Trump's Plan To Regulate Social Media (forbes.com) 292
Esther Schindler writes: A 55-page proposal to make the FCC rewrite a law through administrative rulemaking would threaten small social sites and generate vast amounts of new business for trial lawyers. Expect some of the people who denounced net-neutrality regulations to cheer it on. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) would have the FCC rewrite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "Instead of protecting social platforms when they moderate users' posts -- what the law actually says -- here the FCC would transmogrify that 1996 statute to hold them liable for such offenses as the Twitter trending-topics lists that Trump called Monday 'Really ridiculous, illegal, and, of course, very unfair!,' reports Forbes.
After Twitter began fact-checking Trump's tweets in late May, Trump responded with an executive order calling for a rewrite of CDA 230's core provisions. They offer immunity from civil (not criminal) liability to providers and users of an "interactive computer service" -- as in, any that hosts your posts -- for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." Translation: an online service can decide posts supporting Trump are against its rules, and you won't be able to sue over that.
"Instead of forcing online services to take a hands-off attitude, CDA 230 encourages them to moderate content," reports Forbes. "The NTIA proposes to limit their immunity to moderating pornographic, violent or harassing content. All other curation would be subject to a checklist of such measures as documentation of moderation rules and 'timely notice' to users found violating them. A site that 'vouches for, editorializes, recommends, or promotes' user posts -- see, for instance, Twitter trending topics -- would also become liability for them."
After Twitter began fact-checking Trump's tweets in late May, Trump responded with an executive order calling for a rewrite of CDA 230's core provisions. They offer immunity from civil (not criminal) liability to providers and users of an "interactive computer service" -- as in, any that hosts your posts -- for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." Translation: an online service can decide posts supporting Trump are against its rules, and you won't be able to sue over that.
"Instead of forcing online services to take a hands-off attitude, CDA 230 encourages them to moderate content," reports Forbes. "The NTIA proposes to limit their immunity to moderating pornographic, violent or harassing content. All other curation would be subject to a checklist of such measures as documentation of moderation rules and 'timely notice' to users found violating them. A site that 'vouches for, editorializes, recommends, or promotes' user posts -- see, for instance, Twitter trending topics -- would also become liability for them."
This ladies and gentlemen (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there anyone who can still stand by this man and say they stand for freedom? It's time to call a spade a spade.
Re:This ladies and gentlemen (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not a dictator. He's our lawfully elected president. Until November at least. At that point, things might change, or maybe not. In either case, I'm not going to call him a wannabe dictator unless he a) loses the election and b) refuses to accept it and rallies his followers to overturn the election. If those two things happen, the supreme court will get involved and it could be extremely messy. It will be a truly existential crisis that could threaten the future of our country. Until then, he's the guy that we elected to be our leader and he's exercising the power that we, the people, willingly handed to him. He might be awful, but that's largely irrelevant here.
Re:This ladies and gentlemen (Score:5, Insightful)
As I posted earlier today, we voted this guy in. We asked for this. We deserve every single steaming piece of feces that he dumps on us. That's how our democracy works. We... asked... for.... it.
Well actually, less than half of us asked for this. That's how our broken democracy works.
Re: (Score:2)
25.67% of adults asked for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Being a republic doesn't exclude being a democracy: your republic is definitely still a representative democracy, where the power belongs to the people which elect officials to represent them.
Your system is apparently "broken" because allegedly what the people want vs. which representatives get elected and what the representatives do doesn't match.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump reducing government? Are you delusional or just an addict?
Trump has massively increased both government spending and number of federal employees.
massive amounts of unelected government in the for (Score:3)
* Because the founder feared that the massive city would "dictate" rural places, instead of 1 voter=1 vote , they made a system where each state get a certain number of elected folk in senate/congress disproportional to their population. They wanted to avoid a tyrrany of majority.
* Instead they got a tyrany of minority state, where a place is easy to win by one party, and combined with gerrymandering, it makes certain elector quasi cert
Re: (Score:3)
It means that real name social media will get it in the neck and pseudonym social media will continue on as normal. Using real names on the internet in public open to everyone forums was always a bad idea and would always cause a lot of problems and they knew it would but did not care because they could make it addictive. People having to continually log in to protect their public image, really manipulative and psychologically damaging stuff and they absolutely totally knew that and exploited it for profits
Re: (Score:2)
Currently in the USA, for every 2 bureaucrats, a contractor is employed also.
In the 1930s, the federal government didn't provide social security or environmental protection. The states taking over these roles will result in the laws being rewritten every election, or states sinking to the lowest common denominator. (See: Kansas Experiment.)
It doesn't matter how much 'cutting' occurs, all of the US DoD and DHS will remain because of national security/patriotism/vote-buying/creating jobs excus
Re: (Score:2)
It was Grover Norquist you dumbass, not Grover Cleveland, who was president from 1837 to 1908.
