Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the change-is-in-the-wind dept.

Democrats want a truce with Section 230 supporters:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says apps and websites aren't legally liable for third-party content, has inspired a lot of overheated rhetoric in Congress. Republicans like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) have successfully framed the rule as a "gift to Big Tech" that enables social media censorship. While Democrats have very different critiques, some have embraced a similar fire-and-brimstone tone with the bipartisan EARN IT Act. But a Senate subcommittee tried to reset that narrative today with a hearing for the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency (PACT) Act, a similarly bipartisan attempt at a more nuanced Section 230 amendment. While the hearing didn't address all of the PACT Act's very real flaws, it presented the bill as an option for Section 230 defenders who still want a say in potential reforms.

[...] Still, Section 230 has been at the forefront of US politics for years, and some kind of change looks increasingly likely. If that's true, then particularly after today's hearing, a revised version of the PACT Act looks like the clearest existing option to preserve important parts of the law without dismissing calls for reform. And hashing out those specifics may prove more important than focusing on the policy's most hyperbolic critics.


Original Submission

Related Stories

US Senate to Issue Subpoenas for Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and Sundar Pichai 56 comments

US Senate to issue subpoenas for Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Sundar Pichai:

The US Senate's Commerce committee on Thursday voted unanimously on a bipartisan basis to issue subpoenas to Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Google's Sundar Pichai, as Congress considers changes to liability protections granted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The three tech CEOs would appear before the committee as witnesses, but the date of the hearing hasn't been determined.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, from Washington and the leading Democrat on the committee, initially opposed the subpoena, which had been introduced by Chairman Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi. But Cantwell changed her position after Republicans included language in the subpoena regarding privacy and "media domination."

"There is a lot we want to talk to tech platforms about, like privacy and anti-competitive media practices," she said in a statement. "I thank the Chairman for broadening the subpoena to cover these issues."

She went on to say that "Section 230 deserves a serious thoughtful discussion. But the hearing should not be used to try to have a chilling effect on social media platforms who are taking down false COVID information or hate speech."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough 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 Dale on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:23PM (4 children)

    by Dale (539) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:23PM (#1028629)

    I have zero faith in any faction of Congress to be able to make adjustments to this without screwing it up or completely destroying it. It may not be perfect and it may leave some interpretation, but if they touch it and make changes it will only get worse.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:34PM (1 child)

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:34PM (#1028637) Journal

      Yeah, but do you trust the executive to interpret the current law fairly?

      Or do you the courts to establish precedent that makes any sense about it?

      If we only had one dysfunctional to the point of dystopian branch of government it'd be a lot easier to back this kind of complaint.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:47PM (#1028900)

        Leave it up to whoever owns the platform. Better for people to not rely on centralized services and develop interoperable protocols so users can share without giving up ownership or control of their data.

        Seriously, there is zero need to use fb/twitter/whatever. No one is guaranteed a platform, that is some next level bullshit from the alt-right and anti-censorship crowd which totally ignores the rights of the people who own the platform.

        If any law should be passed it should only be anti-discrimination laws. Tough sell to protect political ideology without turning the net into a rat infested shit hole. Reminder, even SN bans specific speech so don't get too absolutist with the freedom of speech.

    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday July 30 2020, @05:07PM

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday July 30 2020, @05:07PM (#1028783) Journal

      There is nothing to "adjust". There is no right to regulate or sanction content on the internet, but technically it is far too easy to regulate.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday July 31 2020, @06:47AM

      by Bot (3902) on Friday July 31 2020, @06:47AM (#1029168) Journal

      I have zero faith on congresses, governments and corporations to enable a simple law:
      If you host third parties' content you MUST help identify who breaks the law AND remove material which breaks the law PER REQUEST of the law (sentence or police in case of emergency. Not your fault if sentences take long.)
      If you start editing third parties' content outside of this, you become corresponsible of everything you edit and everything you don't edit: you censor political post and you leave pedophile content? OK, now you're in trouble. You censor fake news and leave other fake news up? You're in trouble. You censor christians and leave islam? seriously?
      Trouble deserved when you advertised your private servers as a platform for everybody, trouble undeserved in very few cases.

      --
      Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:27PM (15 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:27PM (#1028633) Journal

    The closest they ever come to discussing anything specific about what will change is one fucking sentence.

