Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday September 29, @02:06PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]

From: Techdirt

Content moderation is a can of worms. For Internet infrastructure intermediaries, it’s a can of worms that they are particularly poorly positioned to tackle. And yet Internet infrastructure elements are increasingly being called on to moderate content—content they may have very little insight into as it passes through their systems.

The vast majority of all content moderation happens on the “top” layer of the internet—such as social media and websites, places online that are the most visible to an average user. If a post violates a platform’s terms of service, the post is usually blocked or taken down. If a user continues to post content that violates a platform’s terms, then the user’s account is often suspended. These types of content moderation practices are increasingly understood by average Internet users.

Less often discussed or understood are the types of services facilitated via actors in the Internet ecosystem that both support and exist under the upper content layers of the Internet.

Many of these companies host content, supply cloud services, register domain names, provide web security, and many more features of what could be described as the plumbing services of the Internet. But instead of water and sewage, the Internet deals in digital information. In theory, these “infrastructure intermediaries” could moderate content, but for reasons of convention, legitimacy, and practicality they don’t usually do it on purpose.

However, some notable recent exemptions may be setting precedent.

Amazon Web Services removed Wikileaks from their system in 2010. Cloudflare kicked off the Daily Stormer. An Italian court ordered Cloudflare to remove a copyright infringing site. Amazon suspended hosting for Parler.

What does all this mean? Infrastructure may have the means to perform “content moderation,” but it is critical to consider the effects of this trend to prevent harming the Internet’s underlying architecture. In principle, Internet service providers, registries, cloud providers and other infrastructure intermediaries should be agnostic to the content which passes over their systems.

[...] Policymakers must consider the unintended impacts of content moderation proposals on infrastructure intermediaries. Legislating without due diligence to understand the impact on the unique role of these intermediaries could be detrimental to the success of the Internet, and an increasing portion of the global economy that relies on Internet infrastructure for daily life and work.

[...] Conducting impact assessments prior to regulation is one way to mitigate the risks. The Internet Society created the Internet Impact Assessment Toolkit to help policymakers and communities assess the implications of change—whether those are policy interventions or new technologies.

Policy changes that impact the different layers of the Internet are inevitable. But we must all ensure that these policies are well crafted and properly scoped to keep the Internet working and successful for everyone.

Austin Ruckstuhl is a Project & Policy Advisor at the Internet Society where he works on Internet impact assessments, defending encryption and supporting Community Networks as access solutions.

Should online content be controlled ? If yes, Is there a better way to censor online content and who should have the authority to do so ??


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Article Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday September 29, @02:27PM (98 children)

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Wednesday September 29, @02:27PM (#1182742)

    Conservatives will be arguing for regulation.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 1, Touché) by NPC-131072 on Wednesday September 29, @02:44PM (30 children)

      by NPC-131072 (7144) on Wednesday September 29, @02:44PM (#1182749) Journal

      Of course they will, whereas, those of us on the morally and intellectually superior left are incapable of authoritarian attitudes. [theatlantic.com]

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 29, @03:15PM (29 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday September 29, @03:15PM (#1182765) Journal

        Us on the intellectually superior left know the difference between common carriers and content providers.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday September 29, @03:31PM (13 children)

          by Tork (3914) on Wednesday September 29, @03:31PM (#1182778)
          It's also worth mentioning that whenever they talk about being 'de-platformed' they ALWAYS omit the reason* why this has suddenly popped up even though all the players have been around for over a decade. That reason is ALSO why they'll never get what they claim they want, both because it won't solve the actual problems and because they won't like the taste of their own medicine.
          * Violence/Death.
          --
          Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @04:50PM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @04:50PM (#1182812)
            Are violence and death alone good reasons to kick someone off? We make R-rated movies all the time.
            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday September 29, @04:56PM (5 children)

              by Tork (3914) on Wednesday September 29, @04:56PM (#1182815)
              Umm... R-rated movies aren't made with real violence... "Liam Neeson passed away today during the filming of A-Team 2, we shall see how much we'll mourn his passing after the box-office figures come in."
              --
              Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
              • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Wednesday September 29, @05:21PM (4 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 29, @05:21PM (#1182831) Journal

                R-rated movies aren't made with real violence...

                Neither are internets.

                • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday September 29, @05:31PM

                  by Tork (3914) on Wednesday September 29, @05:31PM (#1182837)
                  Mmm hmm. Welp if it's all virtual then there's nothing to bitch about.
                  --
                  Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @09:56PM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @09:56PM (#1182941)

                  r/watchpeopledie among others would like to have a word with you.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @10:05PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @10:05PM (#1182943)

                    I'd love to, but they got banned by Karens.

                    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Mockingbird on Thursday September 30, @08:06AM

                      by Mockingbird (15239) on Thursday September 30, @08:06AM (#1183063)

                      Karens are Republicans, concerned about People of Color showing up in "their" neighborhood. We would like to talk to your Karen manager.

                      --
                      "It is a sin to kill a mockingbird" Atticus Finch
            • (Score: 2) by shortscreen on Wednesday September 29, @06:56PM

              by shortscreen (2252) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 29, @06:56PM (#1182874) Journal

              If it was a good reason then the neocon warmonger crowd would also be kicked off.

          • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @07:25PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @07:25PM (#1182886)

            Nope. Daily Stormer was banished from everything the progs could lay hands on for making fun of Heather Heyer dying from being too fat for the paramedics to resuscitate.

            Gab and Parler were deplatformed for refusing to give the ADL the banhammer like everyone else had.

            YouTube, today, banned all further debate about the safety and effectiveness of all vaccines for all time. It will of course get extended to all discussion of all "approved" drugs. So regardless of what you think about any particular one, there WILL be another bad one, but next time nobody will be allowed to raise the alarm.

            You on the left are the censors. You ban people for disagreeing with you. You are the bad guys. Own it.

            • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 29, @08:03PM (2 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday September 29, @08:03PM (#1182902) Journal

              Daily Stormer, Gab and Parler are all online and active right now.

              How is that possible if the evil left banished them from the internet?