This truly reflects the validity of your opinions.
Long ago, Slashdot used to not be packed to the rafters with idiots....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This ladies and gentlemen (Score:4, Informative)
During the constitutional convention, direct election of the executive was the preferred method.
This was rejected outright by the southern states that had very small voting populations. I.e., States with 1/50th the population of Virginia had more people with the franchise.
The only tyranny of the majority our executive election system was designed to prevent was the tyranny of those whose states allowed a larger percentage of their population to vote.
The current method of electoral votes based upon the number of representatives of each state, based off of the apportionment via the census with all people counted, even those who cannot vote is a simply an extension of the 3/5ths compromise into the executive voting to appease the south.
It was always a shit system.
States have declined to even hold popular elections before. They're constitutionally allowed. The legislature of the state has the ultimate say on selecting its electors. If a state so wanted, it could gerrymander the hell out of itself, have a tiny minority holding power over its legislature, and then direct all of the states electoral votes to the candidate it liked. This has even happened.
That system is clearly fucking stupid. It essentially means that the federal executive is elected by the relatively unregulated state powers, not the people. It's highly undemocratic, and we are a democratic republic. Proportional representation made sense for the legislature. It didn't for the executive. But fuck, people you own or can find clever ways to disenfranchise should increase the weight of your vote, amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
As I posted earlier today, we voted this guy in. We asked for this. We deserve every single steaming piece of feces that he dumps on us. That's how our democracy works. We... asked... for.... it.
Deserve. It's an interesting word. Perhaps we only deserve the President in the same fashion a damaged young lady deserves her abusive boyfriend... which implies the answer is 'only as long as we're willing to stand for it'.
Re: This ladies and gentlemen (Score:2)
"We" did not (Score:5, Insightful)
And I haven't even started talking about Gerrymandering or how our Senate gives 46 times more voting power to somebody in Montana than somebody in California. Again, a minority dominates the lives and decisions of the majority.
Trump & the GOP's ideas are not popular. When bad things happen people want help. They do not want tax cuts for the rich or bail outs. Medicare for All polls at 88% among Dems and at 50% among Republicans.
The GOP & Trump win by manipulating systems, using wedge issues and using fear and bigotry to their advantage. This isn't me trolling, it's a statement of fact. It's how a minority of 19% can have total and complete control over the majority despite their ideas & policy being so unpopular.
One last thing, I do not support violent revolution. I've seen China & Russia's examples and how they ended in dictatorship. Yes, we need to vote him out, but then we need voter reform. Universal Vote By Mail, Automatic Voter Registration, Publicly run polls and Ranked Choice Voting. Democracy works, we just haven't tried it yet.
Re: (Score:2)
That's Y Americans need 2 get rid of its EC sys.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As I posted earlier today, we voted this guy in. We asked for this. We deserve every single steaming piece of feces that he dumps on us. That's how our democracy works. We... asked... for.... it.
Not exactly. *The people* asked for the boring pantsuit lady, square feet of unoccupied rural land asked for the Derpmaster General here. Now the people did allow the system that allowed the possibility of this happening to remain in place, but it's quite a stretch to say that this means the people asked for this and voted this guy in. Always remember that he got the 2nd most human votes.
I'm not going to call him a wannabe dictator unless he a) loses the election and b) refuses to accept it and rallies his followers to overturn the election
He's a wannabe dictator right now, at that point he'll be a potential dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
This proposal isn't a great idea, but Biden's plan even worse. He wants to repeal 230 completely and make sites liable for anything their users post. Trump's proposal is an improvement over that, in that it just requires sites to follow a bit of due process and pre-notification of moderation rules in order to continue to be shielded from liability.
Re: (Score:3)
Until then, he's the guy that we elected to be our leader and he's exercising the power that we, the people, willingly handed to him.
Except for all of the laws he's broken. But with a personal attack dog for an AG and Mitch "We don't need no stinking evidence" McConnell running the Senate he doesn't have to care about that.
Re: This ladies and gentlemen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This ladies and gentlemen (Score:5, Informative)
And that's how it starts. You won't consider it an overturning of the election. You'll be convinced that you're fighting to PRESERVE the election. And...... since you've identified yourself as a strong Trump supporter... I have very little faith in your ability to perceive the difference. This guy's level of lying is simply off the charts. Yeah, both Clintons had a penchant for twisting things, but Trump generates more lies in 3 months than both Clintons, put together, over their entire careers. If you support that, you don't know up from down.