    The proposed clarifications reduce companies’ legal protections if they moderate content with a “discernible viewpoint” and make it harder for web companies to dismiss lawsuits over deleted content.

    If you want more insight, better hire a fucking lawyer to read the law for you, because this article's just steam.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by PaperNoodle on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:37PM

      by PaperNoodle (10908) on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:37PM (#1028702)

      I think this is the proposed bill [senate.gov]. For those interested in reading the bill. I haven't read all of it but it does encompass many issues. I am not sure if that is a good thing or not.

      There has been other bills [house.gov] proposed that are smaller and more understandable.

      When it comes to pivotal law like 230, tweaks seem better than overhaul. IMHO. But then again, would this actually solve any issues that are being brought up? I don't know.

      No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

      (A) 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, , unlawful, or that promotes violence or terrorism whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

      (C) any action taken to provide users with the option to restrict access to any other material, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

      --
      B3
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:51PM (6 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:51PM (#1028711) Journal

      It's all just double talk anyway. They just want to be able to sue websites where the comments say things they don't like. They're going for the exact opposite of freedom of speech while sticking to their plan of just blatantly lying about everything.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:37PM (5 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:37PM (#1028896) Journal

        In typical fashion they also don't consider what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.

        Imagine a site like Conservapedia or Parler being legally liable for objectionable 3rd party content on it's site! Oh my! Content they didn't create, but merely didn't detect.

        Section 230 should be about protecting every site from liability of 3rd party content. Regardless of whether that site has a viewpoint or not.

        For example, even Fox News, shouldn't be liable for 3rd party content, even if Fox News has a viewpoint. Ditto for CNN. Or any other site.

        --
        To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
        • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday July 30 2020, @10:29PM

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday July 30 2020, @10:29PM (#1028948)

          There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect...

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 31 2020, @12:30AM (3 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday July 31 2020, @12:30AM (#1029033) Journal

          They don't believe the shoe ever will *be* on the other foot and they intend not to let that eventuality ever come to pass. The GOP has gone full scorched-earth: either they keep "winning" or they burn it all down. Nihilistic maniacs, the lot of them.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @04:54AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @04:54AM (#1029131)

            No worries, there won't be anything left for the GOP to burn once the libtards are done rioting and committing arson.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @11:28AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @11:28AM (#1029216)

              Libtards? Don't you mean marxist socialist fascist anarchists?

              • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @12:55PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @12:55PM (#1029254)

                Clippy: "Looks like you're trying to spell 'right wing infiltrators and agitators.' Would you like help with that?"

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:05PM (6 children)

      by Immerman (3985) on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:05PM (#1028731)

      So, basically, they want to reduce the legal protections for *all* moderation. Because moderation by its very nature *always* has a discernible viewpoint - even if it's just "porn is not acceptable here". Or no fiction.

      Maybe they just don't want to come out and say "political bias", but even if they did - if one party's position has... shall we say distanced itself from reality?... that means that any site which moderates for factual accuracy will have an inherent political bias, and be vulnerable to increased legal pressure. Doesn't matter what the final legal result would be, the cost of the process is a massive deterrent.

      I do think there's room for reform, but we're treading on some really dangerous ground. Any reform needs to be very clear, very concise, and very open to public discussion in the specifics. The current political climate is probably not the time to safely touch it.

      • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:37PM (3 children)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:37PM (#1028829) Journal

        I would see USER moderation as a non-issue. The issue is Corporate moderation.

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:07PM (2 children)

          by Immerman (3985) on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:07PM (#1028916)

          Then you're by necessity going to have a lot of users looking at kiddie-porn and worse.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:19PM (1 child)

            Looking at it isn't the problem. People, despite recent assertions, are not fragile little snowflakes and can deal with insane amounts of unpleasant shit. Enjoying it is where the problem lies.

            That's not me arguing in favor of this idiotic bill, just saying you need to refine your argument.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday July 31 2020, @01:52PM

              by Immerman (3985) on Friday July 31 2020, @01:52PM (#1029281)

              Hell, I'd go so far as to say the problem isn't even the enjoying of it - nobody is hurt by a pedo enjoying child porn, in fact, while they're enjoying porn they're not hurting kids. The damage is in the making of it (assuming real kids are involved).

              However, I suspect far fewer people will use social media when every other post is kiddy porn, hate-propaganda, etc. Just look how bad things can get here sometimes, in a relatively dull text-only format.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @12:03PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @12:03PM (#1029232)

        I do think there's room for reform

        What specific reforms would you like to see?