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @08:32PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @08:32PM (#1182907)

                Dailystormer never got their domain name back, they rotate through domains on a regular basis as they continue to be deplatformed.
                Gab built their own infrastructure from the ground up, from fiber, an ASN, bare metal in racks.
                Parler bent the knee to the ADL and was allowed back online.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @08:50PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @08:50PM (#1182913)

                "Daily Stormer was banished from everything the progs could lay hands on..." != "...the evil left banished them from the internet?"

                Reed mor bettuh

            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday September 29, @09:18PM

              by Tork (3914) on Wednesday September 29, @09:18PM (#1182926)

              It's also worth mentioning that whenever they talk about being 'de-platformed' they ALWAYS omit the reason...

              Gab and Parler were deplatformed for refusing to give the ADL the banhammer like everyone else had.

              Daily Stormer was banished from everything the progs could lay hands on for making fun of Heather Heyer...

              YouTube, today, banned all further debate about the safety and effectiveness of all vaccines for all time.

              0 in 4. Thanks for illustrating my point.

              --
              Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
        • (Score: 2, Troll) by NPC-131072 on Wednesday September 29, @03:59PM (8 children)

          by NPC-131072 (7144) on Wednesday September 29, @03:59PM (#1182796) Journal

          And section 230. [reclaimthenet.org]

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 29, @04:17PM (7 children)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday September 29, @04:17PM (#1182802) Journal

            Yep, we understand that section 230 gives websites the EXPLICIT right to remove whatever they find "otherwise objectionable" from their services.

            The title of the damn thing is "Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material."

            47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material [cornell.edu]

            Basic reading skills are all that are necessary achieve this intellectual superiority.

            • (Score: 1, Troll) by NPC-131072 on Wednesday September 29, @04:38PM (2 children)

              by NPC-131072 (7144) on Wednesday September 29, @04:38PM (#1182808) Journal

              whatever they find "otherwise objectionable"

              And by "they" we mean "we". [jonathanturley.org]

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @04:52PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @04:52PM (#1182813)

                Poor rightwing troll :^(

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 30, @04:55AM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 30, @04:55AM (#1183028) Homepage Journal

                But, censorship is only a bad thing when "we" can't control it. I think that's year two in Marxism classes.

                --
                Let's go Brandon!
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @09:04PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @09:04PM (#1182919)

              Not so fast. Details matter. The whole point was to give hosts editorial access without making them specifically responsible for the content created by others - a plausible necessity for a participatory web.

              The problem is that this has a lot to do with communicators who might actually have no idea whatsoever what encrypted content is flowing through their pipe, and not just whether or not Facebook can keep nudies off their site.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @09:38PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @09:38PM (#1182930)

                Does the post office need to know what you wrote in that letter you sent to your friend?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @03:19PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @03:19PM (#1183112)

                  Not relevant. The post office isn't acting as a publisher. Neither is a dumb pipes provider with a million miles of dark fibre.

                  Next idea, then?

                • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday October 01, @02:50AM

                  by Tork (3914) on Friday October 01, @02:50AM (#1183262)
                  You should look up what you can't send through the post office some time.
                  --
                  Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
        • (Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday September 29, @07:29PM (5 children)

          by slinches (5049) on Wednesday September 29, @07:29PM (#1182890)

          And which of those two things is facebook? Most of their content comes from end users, who are clearly content providers for their own posts. Should curation and editorialization of that user content not make them providers as well?

          To clarify my point, who in your mind is responsible for the content of the messages if a publisher passes on carefully selected passages from a publicly available random text generator? Is that similar to what facebook is doing? If not, why not?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @12:10AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @12:10AM (#1182983)

            It should place them in the same category as the letters to the editor page on the local newspaper. They decide what is and isn't allowed on their servers, but that should come with the risk of being held liable if they are allowing illegal content on or doing so in such a way as to discriminate. Removing questionable content about vaccines is one thing, but if they aren't removing similarly questionable material from the left, they should be held accountable for it. And really, they shouldn't be removing either set of things until there are viable alternatives for content distribution on a significant scale.

            They should be limiting it to things that are illegal under criminal or civil rules and not much else.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday September 30, @02:24AM (3 children)

            by Thexalon (636) on Thursday September 30, @02:24AM (#1183011)

            I'm going to present a somewhat more concrete example of this: Alice, who is a minor, goes onto social media platform X and says "Tomorrow at school, everybody throw rocks at Bob." A bunch of kids all decide to actually throw rocks at Bob the next day, and Bob receives significant injuries because some of those rocks were heavy.

            The two legal questions are:
            1. Who should be charged with (possibly felony due to the use of a weapon) assault?
            - I think we can all easily agree that everybody who threw rocks at Bob assaulted him.
            - Alice is legally in an interesting spot as far as her criminal intent: A prosecutor could argue Alice solicited the assault or incited the violence, but on the other hand she could successfully argue that she was using a bit of hyperbole and didn't expect anybody to actually throw rocks.
            - As for X, Inc's criminal liability, you'd have to prove that somebody working for X even knew about the contents of the post and made sure the rock-throwers saw it, because criminal liability of this sort requires a showing of intent rather than negligence, so they're probably off the hook for the assault charge.

            2. Who should be civilly liable for any ensuing medical bills and emotional distress?
            - Once again, the people who threw the rocks should be in trouble, no question, although they're probably kids too, so they don't have much by way of assets.
            - It's easier to go after Alice than with the criminal case: Someone suing her is now in a position to argue that she should have known that her post could potentially lead to people actually throwing rocks, and thus she was negligent in her duty to be responsible.
            - The way the law currently works, X, Inc is off the hook for this. The reason probably has to do with the fact that you'd be demanding a human review every post, or demanding that X has to have an algorithm sophisticated enough to know and appreciate the difference between "Throw rocks at Bob" (as a threat to a real person Bob) and "Bob, throw me the rock" (as part of a story about basketball) and "Throw rocks at Bob" (as part of a video game walkthrough), and this post using the threat to a fictional Bob as a hypothetical example to explain a point. And to make things more complicated, note that none of the words I used, on their own, are really triggering of attention by an algorithm: Lots of people are named Bob, there are lots of perfectly legitimate non-criminal reasons to throw things, and lots of non-criminal things you can say about rocks. But on the other hand, X Inc probably isn't as judgment-proof as the rest of them, Bob should be able to collect from somebody, and it's true that their software ideally didn't show that post to the rock-throwers.