I know I'm being rude. I gave the administration some benefit of the doubt for the first 2 years, but I've lost all respect. I'm hopping mad. We need an absolutely completely free, open and fair election in November. It's too important to half-ass. We could have expanded mail-in voting, but the GOP put a spike in that. Fine. Screw any restrictions because of COVID. We need ALL the polling places OPEN AS USUAL. No closed polls. No social distancing because 3-mile-long lines simply won't fly. People will catch COVID and die. The price of sustaining our democracy. We need to fully query the voters on what they want. If the country makes it clear that they want more of
Re: (Score:2)
is what real, actual censorship looks like.
From the article: "The NTIA proposes to limit their immunity to moderating pornographic, violent or harassing content. All other curation would be subject to a checklist of such measures as documentation of moderation rules and “timely notice” to users found violating them. "
How exactly is this "real, actual censorship"?
Re: (Score:2)
Your questioning the State is violence. You will be reeducated, citizen.
In other news, that set of "limits" is so broad you could drive Trump's ego through it.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is this "real, actual censorship"?
Once you make a deny list, you're done with that argument. Censorship is of course already well enshrined in law.
Now you are just altering the list based on things you like or not. Winnie the Pooh would be proud.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is this "real, actual censorship"?
Once you make a deny list, you're done with that argument. Censorship is of course already well enshrined in law.
Now you are just altering the list based on things you like or not. Winnie the Pooh would be proud.
It sounds like you haven't read the proposal and have no idea what's in it
Re:This ladies and gentlemen (Score:5, Insightful)
It is worth noting that in Portland, the people charged with misdemeanors like refusing to obey a lawful command are released on condition that they cease protesting--this is also a form of censorship. The Trump administration put his former lawyer back in jail for working to publish his book https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com] , tried to keep his niece from publishing her book, and tried to ban the sale of Bolton's book. Now he is trying to rewrite Section 230 by executive decree.
The Trump administration is easily the most hostile to free speech in my lifetime, yet the public discussion on Slashdot and elsewhere is about "cancel culture." But "cancel culture" is the flip side of free association. Twitter cancels white supremacists and Qtards, and restricts the accounts of people who spread misinformation about an ongoing public health emergency. Parlor allows all that speech, but will ban you for making fun of Devin Nunes or posting pictures of poop. You get to decide who you associate with.
The notion your decision not to use Twitter or Parlor is just as bad for civic discourse as government banning books is absurd, but that is where Trump defenders find themselves. No wonder they want to talk about something else.
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump administration put his former lawyer back in jail for working to publish his book https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
Cohen got in trouble for violating the terms of his release:
"Michael Cohen caught at NYC restaurant — and it could land him back in prison"
https://nypost.com/2020/07/03/... [nypost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
“I make the finding that the purpose of transferring Mr. Cohen from furlough and home confinement to jail is retaliatory,” the judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said in court. “And it’s retaliatory because of his desire to exercise his First Amendment rights to publish a book and to discuss anything about the book or anything else he wants on social media and with others.”
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, I see it as something more like the opposite of censorship--a way to ensure that insightful/informative/interesting/funny conversations happen less often, because the absence of effective moderation lets trolls and spammers overrun the forums where those discussions used to happen. See also, what happened to Usenet.
(Yes, I wrote that post. Thanks for the opportunity to dust off this account!)
Re: (Score:2)
Combine this with the 75,000 boots on the ground [cnn.com] in American states
Had you read the article you linked you would know there aren't 75,000 boots on the ground in American states.
And if you read the actual NTIA petition for rulemaking you might find it interesting.
https://www.ntia.gov/files/nti... [ntia.gov]
I think it's a pretty interesting description of the regulatory history, the rationale for new rules, and the proposed new rules.
catch 27.5 (Score:2)
Deserves a favorable mod, and thanks for a good start to the conversation. I'm actually looking for the paradox here. Trump's abuse of social media seems to be the strongest evidence that it needs to be regulated in some ways, though he just wants to regulate it to make the abuse worse.
I said this on another thread (Score:4, Informative)
Trump uses a rhetorical tactic called the "Gish Gallop". It's when you talk so fast and say so much people and opponents don't have time to process everything. In print it doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Ohhh.Fuck. I realize you're being hyperbolic, but this parody of exaggerated allegiance encourages the proliferation of the Can do no wrong! support that's contrary to the balance necessary to contain a modern leader trying to be more than he is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: I said this on another thread (Score:2)
Re: I said this on another thread (Score:5, Informative)
Trump could murder a Girl Scout troop on live TV and I would still vote for him over Biden.
Ah, yes, the typical Trump supporter, happy with murdering fellow citizens, completely innocent ones to boot, just to further their hate.
Sometimes I wonder if there is maybe some shred of decency and humanity hiding somewhere deep inside even the most fervent of Trump supporters, but along comes always someone like you proving that no, that is not the case.
It's truly sad.