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday July 31 2020, @03:53PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday July 31 2020, @03:53PM (#1029333)

          Honesty, I don't know. 230 did a pretty good job of carving out a way for online forums to exist without being buried in either lawsuits or spam. And most of the ways obvious ways to "improve" it would be easily perverted to become a means of government censorship (the primary reason I'm opposed to any change in the current political climate).

          However, bad actors have learned how to game the system, and we have lots of well-documented evidence of intentional (and very effective) disinformation campaigns being waged on social media, along with the many spontaneous conspiracy-theories, etc. that spread more organically. Campaigns that are becoming a very real threat to both social stability and government integrity, and which the platforms are, by and large, choosing to allow (and profit from).

          It may be that there is no way to have open(ish) online forums without those threats, and we need to take a long and hard look at whether their value to society outweighs that threat, and consider revoking their legal safe-harbor altogether. Not something I'd want to see, but it may turn out to be the least destructive option.

  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:33PM (33 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:33PM (#1028636)

    If Twitter and Facebook choose to censor, edit, ban an individual's free speech, then they are a publisher with editorial control and liable to libel suits.

    Yes, in the US it would be difficult for a politician to sue for libel, but the masses of normal users on those sites could win a suit with a lot lower threshold.

    • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:52PM (23 children)

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:52PM (#1028715) Journal

      No, you can't file a libel suit for speech that never existed or that the provider removes (censoring and banning). You can only sue for libel on something which has been published. Now if a publisher publishes something then they are a publisher.

      "Free speech" has only ever applied to government, not private, sanction upon speech. (As is censoring, in a legal sense, only a government function although that is arguable). You have no "right to free speech" from any private entity. If I run a publishing house I am under no obligation to print your book. "Censoring and banning" are therefore irrelevant to libel. Editing, OK.

      That doesn't mean that platforms shouldn't be considered publishers and could be held co-liable for content. On the other hand one could go the other way: Why should a print publisher today be liable for what an author they have printed has written? They only distributed what they author wrote. If I rent you a hall to deliver a speech am I responsible for the content of your speech? No, not even if I choose to only rent my hall to some people and not others.

      Maybe instead it should be the other way around and publishers should never be held liable for what an author has written - only the author is held liable. Maybe with the addition of any editors personally involved in editing the text, and thus an editor would have an indemnification from the publishing house for any judgments. Thus in an online context only the writer of the content allowed through would be liable for what they wrote. But that's what we generally have today. We just also have the ability for a person to be relatively anonymous and therefore unfindable.

      --
      This sig for rent.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:24PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:24PM (#1028751)

        No, you can't file a libel suit for speech that never existed or that the provider removes (censoring and banning). You can only sue for libel on something which has been published. Now if a publisher publishes something then they are a publisher.

        No, but you could sue Twitter if some person on Twitter called you a racist. The only thing protecting Twitter and the other social media sites has been the CDA exemption. If they exercise editorial control, it is implied that they agree and promote the untrue statements.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:58PM (#1028844)

          No, but you could sue Twitter if some person on Twitter called you a racist.

          That's a dicey proposition, at least in the United States [wikipedia.org].

          Something a little more on point here [freedomforuminstitute.org]

          If I say I think you're a racist, that my opinion. That's *not* libel.

          However, if I say that you molest young boys, that *could* be libel/defamation, unless it's either true or I have a *reasonable* belief that it's true.

          I'll put a fine point on that: The truth is an absolute defense against accusations of libel/defamation.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:44PM (15 children)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:44PM (#1028832) Journal

        Why should a print publisher today be liable for what an author they have printed has written?

        Because the publisher made an editorial decision, i.e. to publish, publisher shares responsibility for the content.

        The distinction is always, the editorial process. If you eliminate the editorial process from the platform on which speech is published, it becomes nothing more than a provider of a communication service and is not actually doing any of the work (selecting and/or editing) regarding speech.

        Quit trying to have it both ways. And none of this "private companies can be horrible as much as they want" nonsense -- we've broken up monopolies before and can do it again. We just need a Teddy and a big ass stick.

        • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:53PM (14 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:53PM (#1028840)

          we've broken up monopolies before and can do it again. We just need a Teddy and a big ass stick.