            So I'm going with: It's necessarily complicated, there's no easy blanket answer, and reasonable people can disagree on what the right answer is because it's hard for humans, much less designing an algorithm in advance, to get things right in even this example.

            And I'm also not going to forget that the push to make the platform liable for Alice's post came right about the time that some prominent politicians noticed that Alice could post on social media that said politician sucked, and the politicians were frustrated they couldn't sue either Alice or the social media platform for that comment and have a snowball's chance of winning. I hope we can agree that criticizing political officeholders, especially for their official or public acts, without fear of criminal or civil liability is a fundamental right in any country that could reasonably consider itself "free".

            --
            The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
            • (Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday September 30, @08:59PM (2 children)

              by slinches (5049) on Thursday September 30, @08:59PM (#1183194)

              - The way the law currently works, X, Inc is off the hook for this. The reason probably has to do with the fact that you'd be demanding a human review every post, or demanding that X has to have an algorithm sophisticated enough to know and appreciate the difference between "Throw rocks at Bob" (as a threat to a real person Bob) and "Bob, throw me the rock" (as part of a story about basketball) and "Throw rocks at Bob" (as part of a video game walkthrough), and this post using the threat to a fictional Bob as a hypothetical example to explain a point. And to make things more complicated, note that none of the words I used, on their own, are really triggering of attention by an algorithm: Lots of people are named Bob, there are lots of perfectly legitimate non-criminal reasons to throw things, and lots of non-criminal things you can say about rocks. But on the other hand, X Inc probably isn't as judgment-proof as the rest of them, Bob should be able to collect from somebody, and it's true that their software ideally didn't show that post to the rock-throwers.

              So I'm going with: It's necessarily complicated, there's no easy blanket answer, and reasonable people can disagree on what the right answer is because it's hard for humans, much less designing an algorithm in advance, to get things right in even this example.

              I think it's pretty simple. If the site has an algorithm sophisticated enough (or perform the human review) to be able to distinguish between different messages and make editorial decisions on the content they want to promote or suppress, then they should also be responsible for detecting and removing the content that is harmful. However, if they are either not capable or choose to provide an open space for public discourse (i.e. don't exercise editorial control over content posted) they should be protected from liability.

              • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday September 30, @09:51PM (1 child)

                by Thexalon (636) on Thursday September 30, @09:51PM (#1183201)

                That's not simple at all: You now have to evaluate, in a court of law, exactly how sophisticated the algorithm is, and in order to do that you have to force the disclosure of trade secrets. And then there's going to be the arguing over whether the company was negligent because they could have made the algorithm smart enough to figure this out but didn't because they didn't care about Bob or other victims.

                And of course no site is going to perform the human review without legal cause for doing so, since it's expensive and time-consuming.

                --
                The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
                • (Score: 2) by slinches on Friday October 01, @12:40AM

                  by slinches (5049) on Friday October 01, @12:40AM (#1183247)

                  All that needs to be evaluated is whether there's editorial control, the method is not important. If they pick and choose content then they should own the liability for all of it.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday September 29, @02:59PM (47 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 29, @02:59PM (#1182753) Journal

      Conservatives will be arguing for regulation.

      There will be nuance to this regulation.

      Big Tech sites cannot be allowed to censor dangerous misinformation unsupported by facts or science. In the interest of free speech.

      Sites like Parler, Gab, FrankSpeech, Conseervapedia, etc must be allowed to censor radical left wing reality and facts. In the interest of free speech.

      Sites that have theme parks in Florida must be exempt from regulation.

      --
      In order to make Halloween scary this year, children are ordered NOT to wear masks.
      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @04:03PM (33 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @04:03PM (#1182798)

        Same poster as

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @03:03PM (#1182756)

        Democrats want to completely force everyone to censor anything they don't like (just like any socialist/communist country).

        Republicans want to force everyone to allow anyone to express republican speech.

        I disagree with both positions.

        Section 230 of the CDA is good as originally written and shouldn't be modified. You make your own platform you should be able to moderate it however you like. I should be able to choose whatever platform I like or easily start my own platform without huge barriers to entry (especially artificial barriers to entry).

        However, I do think that banks (that benefit from FDIC insurance which is a government function) and payment processors should not be allowed to discriminate against where my money goes. If someone starts their own conservative platform that has speech that democrats politically disagree with no left wing bank or payment processing service should lawfully be allowed to prevent me from sending MY money to them.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @04:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @04:14PM (#1182800)

          Cable (and broadcast T.V.) is a perfect example of exactly what we don't want. There are way too many artificial barriers to start a cable T.V. station and cable companies simply won't allow conservative viewpoints over their cable networks (other than fox news, an over the air station they would drop if it wouldn't lose them a huge chunk of their remaining subscribers).

        • (Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 29, @04:21PM (30 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday September 29, @04:21PM (#1182803) Journal

          Democrats are fine with Parler doing Parler.

          We just find it hilarious that they go on about how they're a super FREE SPEECH platform then immediately ban all the liberals.

          • (Score: 4, Touché) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday September 29, @04:54PM (28 children)

            by ElizabethGreene (6748) on Wednesday September 29, @04:54PM (#1182814)

            Democrats are fine with Parler doing Parler.

            Are they? My recollection is it wasn't my republican friends that called on Amazon and Cloudflare to block Parler and Gab.

            It also wasn't my republican friends that banned any mention of the "misinformation" bombshell news story of our President's son selling access and influence to his then-VP father. "Misinformation" is in air quotes here because the allegation has recently been independently confirmed by a separate source.

            For decades people warned about the dangers of media consolidation in print and broadcast allowing censorship. We were blind to the risk of that when we built the internet, and it is well on its way to fulfilling the dangers whose warnings we so long dismissed. Oops.

            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday September 29, @05:01PM (13 children)

              by Tork (3914) on Wednesday September 29, @05:01PM (#1182818)

              For decades people warned about the dangers of media consolidation in print and broadcast allowing censorship. We were blind to the risk of that when we built the internet....

