking liability for the content. "Get rid of § 230" is a backwards way to solve the problem that they have. They don't actually want publishers to be liable for the content on their sites (which would, if anything, lead to greatly increased censorship and filtering). They want to STOP companies from censorin…
>would be forcing people and corporations to carry content on their websites that those people or corporations do not agree with
If you choose to build/host a public square, you must provide equal opportunity and access to it. Limiting access thereafter would involve police for criminal acts, or court / restraining orders for civil. Both are performed by govt, within the government's constitutional limits. Due process.
If you want to control content and be a publisher, then fine, but now we're talking about assumed liability for content, and an entirely different relationship with content creators. Just as the owners of a private venue are responsible for the actions of entertainers they might hire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it's three different things. The First Amendment to the US Constitution applies to the government. Free speech is the principle that suppressing allegedly false information is more dangerous than not suppressing it because if the information is actually false you can refute it but if the information is actually true then it allows powerful actors to suppress atrocities and lie with impunity. Censorship is the s…
That stretches the meaning of the word beyond anything useful though. Is it censorship if The NY Times doesn’t publish your letter to the editor? Is it censorship if I kick you out of my party when you get drunk and start yelling racist slurs? You could take a maximalist view and say yes, those are censorship, but I doubt you would find many people that would say you shouldn’t do those things.
No - it’s literally the definition of the word censorship: “suppression or prohibition of speech”. It really sounds like you’re trying hard to redefine the word to mean what you want to say, but maybe you should just pick a different word?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That stretches the meaning of the word beyond anything useful though. Is it censorship if The NY Times doesn’t publish your letter to the editor? Is it censorship if I kick you out of my party when you get drunk and start yelling racist slurs? You could take a maximalist view and say yes, those are censorship, but I doubt you would find many people that would say you shouldn’t do those things.
> That stretches the meaning of the word beyond anything useful though. No - it’s literally the definition of the word censorship: “suppression or prohibition of speech”. It really sounds like you’re trying hard to redefine the word to mean what you want to say, but maybe you should just pick a different word?
This targeting of the infrastructure layer is leaving a really bad taste in mouth. I agree with the EFFs conclusion for most part here. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/beyond-platforms-priva... Like sure this DDOS provider may not have enough of a presence in belize anymore to hold those IPs, but it's an IP block, probably more than just Parler is using them. Also tons of companies open shell offices for domain…
This doesn't look like targeting of Parler; it looks instead like Parler further raised the notoriety of DDoS-Guard, who was improperly claiming IPv4 space from LACNIC.