          Teddy was a Republican. The Democrats were content with big business fucking over the common man.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:04PM (10 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:04PM (#1028870)

            True history is not a troll.

            Man -- the mod system is insane recently. I know we aren't supposed to bitch about modding, but like nazi and racist have become meaningless terms, so too is "troll" or "flamebait" going the same route.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:52PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:52PM (#1028904)

              Poor victim!

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:20PM (3 children)

              That's why everyone gets mod points. Log in and correct some bad ones.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:38PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:38PM (#1028997)

                Already done, but the amount mod-abuse around here eats up my points. I'll come back and fix it later when they reset, but the mod abuse is getting out of hand.

                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @12:14AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @12:14AM (#1029022)

                  Typical, only when it affects them do narcisists start caring.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @05:01AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @05:01AM (#1029135)

                  Agreeing with you, but correction: it's been out of hand for a long time.

                  And I've tried to correct some good people being mod-clobbered, but I got my points removed because I "mod-bombed" someone up too many times in one day. Stupid system. People accept it because it's there and because other people accept it, but needs to be re-thought from the ground up. Not enough people are correcting mod abuse.

            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 31 2020, @05:53PM (4 children)

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday July 31 2020, @05:53PM (#1029400) Journal

              I agree. There are some who are abusing the Troll mod to silence opinions or ideas they don't like. They are even using it against comments like this I am writing now.

              Cancel culture, of which Troll modding is an expression, threatens pluralistic democracy. It is a tactic used by fascists, socialists, and totalitarians of every other stripe to quash healthy, free discourse.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday August 01 2020, @01:19AM (3 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday August 01 2020, @01:19AM (#1029570) Journal

                Sounds to me like "cancel culture" is what happens when the marketplace of ideas decides your bullshit isn't selling and you're just mad about it...oh, and about having your tactics co-opted and turned against you. Cry harder.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday August 01 2020, @03:24AM (2 children)

                  by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday August 01 2020, @03:24AM (#1029620) Journal

                  It's really tragic that once liberals like the ACLU fought for the rights of groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis, and now all that's left on the left are bigots like you. No ideals, no integrity, just the primal scream of spastic narcissism.

                  --
                  Washington DC delenda est.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @06:39PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @06:39PM (#1029926)

                    Why is it that every insult you attempt is always such an accurate picture of yourself.

                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday August 01 2020, @07:00PM

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday August 01 2020, @07:00PM (#1029945) Journal

                    Even ACs are starting to notice how your entire schtick is nothing but projection now, right down to the accusations of bigotry.

                    I don't know what happened to you, but I noticed you getting more and more stereotypically thoughtless and lowest-common-denominator over the last couple of years. It sounds to me like all your attempts to "prove you're one of the good ones"--where you live, who your married, your supposed activism, your mixed-race child--were meant mostly to convince yourself and others that your deepest, ugliest tendencies weren't actually real. Virtue-signalling in the truest and widest-reaching sense of the term, in other words.

                    And at some point in the last 2 years or so, it seems like you finally snapped, started screaming "WHAT THE FUCK DO THESE PEOPLE WANT FROM ME, I DIDN'T CHOOSE TO BE A STRAIGHT WHITE CHRISTIAN MIDDLE-CLASS MALE?!" and decided to say fuck it, not going to bother anymore. This, by the way, is what "white fragility" means :) And while you didn't choose to be male, straight, or white, your religion absolutely *is* a lifestyle choice and no one as intelligent as you has a right to remain this ignorant about its roots, its history, and its internal inconsistencies.

                    But noooo, instead of fixing yourself, you've decided to spitefully throw yourself down in the middle of the road and have a flailing, bawling, red-faced, pants-shitting existential temper tantrum over how meeeeeeean everyone else is and how unworthy all those minorities are of your incorruptible pure pureness! After all, you're "one of the good ones," so anyone who doesn't bow down and acknowledge that to the point of verbal fellatio MUST be a sick, twisted, subhuman piece of shit, right?

                    Game. Set. Match. mic.self(drop);

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:59PM (2 children)

            by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:59PM (#1028930)

            Teddy was a Republican.

            Until the Republicans ousted him for breaking up monopolies and other anti-agenda actions. The Republicans have not opposed screwing over the common man since.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 31 2020, @06:00PM (1 child)

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday July 31 2020, @06:00PM (#1029407) Journal

              Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, back when that term still meant something positive. He was the candidate for the "Bull Moose" Party, which was the Progressive Party. The party platform from 1912 is as relevant today as it was then. This excerpt is a taste:

              Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people.