              ... 'blind' to it up until it started looking obvious which way the election was going.

              --
              Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
              • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday September 29, @06:03PM (12 children)

                by HiThere (866) on Wednesday September 29, @06:03PM (#1182850) Journal

                I think you're looking at a different time period than the GP. Over the longer time period, he is definitely correct...and no election had anything to do with it. I'd pin the time when we (in general) started noticing it as about the time Microsoft escaped being broken up by the DoJ. And stated doing LOTS of campaign donations. There clearly wasn't a simultaneous awakening at that point, but large numbers of tech folk started noticing the impact of politics, and the mechanisms. (Not that we are really good at doing anything about it.)

                --
                Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
                • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday September 29, @06:09PM (11 children)

                  by Tork (3914) on Wednesday September 29, @06:09PM (#1182855)
                  Then why are we debating this in the context of deadly pandemic misinformation or an attempted insurrection at the Capitol, the two WORST cases to make the point?
                  --
                  Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @07:05PM (8 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @07:05PM (#1182876)

                    You're the one that mentioned that context. We're not debating it within that context, you are the one arbitrarily mentioning the context and bringing it up.

                    • (Score: 1, Troll) by Tork on Wednesday September 29, @07:07PM (7 children)

                      by Tork (3914) on Wednesday September 29, @07:07PM (#1182878)

                      We're not debating it within that context...

                      Bullshit.

                      --
                      Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @10:37PM (2 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @10:37PM (#1182957)

                        Why even argue with these deplorable idiots? They still support trump! How thick and or evil can someone be??

                        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday September 29, @11:14PM (1 child)

                          by Tork (3914) on Wednesday September 29, @11:14PM (#1182970)
                          I think what frustrates me the most is there are parts of this I can get behind.... IF we figure this out separate from the extreme behaviours that brought us here. Wanna tighten up who gets common carrier status? Let's talk! Wanna force companies to host customers that make other customers leave because they're using the service to commit violence? Why the ruddy fuck are we even talking about the control of the 'internet plumbers' in that case?
                          --
                          Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @08:48AM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @08:48AM (#1183066)

                            I would be very happy if they would discuss problems, but as we've seen discussions have two rules. Only maintaining the status quo is allowed, and partisan topics are not subject to facts and reason.

                      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 30, @05:08AM (3 children)

                        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 30, @05:08AM (#1183029) Homepage Journal

                        Not bullshit at all. People have been bitching about the liberal leanings of the media, and of Big Tech for 20 years, and more. "People" isn't restricted to either conservatives, or to liberals. These people are just those who have enough imagination to extrapolate current events into the future. The liberal leanings have taken on a definite list to port in more recent years, and if it continues, the whole thing could capsize.

                        But, left-leaning people seem to think this is a "good thing".

                        It doesn't much matter what "context" you choose to frame the discussion in. Censorship is almost always a bad thing. I would be saying the same if Big Tech were conservative, thanks for asking.

                        --
                        Let's go Brandon!
                        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday September 30, @06:34AM

                          by Tork (3914) on Thursday September 30, @06:34AM (#1183051)

                          Not bullshit at all. People have been bitching about the liberal leanings of the media, and of Big Tech for 20 years, and more.

                          Okay, so if that's so plentiful and obvious then there really isn't a need then to whine about how a political party is being silenced when really the issue was that a small subset of that group had acted very badly. It's like a liberal bringing up drone strikes in an Obama vs. Trump debate. Pointlessly risky.

                          It doesn't much matter what "context" you choose to frame the discussion in.

                          Bullshit. There's a massive flipping of values coming from the conservatives, here. It's not nuance either, the right is still struggling to find the solution they actually want implemented, currently it's mainly just "poor us victims". "BuT NoBuDdiEs CaN BuiLd WeBSerVers!"

                          I would be saying the same if Big Tech were conservative, thanks for asking.

                          I've yet to hear you admonish Parler for punting 'libruls'. Funny thing about that, the likely reason they were doing it was that those 'libruls' were trolls intent on ruining the fun for everybody there. Heck maybe you have criticized Parler for that reason before and we actually agree on something, but if it only comes out when we're talking about consequences from conservative untowards behaviour...

                          --
                          Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Mockingbird on Thursday September 30, @08:13AM (1 child)

                          by Mockingbird (15239) on Thursday September 30, @08:13AM (#1183064)

                          Not bullshit at all. People have been bitching about the liberal leanings of the media, and of Big Tech for 20 years, and more.

                          Well, you know, that is because those people are stupid. Really fucking stupid. In fact, Runaway levels of stupid. So are you saying we should give them what they want, more stupid, like Fox News? Would that not be cruel and unusual punishment, as prohibited by the US Constitution? But, oh, I forgot the Conservatives do not follow the US Constitution any longer, since they are morons and traitors! Death to traitors, Runaway! And if you are one of them, who has renounced the oath your took when you enlisted in the United States Navy, . . . We will be coming for you, traitor.

                          --
                          "It is a sin to kill a mockingbird" Atticus Finch
                          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday September 30, @04:11PM

                            by Tork (3914) on Thursday September 30, @04:11PM (#1183118)
                            Um, no, we can do completely without the 'death to traitors' nonsense. Not cool.
                            --
                            Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                  • (Score: 2) by JustNiz on Friday October 01, @12:33AM (1 child)

                    by JustNiz (1573) on Friday October 01, @12:33AM (#1183244)

                    Your "attempted insurrection" is their "fight for freedom, truth and justice". It's all just semantics.

                    ... and don't forget how the US even got started. It would be hypocritical to label insurrection as an inherently bad thing.

                    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday October 01, @02:47AM

                      by Tork (3914) on Friday October 01, @02:47AM (#1183261)

                      It would be hypocritical to label insurrection as an inherently bad thing.

                      That's academic cos this one was a "bad thing". ;)

                      --
                      Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 29, @06:04PM (13 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday September 29, @06:04PM (#1182851) Journal

              It's not my fault they're too dumb to run their own servers.

              If you want to use somebody else's servers then you need to follow somebody else's rules.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @07:31PM (7 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @07:31PM (#1182891)

                Riddle me this?