Re: This ladies and gentlemen (Score:5, Informative)
We're talking about the Federal Government intervening against something you don't like ("cancel culture") with targets you don't care about (social media). But what you should care about is that this would be a massive expansion of federal power into the traditional liberties of the private sector.
If this is established as a legitimate thing for government to do, don't expect government to limit itself to things you don't like and people you don't care about.
Re: This ladies and gentlemen (Score:5, Insightful)
But what you should care about is that this would be a massive expansion of federal power into the traditional liberties of the private sector
Remember how Slashdot was all in on "Net Neutrality" just a short time ago? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Remember when Democrats were agitated about corporate control of the media? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
I don't know about everybody else, but I am really disturbed at how much of the open Internet in the US is under control of a few big corporations. At this point, Google has the power to force a new email standard completely outside of the RFC process. They've already done so, when they forced mail servers to have IPv6 PTR records. Whether that particular thing is good or bad, it demonstrates a massive power imbalance not previously seen. Twitter has repeatedly engaged in disproportionate punishments skewed in favor of the Left, which would be considered electioneering by the same Left if it went the other way.
The Section 230 protections were not handed down to Moses from God. Corporations are creatures of the law, not the other way around. If corporations are enjoying a monopoly, the law may be used to break up that monopoly. In the case of the Internet, it's nearly a requirement if we want to have an open Internet in this country.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This doesn't really sound like "regulation" though. The government just unnaturally protects Social Media companies from having to defend against lawsuits from libel and slander. This would remove those protections that are not afforded other entities. This is de-regulating you, the plaintiff, and not them. I support this. If the social media companies are expressing public information about people through their contributors, they should be liable for what is said on their platforms, just like the NYT and C
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Libel and slander laws are not supposed to protect political public figures. I'm supposed to be able to freely criticize my own government, even if I don't have the resources to defend my opinions in a court room.
Re: (Score:3)
You can add Slashdot onto that list. Any place that allows users to post their thoughts would open the owners of the site up to lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean political troll articles like this would go away? Slashdot would be news for nerds again?
Re: (Score:3)
Probably not. It would mean no more comment sections like this one. Reddit would also be fucked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right Winger Reveal. (Score:5, Insightful)
If we're going to ignore the 2nd Amendment, why not the first?
The U.S. has 120 guns per 100 population, far more than any developed nation on Earth.
Because we "ignore the 2nd Amendment."
Behold the mind of the QAnon/Fox/OANN-addled right winger. It is truly a wonder of nature.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This precisely. The leftists can cancel all they want, riot in the streets, tear down memorials and burn public property. As soon as a Conservative takes a shot at them they start crying and hiding behind the very same thing they are trying to destroy. Time to start leveling the playing field.
Re: This ladies and gentlemen (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And even in the "cancel" case, it's not quite canceling the person's freedom of speech. Everyone has freedom of speech, but we don't have a right to be heard. If I demand to enter someone's home and tell them my opinions on the current administration, I'd likely be told no. This doesn't mean that my freedom of speech has been "cancelled" or that I'm being "censored." It just means that the person doesn't want to listen to me or provide me a platform to speak (their house).
Even public venues do this all the
Re: (Score:3)
> If I demand to enter someone's home and tell them my opinions on the current administration, I'd likely be told no.
It's weird that you say this when cancel culture warriors went to Tucker Carlson's house to terrorize his kids by attacking the door and made it so bad that he had to move.
Also, in this case, social media isn't the speaker, it's preventing communication between two parties who want to communicate.
It's weird to see how the net neutrality advocates shift so quickly when the shoe is on the o
Re: (Score:2)
you seem to not know how free speech works. Publishers do not have to adhere to free speech, Trump and the government does.
Re: (Score:3)
It even says in th esummary
you're fine removing content that goes against a published moderation policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of them never wanted to fight just any oppressive government, just ones they disagree with. Maybe even if they're not oppressive!
The ones you're imagining make up just a fraction of the Boogaloo movement, and they are getting ready to party down for what it's worth. Of course they'll be quickly turned into a fine paste by an autocannon attached to some sort of machine if it actually happens, but it's the thought that counts.
Am I supposed to have a problem with this? (Score:4, Insightful)
"You cannot arbitrarily censor your users if you provide an open platform" is not censorship. It's the opposite of that. Fuck corporate feelings.
Re:Am I supposed to have a problem with this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Rather than become 8chan I imagine Twitter would just put up the smallest possible barrier to avoid being legally defined as an "open platform".
The irony is that supposedly free-speech loving platforms like Gab are closed (you can't browse without being registered) and love to censor (they banned porn years ago).
Re: (Score:2)
Most providers will move outside of the US and continue to exist, ignoring US jurisdiction - and once the US starts throwing around its weight in areas like payments, DNS etc then we will hopefully see a migration to other systems which don't involve US control.