              From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.

              To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

              The deliberate betrayal of its trust by the Republican party, the fatal incapacity of the Democratic party to deal with the new issues of the new time, have compelled the people to forge a new instrument of government through which to give effect to their will in laws and institutions.

              Unhampered by tradition, uncorrupted by power, undismayed by the magnitude of the task, the new party offers itself as the instrument of the people to sweep away old abuses, to build a new and nobler commonwealth.

              A new party today could almost adopt it wholesale and win.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
              • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday July 31 2020, @10:23PM

                by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Friday July 31 2020, @10:23PM (#1029506)

                A new party today could almost adopt it wholesale and win.

                Too bad TR had not swept into power with such a mandate in 1912. The task would be more difficult today. The forces of the "invisible government" are even more entrenched, with more money at stake, so efforts to eliminate it would have to be monumental. Instead we get things like the Tea Party or Trump, which speak vaguely in terms like that, but in reality work to even further entrench those interests.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:11PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:11PM (#1028876)

        ""Free speech" has only ever applied to government, not private, sanction upon speech."

        A lot of people make that argument, and it is complete bullshit. It is the argument that allows quasi-state agencies to abuse civil rights while hiding behind the trade clause. The 13th and 14th pretty clearly mitigates that argument, in that the right to infringe on one persons civil rights cannot be endowed by the state onto another person. And since "person" means corporation, llc, icecream shack, my left nut, and anything else described on paper, yep that pretty much means Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Comcast, et. al.

        Of course that doesn't mean that all the arguments on both sides over CDA230 aren't complete bullshit. The preceeding issue is the fact that all of the above perpetrate felony wiretapping on their customers about a million times a minute. That is what puts the profit motive behind the intrusion, and the empetus behind the use of that intrusion to support fundamentalism on both the left and right. Which are really both just the parties of oligarchy fascism, and poverty fascism (formerly called communism) They both are moving in the same direction:

        One nation under oligarchy, perpetually debating the inane, exanguinating reason and defrauded by all.

        IOW, if you are having a civil rights issue about who said what on the Internet, you've already fucked up. You wouldn't be arguing over who said what, if they still had their right to anonymous speech to begin with.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @03:29AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @03:29AM (#1029086)

          I could explain in detail, but since someone else already has [techdirt.com], and my tour [xkcd.com] is over for the day, I'll just leave this here.

          Have a wonderful evening!

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Friday July 31 2020, @03:30PM

            by Immerman (3985) on Friday July 31 2020, @03:30PM (#1029325)

            However, having completely read your link, they don't even discuss the topic of voluntary social media censorship of users, and I think for good reason.

            Yes, the 14th Amendment means that the 1st Amendment applies to state governments as well as the federal, but that's not an issue as no governments are involved.

            And yes, private individuals can't use the courts, and thus government power, to censor others (in theory anyway - in practice SLAPP suits are actually quite effective against most people.) But that's also not an issue, as there are no courts or government power involved when social media sites censor someone.

            The thing about social media censorship is that they aren't actually trying to stop someone from spreading a message - they're just declining to be an active participant in that spread. "You want to say X, go right ahead - somewhere else. We won't be your megaphone" As is their right - they can't compel you to silence, but neither can you compel them to spread your message for you. Just as you can't compel a radio station to broadcast your message for you, or a newspaper to print it.

            And 230 specifically grants sites the right to moderate as they see fit, without doing so being considered an editorial act that would make them liable for the posts they allow.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @06:36PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @06:36PM (#1029436)

            The more germane XKCD of course is:

            https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @12:02AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @12:02AM (#1029539)

              The more germane XKCD of course is:

              https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]

              For the topic at hand, you're absolutely correct. However, as far as *my* involvement goes, the one I used is spot on.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:39PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:39PM (#1028768)

      If Twitter and Facebook choose to censor, edit, ban an individual's free speech, then they are a publisher with editorial control and liable to libel suits.

      That's not a very nuanced view. In fact, it's much less nuanced than even Section 230.

      And don't forget that these are *private* organizations, not the government.

      What's more, users have a *contract* with these corporations. Usually it's referred to as "Terms of Service (TOS)."