                How many startups run their own infrastructure down to the fibers?

                You are making an impossible demand.

                To date only ONE of the dissident entities has managed to achieve full independence, Gab.com. They now have their own ASN, own physical hardware and Internet infrastructure. But they will still eventually be attacked again by the forces of tolerance and inclusion.

                • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 29, @08:33PM

                  by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 29, @08:33PM (#1182908) Journal

                  I thought Epik hosting was the GOTO place for sites wanting to host misinformation and lies.

                  --
                  In order to make Halloween scary this year, children are ordered NOT to wear masks.
                • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday September 30, @03:06AM (5 children)

                  by Thexalon (636) on Thursday September 30, @03:06AM (#1183015)

                  How many startups run their own infrastructure down to the fibers?

                  Several organizations I've worked for have run their own infrastructure from the monopolistic ISP connection on back to the servers and racks and wiring. And the ISP is under common carrier-like regulations, so they shouldn't be able to legally stop you based solely on the content you're putting out there (and based on some of the stuff these companies were hosting, I can assure you they really don't care unless they have a very very good reason). If you have a good locally-located data center who is willing to work with you, or enough capital to build a data center of your own, that certainly helps, but for small-scale startups you can not-totally-infrequently find what amount to glorified closets somewhere in their office space with a rack of servers and a front-facing router / firewall that also handles the usual office traffic.

                  Is it harder? Yes - you'll need a bit more in-house admin skill to run it since your admins will have to handle physical layouts and network topography in a way they didn't really have to when the cloud provider was doing that for them. Is it more expensive? Probably yes, at least up-front, but that may be offset by lower ongoing costs since you're getting fewer services from an outsourced provider, and it's definitely not so much of a cost that you can't do it for something like $25K to get started.

                  --
                  The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 30, @05:11AM (2 children)

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 30, @05:11AM (#1183030) Homepage Journal

                    but for small-scale startups

                    Thanks for the encouragement. But, what we need is not a set of tin cans with strings, we need a monster public address system that can broadcast as loudly as the progressives.

                    --
                    Let's go Brandon!
                    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday September 30, @01:51PM (1 child)

                      by Thexalon (636) on Thursday September 30, @01:51PM (#1183099)

                      So what you're saying is: "I don't want to do the work to build my own monster public address system, so instead I want to force other people to let me use theirs." Got it. Never mind that conservative viewpoints also already have a bunch of public address systems already, from Fox to OAN to Sinclair Broadcast Group to many other outlets.

                      --
                      The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
                      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 30, @08:07PM

                        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 30, @08:07PM (#1183177) Homepage Journal

                        I said no such thing. I've pointed out that the bar for entry is high. I might even say that it is astronomically high. Maybe I should ask over on Gab how many dollars has changed hands to get where they are now. A billionaire might not miss that money, but regular people won't accumulate that kind of money in 10 lifetimes.

                        --
                        Let's go Brandon!
                  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @05:13AM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @05:13AM (#1183032)

                    So, more than 25k is the price of free speech in a modern context?

                    Just step back and think about this. Really hard. Think really, really hard.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 03, @07:37AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 03, @07:37AM (#1183853)

                      You'll be shocked to know how expensive a printing press was in 1776.

              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 29, @08:04PM (2 children)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday September 29, @08:04PM (#1182903) Journal

                Even with your own server, you still need a contract to connect. That company will decide what you can and can't put online. The service provider is the real ball and chain. From them we should be demanding a simple dumb pipe. Content must remain off limits to any regulation. You do all the filtering at your end.

                --
                Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 30, @05:13AM (1 child)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 30, @05:13AM (#1183031) Homepage Journal

                  That company will decide what you can and can't put online.

                  Whatever happend to dumb pipes? And internet neutrality? No, my ISP shouldn't decide what I can put online.

                  --
                  Let's go Brandon!
                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 30, @05:18AM

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday September 30, @05:18AM (#1183034) Journal

                    Whatever happend to dumb pipes?

                    Same as always, insufficient demand from the market collective

                    --
                    Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
              • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday September 29, @08:30PM (1 child)

                by ElizabethGreene (6748) on Wednesday September 29, @08:30PM (#1182906)

                I am smart enough to run my own servers. You can reach it by driving to 35.702846, -86.299802 (Yes, the rock quarry), pull over on the side of the road, connect to the wifi network named FREESPEECH, and open https://freespeech, [freespeech,] and verify the SSL certificate thumbprint is f6f5da963bad37651c8e5e7488871d38266f0c1b.

                What, that's not scalable? You want some kind of network you can connect to that from anywhere in the world? Lacking Elon Musk's money/ability/infrastructure to build your own globe spanning network you'll have to buy that from someone, and you should be able to do that. Core services like IP transport, DNS registration/resolution, and arguably DOS prevention services should not be denied on a whim. You have a serious issue when providers are empowered to silence you because they disagree with your politics (Gab), religion (church of Satan), disregard for intellectual property (piratebay), or anything else.

                You might make a compelling argument against e.g. Child Pornography but that's a long way from shutting down a social media site because of pictures of Sad Pepe frog saying "Left can't Meme".

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @08:37PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @08:37PM (#1182909)

                  Themightybuzzard was one of the early founders/admins of Soylentnews and he was relatively conservative also. The claim that Republicans won't start their own servers because they don't have the skills or expertise is a nonsensical red herring.

          • (Score: 2) by JustNiz on Friday October 01, @12:36AM

            by JustNiz (1573) on Friday October 01, @12:36AM (#1183246)

            ahh you mean exactly like how facebook et al automatically ban anyone that dares to not march lock-step with the left wing propaganda?

        • (Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday September 29, @09:30PM

          by slinches (5049) on Wednesday September 29, @09:30PM (#1182929)

          You make your own platform you should be able to moderate it however you like. I should be able to choose whatever platform I like or easily start my own platform without huge barriers to entry (especially artificial barriers to entry).