The US might start enacting barriers at its own digital borders similar to China, but make no mistake - the internet will go on outside the US, just as online gambling was a thing even though the US banned it.
Re:That won't work (Score:4, Insightful)
And as Trump has shown, treaties can be exited from or ignored.
The EU is already creating an alternative to the SWIFT banking system to get around US control so the EU can deal with Iran etc without having to ask the US for permission - so its already started. US control of IP addresses and the DNS system has long been a concern, and it wouldnt take much for the EU to do something there as well.
Other countries already see how controlling the US is, and are already starting to do something about it.
Re:That won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
You should know better that to use the word "treaties" in a discussion about Trump.
He spits on your treaties. They are bad, terrible treaties. He never would have allowed such things. He can do much better.
Or to put it another way, in the era of Trump, America's word is worth nothing. He won't observe agreements and neither should anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much the entire thing (Score:2)
Trump's proposals include a just enough wiggle room to protect Facebook and other big players, but not enough for any competing services or frankly anything that the established powers disagree with. It's another step on the road to fascism and dictatorship.
Re:Pretty much the entire thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I really like the media arbitrarily removing a video or tweet because of wrong think!
Have you woken up to the fact that maybe this is fascism?
Everyone of the companies is abusing the protections they were granted because orange man bad.
Re: (Score:2)
All other curation would be subject to a checklist of such measures as documentation of moderation rules and 'timely notice' to users found violating them. A site that 'vouches for, editorializes, recommends, or promotes' user posts -- see, for instance, Twitter trending topics -- would also become liability for them.
If you want less free speech on the internet, this is a good way to get it. Also note the laughable rationale:
Times have changed, and the liability rules appropriate in 1996 may no longer further Congress’s purpose that section 230 further a “true diversity of political discourse.” A handful of large social media platforms delivering varied types of content over high-speed internet have replaced the sprawling world of dial-up Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and countless bulletin boards hosting static postings.
There are no websites nearly as dominant as the ISP/Portal combos like AOL and Prodigy were in 1996. Further, there are many more forums for free speech now than in the "sprawling world of dial-up" in 1996. This is pretextual bullshit intended to sway people who forgot or never knew what 1996 internet was like--not the basis for a serious policy proposal.
The handful of large social media platforms t
self defeating (Score:3)
So if they are liable for promoting tweets, wouldn't they immediately kick trump because he is one massive liability? Wouldn't they be more likely to censor tonnes of content? trump is an internet troll and he harasses people daily.
Legal immunity should only protect the small guy (Score:2)
Or in other words, it should only protect the individual from the collective. For example, to protect individuals from companies, or states from the federal government. When legal immunity protects the collective from the individual, it's tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been proposals to revise CDA 230 that would keep civil immunity for smaller sites. The NTIA site has no such carveout, as all three of the experts I consulted pointed out to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I would point out that the individual vs collective/company and small guy vs. large guy are not the same thing. See, Peter Theil and Gawker.
It's interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
The party which claims to represent freedom, the party which regularly touts how free people are in this country, is the same party who routinely goes out of its way to suppress those freedoms. It's almost as if they're taking their cue from fascism.
Re: It's interesting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is, that requiring sites to follow a bit of due process and pre-notification of moderation rules in order to continue to be shielded from liability is fascism, but somehow completely repealing 230 and subjecting sites to complete liability (Biden's stated proposal) isn't?
This isn't a great plan, it's not the plan I would want, but it's still way better than Biden's goal to get rid of all liability protection.
Which party? (Score:3, Insightful)
The party which claims to represent freedom, the party which regularly touts how free people are in this country, is the same party who routinely goes out of its way to suppress those freedoms
The really interesting thing is - I can't tell which party you are writing about here.
FOSTA-SESTA passed nearly unanimously, remember?
If you are looking to choose a "side" that protects free speech - well that ship has long sailed.
Hong Kong (Score:4, Informative)
What's the quote about not standing for them, now nobody left to stand for me?
We've got federal troops attacking politicians and citizens in our cities, which the leaders of don't want there, and soon we might not be able to even talk about it.
Re:Hong Kong - Grandma bought his vest (Score:2)
https://twitter.com/stillgray/... [twitter.com]
Apparently the guy who threw an explosive at the federal courthouse in Portland has been identified in a review of the vest his grandma bought for him to riot in. You couldn't make this up.
Re:Hong Kong (Score:4, Insightful)
Excuse me comrade. The US does not have federal troops attacking anyone in US cities. The US federal marshals are defending US federal property.