      I'm not going to go and look it up for you, but in the language of each TOS you will find something along the lines of:
      By posting on our site, you grant <corporation> a free, perpetual, non-exclusive license to the content posted. <corporation> may use and/or display such information as it deems appropriate

      And then you'll see something like this:
      <corporation> reserves the right to modify or remove such content it determines, at its sole discretion, violates our policies as defined, but not limited to, in these terms of service.

      Such language gives these corporations wide latitude in what may or may not be posted on their site. Section 230 merely provides an additional level of protection to those corporations when they exercise their rights under the *contract* users have entered into with each corporation.

      As such, your view doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given that the First Amendment *does not apply to private parties*, only to the government.

      And I'll say it again, users have entered into a legally binding *contract* with these corporations, and under that contract, those users agree to penalties from warnings or having posts taken down, up to and including getting kicked off the site if the corporation decides you've violated the terms of the contract. Language that supports that *also* appears in such TOS'.

      I suggest you educate yourself. Or not. That's up to you.

      N.B.: IANAL

      • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:16PM (7 children)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:16PM (#1028882) Journal

        As such, your view doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given that the First Amendment *does not apply to private parties*, only to the government.

        When said corporations purchase laws to their benefit and to the detriment of the people, why do we consider them "private" parties with respect to government? All you describe here is a massive loophole -- same one used to destroy the 4A via the third party doctrine. Your proposition is a nightmare for any semblance of civil liberties continuing to exist -- it's nothing but a system designed for abuse.

        Secondly, there's nothing stopping Congress from limiting corporations from behaving in certain ways -- or do you want to let companies decide who to hire and fire or serve to be based on race, religion, etc.? Because when you argue above, you are arguing for that. It's all the same thing -- it's an argument that corps should be free of all regulation.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:16PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:16PM (#1028918)

          Secondly, there's nothing stopping Congress from limiting corporations from behaving in certain ways -- or do you want to let companies decide who to hire and fire or serve to be based on race, religion, etc.? Because when you argue above, you are arguing for that. It's all the same thing -- it's an argument that corps should be free of all regulation.

          I said nothing even approaching that.

          I merely pointed out (perhaps a bit verbosely) that:
          1. The First Amendment applies to *government* action. Full stop;
          2. U.S. contract law is enforceable in the United States. If someone is dumb enough to enter in a lopsided contract, that's on them.

          Anything else is just you talking about what you *think* I said or believe. And I'm here to tell you that you're wrong.

          Have a nice day!

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @12:08AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @12:08AM (#1029020)

            1. The First Amendment applies to *government* action. Full stop;

            When a part of government outsources the action to a catspaw "private company", the full stop is coming to the Constitution unless the practice is stopped first. When someone outsources insider trading, both parties are liable; why should outsourcing Constitutional violations be freely doable?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:40AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:40AM (#1029052)

              When a part of government outsources the action to a catspaw "private company",

              Which part of the government outsourced what "action" to which company?

              This ought to be amusing.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @01:44AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @01:44AM (#1029582)

                While acting clinically stupid does suit your ilk, it is not amusing due to absolute lack of variety.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:21PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:21PM (#1028920)

          When said corporations purchase laws to their benefit and to the detriment of the people,

          You do realize that the CDA and its section 230 [wikipedia.org] was enacted in 1996 right?

          And you are aware that Facebook was founded in 2004 and Twitter in 2006, right?

          Corporations "buying" laws that were enacted a decade before they existed, huh? If true, that would be a neat trick. But it's not, so it isn't.

          You're talking out of your ass.

          • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Friday July 31 2020, @02:48AM (1 child)

            by hemocyanin (186) on Friday July 31 2020, @02:48AM (#1029081) Journal

            After examining 14 million records, including data on campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures, federal budget allocations and spending, we found that, on average, for every dollar spent on influencing politics, the nation’s most politically active corporations received $760 from the government.

            https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-biggest-corporate-political-interests-spend-billions-get-trillions/ [sunlightfoundation.com]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @03:37AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @03:37AM (#1029089)

              Which is definitely fucked up. I agree.

              Getting the money out of our political system is an important (if not the most important, certainly in the top three) step toward curbing the legalized bribery called "lobbying."

              But it still doesn't mean that corporations (Jack Dorsey was 20, and Zuckerberg was 12 when the CDA became law) "bought" laws a decade before they were founded.

              The discussion and debate around the CDA is part of the Congressional Record, not to mention the extensive press coverage of that debate, so you *could* actually get a clue.