          I agree that you should be able to moderate your site as you see fit. However, you should be liable for any content that is published there unless you adhere to common carrier standards (i.e. content agnostic except to comply with takedowns of illegal content). If you want to control the messages on your site, then own the liability for that. If you want to provide a space for open discussion that isn't controlled by the site, then you should be protected from liability for the messages of others who happen to use the site.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @06:06PM (11 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @06:06PM (#1182854)

        by facts or science

        As defined by who?
        By the government, as in Russia and China?
        By The Party, as in USSR and now in USA?
        By the billionaires controlling largest Internet monopolies maybe?

        radical left wing reality and facts.

        An interesting Newspeak renaming of rants and invective.
        The common leftie drones with their total lack of hard sciences education, cannot notice reality and facts even when those are biting their arses hard. And you know that perfectly well, now don't you?
        Have you absolutely no shame, dude? None at all?

        If censoring something can be conductive to free speech, that something is uncivil speech. The very thing I expect the left will defend to the last, as 99% of their propaganda force have literally nothing else to say.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday September 29, @07:26PM (10 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 29, @07:26PM (#1182888) Journal

          by facts or science

          As defined by who?
          By the government, as in Russia and China?
          By The Party, as in USSR and now in USA?
          By the billionaires controlling largest Internet monopolies maybe?

          Facts. Like, you know:

          * Does the sun rise in the East or in the West?
          * Is 2 + 2 equal to four or to five?

          Science. Like, you know:

          * how electromagnetism works
          * how physics works
          * how evolution works
          * how chemistry works
          * how biochemistry works
          * how microorganisms work
          * how biology works
          * how medicine works
          * how contagious diseases work

          radical left wing reality and facts.

          An interesting Newspeak renaming of rants and invective.

          Not Newspeak. Crazy people who deny reality and facts.

          * covid is not real
          * covid is a hoax
          * covid is no worse than the flu
          * I don't have covid
          * I will get better
          * I'm not dying
          * I do not have covid (said with last dying breath)

          Crazy is the correct word. Based on their craziness, then they turn science and medicine into a political issue. It should not be political. But a group of people with a certain political leaning are open to conspiracy theories and misinformation which they embrace as absolute truth.

          Now anyone can be wrong or mistaken about something. But I'm talking about a cult like embrace of obvious misinformation in the face of cold hard facts.

          And you call it Newspeak.

          --
          In order to make Halloween scary this year, children are ordered NOT to wear masks.
          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 29, @08:53PM (3 children)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 29, @08:53PM (#1182915) Journal

            Here is an example of a fact for you.

            Fact: vaccines do not contain microchips.

            --
            In order to make Halloween scary this year, children are ordered NOT to wear masks.
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @11:02PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @11:02PM (#1182965)

            Facts. Like, you know:
            * Does the sun rise in the East or in the West?

            I know it only appears to "rise" as the Sun does not rotate around the Earth. Do you?

            * Is 2 + 2 equal to four or to five?

            I know in modulo-3 arithmetics it is equal to neither. Do you?

            Science. Like, you know:
            * how electromagnetism works
            * how physics works
            * how evolution works
            * how chemistry works
            * how biochemistry works
            * how microorganisms work
            * how biology works
            * how medicine works
            * how contagious diseases work

            Religion. Got it.
            Especially hilarious is "how physics works", "how biochemistry works", and "how biology works". While scientists are groping in the dark, a common leftle already Knows Everything!
            All that after studying nothing, I must add. The Total Knowledge™ is imparted from The Party.

            Meanwhile we lowly engineers and scientists, have to do with observations, error margins, statistical correlations, unexplained exceptions, empirical relationships, and all that mundane rightwing stuff.

            Not Newspeak. Crazy people who deny reality and facts.

            Reality: I observed none of the people I know, who got diagnosed with COVID, suffered anything worse than in a bad flu season.

            * covid is no worse than the flu

            Fact, now?

            Crazy is the correct word. Based on their craziness, then they turn science and medicine into a political issue. It should not be political.

            Totally correct. Science and medicine should not be political.
            However when politicians use select studies to justify spending $trillions subsidizing select businesses or types thereof, and select medicines or types thereof, how can science or medicine not be political?
            A scientist or a doctor is a paying job like any other. They can and do get fired for telling things that are not politically correct. How are the results produced by those who chose not to get fired, not political?

            But a group of people with a certain political leaning are open to conspiracy theories and misinformation which they embrace as absolute truth.

            Isn't that the same group that very recently pocketed some heavy $trillions? https://inequality.org/great-divide/global-billionaire-pandemic-wealth-surges/ [inequality.org]
            Or is the money flow being purely coincidental?

            • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday September 30, @03:27AM (2 children)

              by Thexalon (636) on Thursday September 30, @03:27AM (#1183017)

              Especially hilarious is "how physics works", "how biochemistry works", and "how biology works". While scientists are groping in the dark, a common leftle already Knows Everything!

              Knows everything? No. Knows enough to draw useful conclusions? Yes.

              Let's look at physics: Are the scientists groping in the dark about what happens inside black holes? Absolutely. Are they groping in the dark about downward acceleration of human-scale objects as a result of Earth's gravity? Absolutely not.

              By contrast, many of the official conservative positions, often voiced by prominent politicians or on major news networks, ignore well-established scientific theories and observations like:
              - Evolution.
              - Viruses.
              - Antibodies.
              - How human fertilization works.
              - Climate change.
              - Changes in and effects of ocean acidity.

              We're not talking cutting-edge controversial stuff, we're talking about the stuff that's been well established and well supported by ongoing research for 40+ years in the fields in question, where the non-crackpot scientists who study them are arguing over the minutia and trying to shrink the error bars and statistical ranges, not fighting over whether the main point is right. And if you really are a scientist, which I'm going to question since you state neither your field nor your credentials, then I'm quite certain there's a large body of work you don't call into question because none of your observations have given you any reason to do so (e.g. if you're a physicist, I doubt you're spending valuable time and resources re-measuring the speed of light just to make sure that all those other measurements that many other labs and teams made weren't wrong).

              --
              The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @10:48PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @10:48PM (#1183219)

                Knows everything? No. Knows enough to draw useful conclusions? Yes.