The fact that incognito federal officers are pulling protesters off the streets and throwing them into vans with no legal justification, is well documented and indisputable. The fact that LEO's have vandalized automobiles belonging to innocent Walmart shoppers, stranding them away from home past curfew, is well documented and indisputable. The fact that officers and possibly various feds have fired rubber bullets at and seriously injured journalists, is well documented and indisputable. Not all protesters are peaceful, but most are. Many of those peaceful protesters, exercising their constitutional rights, have been injured and/or illegally detained by local and federal thugs whose actions are unconstitutional, unsupportable, and vicious.
The peaceful protesters have initiated all violence [twitter.com] in Portland and Seattle. ALL. The clear evidence is that law enforcement and US marshals have been getting attacked by the Marxist thugs.
Maybe you're trolling, maybe not. Maybe you're lying, and maybe you're just gullible and you really believe the lies you're passing on. Either way, you might want to consider this: I understand that many LEO's at various levels are good, but many are bad. I also understand that many protesters are violent, and many are non-violent. You don't seem to get that - for you it's 'all law enforcement is good, all protesters are bad'. So I ask you - and please be honest with yourself here: who's more likely to be correct - you or me? Who's more believable outside of some deluded political echo chamber - you or me?
It's comfortable and convenient to see the world in black and white, but in the end it's not good for you, and it's terrible for your fellow human beings. It might be time to exercise some intellectual honesty, ask yourself some hard questions, and consider adopting a more nuanced view of the world.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Given none of them were wearing IDs, how can you even fucking tell!?
The Oregon AG sued over this and was humiliated in court [amazonaws.com].
Not only did they submit a video from the wrong state, their own witness (and video) contradicted them about the police not being identifiable as police. Because, you know, the jackets said "Police" on them. Oops. But you can read the whole ruling to see how they got spanked.
They're not randomly attacking people, they're dispersing unlawful gatherings which have attacked cops
Squarespace shuts down America’s Frontline D (Score:2)
https://reclaimthenet.org/squa... [reclaimthenet.org]
Time For Civil War II (Score:3)
The only solution is the 2 opposing sides to go to war. In the process hopefully both sides will mostly die and the rest of us real moderates can take our country back from these assholes.
I don't give 2 shits about democrats nor republicans. They are both diseased from their own selfish idealism's and have lost the will for the pursuit of peace and unity.
When I was a kid in school back in the '70s, I always wondered how in the bloody hell a maniac like Mousillini or Hitler could rise to power with the blessing of the population.
Now it is clear as glass.
In God We Do Not Trust.
Re: (Score:3)
If two sides go to war, power doesn't devolve to the moderates who stay home. One side or the other wins and imposes their ideal world.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should try to think outside the box. A smart moderate would wait out the major bloodshed then finish off the scragglers from both sides.
We win.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is what happened with the 1/3 of moderates that sat things out when the American Revolution happened, the French Revolution happened, the US Civil War happened, the Russian Revolution happened, Mao took over China, etc.
Name one time that ever played out.
Plan? (Score:2)
For 1st time, I feel entitled.... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not that millenial sort of entitled... but entitled to say "I told you so" to all the Obama supporters.
During the Obama years I repeatedly warned Obama supporters, including here on Slashdot, that they should not be so giddy, or for that matter even supportive of, his creating law out of thin air with his "pen and phone". I warned that every time he did it he was setting a precedent that some future president they might hate would be able to drive a truck through. As a Constitutionalist, I oppose this stuff no matter whether Obama did it or Trump does it - the only laws that are actual laws in the US are those passed by a two-chamber legislature and signed into effect by an executive. I was ignored or even attacked for my warnings.
I have another warning for you guys who ignored my previous warnings: very recently the Supreme Court blocked Trump from undoing DACA - they admitted he had every legal right to do it, but they claimed he did not do it the right way - a complaint they never had when Obama implemented DACA the wrong way in the first place. Lots of Democrats were thrilled by this, but you seem to have missed a lesson Trump and his team drew: they have realized they can implement all sorts of pen-and-phone Obama-style illegal policies and lock them in place so that the Supreme Court's own DACA ruling will box it in and prevent a future Democrat president from undoing them.
Someday people will learn that playing outside the rules goes both ways. Both parties used to understand that and therefore both sides used to avoid some of this badness when each had power, knowing the other side could do the same when power switched. In the fall of 2008 Obama boldly yelled to his supporters that they were only days away from "fundamentally transforming" the United States...
Incidentally, and related to the social media story, Mark Zuckerberg has been referred to the DoJ for prosecution for lying under oath to congress the last time he testified there - the same charge Democrats were thrilled to see applied to Roger Stone (who along with his innocent deaf wife were subjected to a live-on-CNN pre-dawn arrest raid). This would not be a good time for Zuck to keep suppressing Trump's base, given that they're still demanding proof of balanced law enforcement from the DoJ they caught spying on Trump and chasing down his friends, family members, and supporters. What better way for DoJ to redeem itself a bit than by a pre-dawn raid with over a dozen armed and armored FBI guys...and as a bonus nobody in DC likes Zuck, unlike Hillary and her pals who are the other obvious candidates for balanced scales...