              But I won't hold my breath.

  • (Score: 2, Redundant) by GlennC on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:48PM (3 children)

    by GlennC (3656) on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:48PM (#1028651)

    Sorry, folks...the system is broken, and at this point there's nothing to do but sit back and enjoy the destruction.

    --
    Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 31 2020, @06:11PM (2 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday July 31 2020, @06:11PM (#1029416) Journal

      Begun the Second Civil War has. It's already not particularly enjoyable.

      The first one began with a state attacking a federal facility called Ft. Sumter. Now, a city and state are attacking (more precisely, they are allowing attacks, and encouraging them) a federal facility called the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @06:42PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @06:42PM (#1029928)

        Hi fascist, we now see why you shifted far right. Who cares about fascism as long as your life remains in a comfortable status quo of white privilege.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @10:15PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @10:15PM (#1030049)

          I'll bet a dollar you are a white male basement dweller yourself.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:59PM (1 child)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:59PM (#1028666) Journal

    Censorship can only be defeated by technical means. It is a total waste to discuss the law

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:04AM (#1029041)

      This used to be the case, though I'm not sure if it scales as it once did. There has always been an edge to network differential of available compute, with the edge holding WAY more processing power.

      So really all that was ever needed to ensure free communication, was a mechanism where the collective CPU utilization of the speakers was higher in the aggregate than the censoring institutions could muster indevidually. IOW you don't technically have to encrypt well, you just have to encrypt poorly on a universal basis. You don't even need secure keys. The added CPU cycles is what creates the higher cost. You just have to make censorship more expensive than freedom.

      In the 1990's this was kind of how it was even on the clear net. Just switching frames was so expensive that doing line rate traffic inspection was unfathomable for carriers. They figured this out, which is why they have "personal assistants" now. Essentially YOU pay the compute that is used to spy on you at the edge, and that takes away the advantage of actually owning more processing power than they do.

      This is changing somewhat as the current generation is being raised on retard-tolerant hardware. The demands on computer literacy are lower in this generation than they were before. Consumer hardware is getting less efficient at the same price point now. Or so it seems. That and the aggregation of content under so few vendors has made the process of isolating particular users much easier. And the hardware is so consumer-fucking in architecture, that it is virtually impossible to get past it. You practically have to burn your own asic now to get hardware that doesn't have built in surveillance features.

      I spec'd a protocol that leveraged the edge/net compute differential many moons ago. Never showed it to anyone. The infosec community would go: "that isn't connonical ISO-whatever-the-fuck, and it pisses in my ricebowl", and everybody else doesn't give a shit. It was an interesting exercise. To loosely quote some dude on the TOR project: "If god didn't want us to have secure communications, he wouldn't have invented large prime numbers."

      So yeah. It CAN be done. And in truth it wouldn't even be that expensive. But sure as shit the guys holding themselves out as saviors of the Internet while they quitely jerk off carriers with the other hand (Mozilla) aren't going to do it. Nore are the "we are creating the next gen secure network (until we get bought by the same assholes we claim to hate)" lojacking backdooring motherfuckers like telegram.

      So it is what it is. And I write this on a machine that I'm sure is infested with commercial, (and probably some not so commercial) spyware, on a site that I know is harvested for profiling.

      It is a statistical certainty, that if you shit on enough people eventually you are going to run into somebody you aught not have fucked with. Here's to whomever that happens to be, when the existing civil rights debate comes to an end.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:14PM (22 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:14PM (#1028680)

    The proposed law would prohibit platforms from expressing a "discernable viewpoint" on their own platforms. It's no different from regulating what a newspaper decides to publish in its editorial section.

    There's no chance this holds up in court.

    Twitter, etc. "feel like" they ought to be common carriers, but they aren't. They don't have to be viewpoint neutral and they aren't really even supposed to be.

    As bad as the current situation is, all of the alternatives are worse.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:34PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:34PM (#1028698)

      The proposed law would prohibit platforms from expressing a "discernable viewpoint" on their own platforms. It's no different from regulating what a newspaper decides to publish in its editorial section.

      Are YOU dumb, or hope all of US are?
      Show us the language that forbids anycorp from saying whatever they wish in its editorial section, will you?
      It is arranging the OTHERS' words to their agenda, that they need be banned from.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:38PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:38PM (#1028704)

        Turns out it's just you. I wasn't hoping for that, but you really came through.