                "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." -- Dr. Albert Einstein

                You can firmly believe you "know enough to draw useful conclusions", and still be totally, completely, utterly wrong. Some detail not included in your "enough" can easily be crucial to the case you try to analyze. Being aware of this, and being wary of it, is THE foundation of all good science and engineering.

                Are they groping in the dark about downward acceleration of human-scale objects as a result of Earth's gravity? Absolutely not.

                Good example. Is a human under a parachute a "human-scale object"? Is a human that reached the terminal velocity a "human-scale object"?
                See how talking in generalities leads you to laughably wrong answers?

                By contrast, many of the official conservative positions, often voiced by prominent politicians or on major news networks, ignore well-established scientific theories and observations like:
                - Evolution.
                - Viruses.
                - Antibodies.
                - How human fertilization works.

                Those who ignore the demonstrable parts of our knowledge about those things, do have a problem (and yes, evolution is demonstrable, due to evolutionary algorithms). But those who take a shallow kindergarten-oriented overview of those subjects and then believe they "know" them, have a worse problem.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect [wikipedia.org]

                - Climate change.
                - Changes in and effects of ocean acidity.

                And those are a separate kettle of Elder Things. Here we have the left willfully ignoring a lot of easily demonstrable observed facts, while waving about some heavily doctored graphs. Such a behavior is antithetical to science.

                And if you really are a scientist, which I'm going to question since you state neither your field nor your credentials, then I'm quite certain there's a large body of work you don't call into question because none of your observations have given you any reason to do so (e.g. if you're a physicist, I doubt you're spending valuable time and resources re-measuring the speed of light just to make sure that all those other measurements that many other labs and teams made weren't wrong).

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index [wikipedia.org]
                Seems the question of whether YOU are a scientist, has serendipitously resolved itself. ;)

                Do learn some more of physics before diving into such discussions again.

                • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday October 01, @03:07AM

                  by Thexalon (636) on Friday October 01, @03:07AM (#1183265)

                  Good example. Is a human under a parachute a "human-scale object"? Is a human that reached the terminal velocity a "human-scale object"?

                  Yes and yes. And in both cases, the acceleration due to Earth's gravity is effectively a constant. What's going to change is the countering force of wind resistance, which is still something we can calculate well enough to design parachutes that lead to survivable skydiving.

                  Seems the question of whether YOU are a scientist, has serendipitously resolved itself.

                  I'm not a professional scientist. Unlike you, I never claimed to be. I also can do enough of the basics to do some useful stuff. Just like I wouldn't describe myself as a professional carpenter, at all, but I can fix stuff around my house that looks decent enough.

                  The way you're talking, you seem to think I'd need to be a professional astronomer to know what phrase the moon is in and understand how said moon phase comes about.

                  --
                  The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @05:17AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @05:17AM (#1183033)

            Based on their craziness, then they turn science and medicine into a political issue.

            It's not like the left would attack a sitting president for suggesting we look into medicines that seem to have beneficial effects against an illness.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @05:44PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @05:44PM (#1183137)

              Correct!

      • (Score: 2) by JustNiz on Friday October 01, @12:21AM

        by JustNiz (1573) on Friday October 01, @12:21AM (#1183241)

        > Big Tech sites cannot be allowed to censor dangerous misinformation unsupported by facts or science. In the interest of free speech.

        There's already no such thing as free speech.
        The mass media and all the big sites (google, facebook etc)are promoting the left/woke agenda hard, and anybody that dares to question their statements (given as self-evidently right) is silenced one way or another, even if that person is simply quoting hard data and science.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @03:03PM (17 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @03:03PM (#1182756)

      I'm relatively conservative and I do not support censorship regulations. I'm horrified at what governments did to Wikileaks and also Bradly Manning because of the release of the Collateral Murder video and whatnot. Everyone makes Chelsea Manning out to be the bad guy but the government gets a pass for trying to hide such shenanigans.

      I voted for George Bush Jr. twice and I deeply regretted it after seeing that video (I'm also upset he passed the (un)patriot(ic) act, disagree with water boarding and Guantanamo Bay and so many things that George Bush did that I disagree with that I'm not going to list here).

      Don't equate the republican establishment with your average every day conservative.

      While I disagree with Trump on some things as well I also think Biden is very horrible and corrupt and don't think the media is fair to Trump relative to Biden. When that drone strike in Afghanistan hit the wrong person/group had that been Trump in charge the media would have blown up and never stopped saying Trump is a murderer, Trump trump trump, blah blah blah but Biden almost gets a pass relative to Trump. It's very obvious and dishonest and people fall for it.

      They're still trying to say Trump Trump Trump and finding something to blame him for (ie: for CIA Developed Plans to Kidnap or Kill Julian Assange, Per Report they keep mentioning Trump Trump Trump but when something bad happens under Biden they say nothing. Didn't Trump consider pardoning Assanage and Snowden at one time and it was the democrats that didn't want them pardoned and even threatened that pardoning them would increase their odds of impeachment? (though the Republicans in Congress also didn't want them pardoned either). I'm still disappointed in Trump for not actually pardoning these two and I predicted then that it's obvious Biden won't do it. At least one potential Biden supporter in the comments here said we'll see .... I'm still waiting. Biden is no better than Trump no matter how the media spins it, he won't pardon these two and so far I've been right).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @03:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @03:09PM (#1182760)

        Increase Trump's odds of impeachment *

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 29, @03:23PM (7 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday September 29, @03:23PM (#1182771) Journal
        • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @03:30PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @03:30PM (#1182776)

          As I've mentioned before, I don't defend Trump on everything. I think there are many valid things to criticize him for and I didn't vote for him and wouldn't. I just don't like how the media is light on Biden but heavy on Trump and they often criticized Trump for the wrong reasons (ie: trying to call him a white supremacist because his father allegedly discriminated against people. When pointed out that Biden himself didn't want his son to enter a school that Biden called a 'mixed jungle' Biden supporters would turn around and say something like 'how long ago was that'. But Trump gets criticized for something that his father supposedly did a long time ago. It's the double standards that I'm tired of).

          • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @04:58PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @04:58PM (#1182816)

            Trump was objectively worse than Biden, and Biden sucks. I hear plenty of negative stiff about Biden, you're just a trumper trying the whole gaslight and project routine. Pretending you're objective and middle ground is just setting up favorable context for your narrative. Fuck. Off.