We all, as a country, need to turn back to the Constitution. Our founders struggled mightily and over a long time to write it, while being informed by a study of what had failed in history. Once you separate one party from the rule book, it's only a matter of time before other parties feel foolish for following the rules, and then things become unpredictable and inconsistent and then people begin to feel that their only chance for resolution is violence... either everybody plays by the rules or there are eventually no rules, which only serves the powerful and ruthless.
Re: (Score:3)
"I told you so" to all the Obama supporters.
Did you also tell so to Bush supporters, Regan supporters, Carter supporters, Nixon supporters, Johnson supporters, Eisenhower supporters, Trumen supporters, Roosevelt supporters, and I'm getting bored of listing presidents who used their executive orders "pen and paper" more than Obama but there's a few more on the list.
If you feel entitled to say something completely irrelevant then that is probably your own lack of understanding of history.
Re: (Score:2)
This current temper tantrum isn't about posting something obnoxious or triggering. What was shared by Don Jr and praised by Don Sr was a highly misleading and potentially dangerous video where some "doctors" in a sort of fake press conference suggested that HCQ was a "cure" and that masks were no longer needed. I put "doctors" in quotes because these are not respected doctors at all, some of them are out right lunatics (Demon Sperm was trending high this AM). Hyped and and polished by Breitbart, the inven
How much money does Trump really bring Twitter? (Score:2)
Trump can be as obnoxious as he wants, it's what brings in the money to Twitter and it would be absurd to suggest that Trump can learn to moderate his outbursts. But when it comes to potentially dangerous information, Twitter has every right and freedom to say "not on our platform!"
2 things: 1. I 100% agree with you. However, #2....
How much money does Trump really bring to Twitter? I am sure a decent amount, but would they really be truly hurt if Trump completely left the platform? How many would they have to lay off if he packed his bags? For all his whining and bitching, I hear Parler is a viable alternative. Why doesn't he post there? How hard would it be to have a Trump staffer copy his posts there? The way I see it, he doesn't need Twitter and Twitter doesn't need him
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't the tech world. It's social media and advertising. They just use tech as tools, same as your bakery. And they care because all their profits come from how many people use their platform and see ads. Politics gets people watching, and controversial politics gets even more people watching.
Re:Too Little Too Late? (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between a platform and a publisher should be obvious to pretty much anyone who takes a few seconds to think about it: a publisher chooses what to publish, and a platform chooses what not to publish. The difference is the default. For a publisher, the default is "no", and you have to work really hard to come up with something so amazing that you get a "yes". For a platform, the default is "yes", and you have to work really hard to come up with something so heinous that you get a "no".
What the Facebook takedown shows is that sometimes, speech is so egregiously reckless that it can be blocked even on a platform. And this should be no surprise to anyone. These folks are basically a bunch of random doctors who are taking a view that is contrary to the overwhelming majority of doctors, epidemiologists, nurses, etc., and voicing an opinion that, if people act on it, is actively dangerous to public health. What they are doing, by using their credibility as doctors to push a political agenda that recklessly runs contrary to science, is literally the online equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater. This right here should be the canonical example of when censorship online is justified. It doesn't get much more clear-cut than this.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between a platform and a publisher should be obvious to pretty much anyone who takes a few seconds to think about it: a publisher chooses what to publish, and a platform chooses what not to publish. The difference is the default. For a publisher, the default is "no", and you have to work really hard to come up with something so amazing that you get a "yes". For a platform, the default is "yes", and you have to work really hard to come up with something so heinous that you get a "no".
What the Facebook takedown shows is that sometimes, speech is so egregiously reckless that it can be blocked even on a platform. And this should be no surprise to anyone. These folks are basically a bunch of random doctors who are taking a view that is contrary to the overwhelming majority of doctors, epidemiologists, nurses, etc., and voicing an opinion that, if people act on it, is actively dangerous to public health. What they are doing, by using their credibility as doctors to push a political agenda that recklessly runs contrary to science, is literally the online equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater. This right here should be the canonical example of when censorship online is justified. It doesn't get much more clear-cut than this.
"It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote"
https://www.theatlantic.com/na... [theatlantic.com]
Re:Too Little Too Late? (Score:4, Insightful)
Meh. There's nothing in that article that I haven't read before (most of it in comm law class). The point of his statement was that no freedoms, including first amendment freedoms, are absolute, and that you can easily come up with uses of speech that are so heinous that the courts would not protect them from punishment for that speech. In much the same way, there are some types of speech on the Internet that are so heinous, for precisely the same reason, that courts will not protect them from being censored on social media.
Neither the fact that it happened to be in the context of a court case that was partially overturned (and only with regards to speech that does not cause an immediate risk to life, mind you, which is to say that it was not overturned in a way that would invalidate that quote's relevance at all) nor the fact that it was not part of the text of the actual decision has any meaningful bearing on what that statement represented, which is that it is the general prevailing feeling of the court that rights are not absolute. The notion of time, place and manner restrictions is strongly enshrined in court precedents over the last century, as are punishments for libel, slander, and speech that recklessly causes endangerment.
Of course, we're talking about corporate regulation of speech, so the first amendment and the courts' opinions thereof are entirely moot, but in much the same way that OWH used that phrase to describe speech that should not be protected by the government, I'm similarly saying that speech that poses an imminent danger to human life should not be protected, and that the government should not prevent companies from similarly censoring it. I think the analogy is apt. I'm sorry you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. There's nothing in that article that I haven't read before (most of it in comm law class). The point of his statement was that no freedoms, including first amendment freedoms, are absolute, and that you can easily come up with uses of speech that are so heinous that the courts would not protect them from punishment for that speech. In much the same way, there are some types of speech on the Internet that are so heinous, for precisely the same reason, that courts will not protect them from being censored on social media.
Neither the fact that it happened to be in the context of a court case that was partially overturned (and only with regards to speech that does not cause an immediate risk to life, mind you, which is to say that it was not overturned in a way that would invalidate that quote's relevance at all) nor the fact that it was not part of the text of the actual decision has any meaningful bearing on what that statement represented, which is that it is the general prevailing feeling of the court that rights are not absolute. The notion of time, place and manner restrictions is strongly enshrined in court precedents over the last century, as are punishments for libel, slander, and speech that recklessly causes endangerment.
Of course, we're talking about corporate regulation of speech, so the first amendment and the courts' opinions thereof are entirely moot, but in much the same way that OWH used that phrase to describe speech that should not be protected by the government, I'm similarly saying that speech that poses an imminent danger to human life should not be protected, and that the government should not prevent companies from similarly censoring it. I think the analogy is apt. I'm sorry you don't.
If you've read it before then you know "literally the online equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater" means nothing.
Especially if the crowded theater was on fire.
Re: (Score:3)
Free speech doesn't give you the right to use someone else's soapbox. These companies provide a soapbox, they do so with their own resources. You don't have a right to their soapbox.
The suggestion that you have the right to compel others to use their soapbox would be a total violation of the 1st amendment. The suggestion that the companies and people that work there have to tolerate and assist your speech in some way is not supporting free speech or the free association that goes with it.
The 1st amendment p
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To quote a very recent Cato Institute study on the issue "Strong liberals stand out, however, as the only political group who feel they can express themselves. Nearly 6 in 10 (58%) of staunch liberals feel they can say what they believe."
This is very revealing, but not in the way you seem to think it is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
no one is censoring you. You can create your own platform and say anything you want, no one will stop you. That is the great thing about the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
no one is censoring you. You can create your own platform and say anything you want, no one will stop you.
These are not contradictory. Someone can be censoring him, while he can also build his own website.
not the same world at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook and Twitter I assume? Are you kidding?!? "the only views allowed'?!? Where do you think the Trump campaign bought all their advertising in 2016 and 2020? Sites which don't cater to their targeted demographic? This is a patently absurd claim.
Re: US censorship is effectively pretty bad (Score:2)
Stop pretending that you don't know why "conservative" edgelord speech is unpopular, could get you banned from Reddit, moderated down on /. or cost you your job.
I don't think edgelord trash represents the average conservative or Republican or liberal or Democrat That's why it's unpopular. I flat out refuse to accept this anti-PC flaming dumpster in a flood speech as normal, because I know people are better than that.
What's happening is stuff that would set HR's hair on fire in ANY decade, the "quiet part
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the government isn't engaged in twitter removing posts is exactly the point. You are actually arguing for the government to intervene in speech.
You apparently don't understand the importance of free speech, free association or counter speech.
It's not surprising really. People with your view are no different than the fools on the left that want safe spaces with no counter speech. The only thing that differentiates you from them is the speech you don't like that you want to destroy with governme
Re: (Score:2)
I dont understand your question, the 1st amendment only protects against the government.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont understand your question, the 1st amendment only protects against the government.
And the government enacts regulations regarding how companies can operate.
This is a discussion regarding a proposal to update the regulations that apply to social media companies.
The poster you are responding to suggested they could abide by the first amendment and only block criminal material.
Re: (Score:2)
Well we do already have laws on the books that say things like you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. People get trampled to death. In fact this theory was just tested where we blew a certain respiratory virus way out of proportion.
"It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote"
https://www.theatlantic.com/na... [theatlantic.com]