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @06:37PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @06:37PM (#1182869)

              "Trump was objectively worse than Biden"

              For what? By which measure? What standards are you applying?

              From where I'm sitting, Biden appears to have chosen his legacy to be making Trump look like a very stable genius adept at playing four-dimensional chess.

            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday September 29, @07:14PM

              by Tork (3914) on Wednesday September 29, @07:14PM (#1182881)

              I hear plenty of negative stiff about Biden...

              Same here... on CNN, MSNBC, John Oliver..... you know, all those places that reputedly only bash Republicans and only put Democrats in the best light. It works a bit different when you want your political figure to represent you as opposed to cheerleading that individual through thick and thin.

              --
              Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @07:09PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @07:09PM (#1182879)

            I think the white supremist thing you could look at day 1 of his campaign: "Mexico is not sending its best..."

            There are enough other instances, like the "Very fine people on both sides" and "stand back and stand by."

            Not to mention his support of monuments to the confederate traitors.

            We don't need to look all that far back, he kept on it all throughout.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 05, @04:45PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 05, @04:45PM (#1184486)

              like the "Very fine people on both sides"

              Why do you [Democrats / other TDS Sufferers] keep loping off the part where he specifically condemned White Supremacists right before that?

              "we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America."
              "Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is -- you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That’s what I’d call it. Because there is a question: Is it murder? Is it terrorism? And then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing."

              https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/ [politifact.com]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @01:24AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @01:24AM (#1183003)

          Biden pledged to stop funding genocide in Syria. He's still funding it though.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday September 29, @03:38PM (2 children)

        by Tork (3914) on Wednesday September 29, @03:38PM (#1182782)

        While I disagree with Trump on some things as well I also think Biden is very horrible and corrupt and don't think the media is fair to Trump relative to Biden.

        How corrupt would you find Biden to be if he loses the next election and calls on his followers to take out Kamala before the swearing-in ceremony?

        --
        Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @05:28AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, @05:28AM (#1183036)

          Can you link to a call from Trump to take out Pence, or Pelosi, or any other individual? Was there an actual assassination attempt? Or, were there just a bunch of pissed off people disrupting a day's business? FFS, you guys have wild imaginations.

      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @03:53PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @03:53PM (#1182792)

        uhm ... off topic? I mention Snowden, Assanage, Bradly Manning, Wikileaks, all of that relates to Internet censorship and whatnot.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday September 29, @04:16PM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 29, @04:16PM (#1182801) Journal
          Give the community the chance to moderate - don't just take the first moderation at face value. Currently it is at 2 - Interesting.
          --
          It's always my fault...
        • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 29, @04:30PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday September 29, @04:30PM (#1182805) Journal

          Yes, offtopic.

          The majority of your post is about the alleged persecution of Trump and even the tangentially related stuff like Manning has nothing to do with ISP's roles in content moderation.

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday September 30, @03:46AM

        by Thexalon (636) on Thursday September 30, @03:46AM (#1183020)

        There are a bunch of things you can actually measure to draw some conclusions about which politicians are actually good at governing like:
        - How many of their constituents are dying?
        - How many are experiencing disabling injuries or illnesses?
        - What is the change in the S&P 500 and other financial instruments?
        - How many of their constituents who want to work are unable to get a job?
        - How many of their constituents who want to work are unable to find work that makes use of their training?
        - How much do their constituents get paid for work, on average?
        - What are the reported profits of businesses in their jurisdiction?
        - How frequent are various forms of crimes? How many people are killed or permanently disabled due to crime? How much financial loss is there due to crime?
        - How many of people the politician hired were found guilty of criminal acts committed both before and during holding those positions?
        - How much money did the government in question spend annually?
        - How much of a surplus or deficit did the government in question have annually?
        - How many of their constituents are in poverty (unable to pay for basic physical needs like food and housing)?
        - How many of their constituents went bankrupt last year?
        - How many government personnel under their control were killed or injured in the line of duty?
        - What percentage of their constituents over age 12 are illiterate or innumerate?
        I'm sure you can think of some more you might use.

        How important each of those measurements is important to you is of course a matter of your own political priorities, and it's absolutely true that these measurements are going to be fuzzy and imperfect, but there are still very clear trends you can discover if you look into the numbers. Think of it this way: For any politician you have the power to vote for or against, you're one of their thousands of supervisors, and it's part of your job to evaluate their performance. As a competent supervisor, you don't only use metrics, but you sure as heck would look at them as a potential place to start your evaluation.

        --
        The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
      • (Score: 2) by JustNiz on Friday October 01, @12:57AM

        by JustNiz (1573) on Friday October 01, @12:57AM (#1183251)

        What you don't seem to understand is that ALL governments are inherently corrupt. The USA is absolutely no different.
        The system itself weeds out any politician that isn't primarily motivated by selfish greed. THis means anyone with actual principles (i.e. who would do the best job) will literally never get the chance.
        The last thing any politicians want is to put someone in power that would actually clean house, because their own asses would be first up against the wall and they know it.

    • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday September 29, @09:45PM

      by darkfeline (1030) on Wednesday September 29, @09:45PM (#1182934) Homepage

      A lot of conservatives now are just disenfranchised liberals, so there's nothing surprising about that. It turns out that sensible regulation is not the same thing as dictatorial overreach.

      And thus the political pendulum begins its swing back.

      --
      Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @02:33PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @02:33PM (#1182745)

    The Internet Plumbers

    Buddy-cop show starring G. Gordon Liddy and Tim Berners-Lee?

    • (Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday September 29, @03:33PM

      by looorg (578) on Wednesday September 29, @03:33PM (#1182779)

      I was thinking more Mario (and Luigi), and we don't want Nintendo in charge.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @03:40PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @03:40PM (#1182783)

      g-gordon(*) is getting a little stiff for a staring role. perhaps a recurring bit part?
      * liddy is pushing up the daisies, pining for the fjords.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @03:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, @03:57PM (#1182795)

        Holograms, brah.
        I have seen the future, and it's Peppered with Ghosts.

(1) 2