        Newspapers publish content *written by others* in their editorial section. This is exactly the same as regulating what they choose to publish.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:57PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:57PM (#1028722)

          And all newspapers I've ever studied about state they have an express right to edit your words for space constraints or any other reason, too. It's happened to me when I've written letters to an editor that they get reworked a little, although they still preserved my position and my argument. This shoots down the notion that editorial control somehow changes what you wrote.

          • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:59PM

            by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:59PM (#1028725) Journal

            Editorial control changing what you wrote somehow affects that it's still a user-submitted editorial, I meant - it is, even if it is edited. Then again, newspapers also require the writer to identify themselves sufficiently that you can be held liable for the content you wrote.

            --
            This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:51PM (6 children)

      As bad as the current situation is, all of the alternatives are worse.

      Nah, only most of them. Just like speech, the answer to bad platforms is more platforms. Otherwise I agree.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Booga1 on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:04PM (5 children)

        by Booga1 (6333) on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:04PM (#1028813)

        Just like speech, the answer to bad platforms is more platforms.

        On this I agree. Services ranging from web hosts like Geocities, instant messaging like AIM, social media like MySpace, and many others have come and gone in popularity. Some are completely gone and never replaced.
        If you don't like what the site or service you're using is doing, quit using it. People complain about new services popping up to serve a specific demographic, but that's exactly what should be happening when the one they're on turns into crap.

        That's why this site exists and we're all here!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:23PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:23PM (#1028822)

          If you don't like what the site or service you're using is doing, quit using it.

          "A good site you have here. Shame if something bad were to happen to it."
          If you-know-who don't like what the site or service you're using is doing, they harass the workers, the owners, the hosters, the providers, the payment processors, till it quits being usable to you. Using the mafia's workbook to great effect.
          That sort of action need be handled as the criminal conspiracy it is. Otherwise, your arriving in a "reeducation camp" is only a matter of time.

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Booga1 on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:33PM (3 children)

            by Booga1 (6333) on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:33PM (#1028826)

            Your comment is about the explosive growth of "cancel culture" assholes that can't just control their own behavior, they have to control everyone else's. For them, it is not enough to avoid a service, product, or person. They harass and bully everyone they even perceive as remotely connected to whatever their latest target of hate is.

            People have lost sight of the peace that comes from minding your own business and now they won't let anyone else live in peace either. They're not even happy if you're neutral on a subject. If you're not just as pissed about something as they are, well they'll try to "cancel" you too. It's toxic and they hide their cancerous attitude by claiming it's the other side that's toxic. It's a great example of projection run amok.

            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:10PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:10PM (#1028875)

              In the past, most countries did not call their bandits a "culture" and let them go their merry way. Russia did, and ended up ruled by them. Let that be a lesson to be learned, not an example to be followed.

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:19PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:19PM (#1028884)

                Not sure if you've noticed, but that ship sailed in the US long before Trump got elected. Pork barrel projects, bill riders and earmarks, bailouts for the "too big to fail" companies, and so on. Kinda getting off topic though.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:26PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:26PM (#1028887)

                  I wish you to never learn firsthand the difference between tame corruptioners and actual genuine bandits.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:59PM (2 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:59PM (#1028726) Journal

      There's no chance this holds up in court.

      True, but sites like Soylent can't afford to go to court. The minute some AC posts something slanderous or copyrighted and SN is gone. Twitter, on the other hand, has an army of lawyers to keep them in court until the heat death of the universe.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:24PM

        Under the proposed legislation, yeah. Under the current state of affairs we could probably get a lawyer to do it on contingency because of the likelihood of us getting awarded legal expenses in the countersuit.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:26PM (#1028980)

        The lawyers will probably survive even that, just to spite everything else.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @05:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @05:54PM (#1028809)

      newspapers have discernable viewpoints, *especially* in their editorial sections.

    • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:51PM (6 children)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:51PM (#1028835) Journal

      There's no chance this holds up in court.

      LOL -- S230 didn't codify a law of the universe and removing an opt-in immunity clause is not something that these companies would be able to somehow magically will into being. All the law does is give privileges to certain companies by protecting them the expense of defamation litigation if they aren't exercising editorial control. The companies want to edit, immunity goes *poof* and the status quo is reinstated. Now, they might win all the defamation suits individually, but the process is the punishment because its so darn expensive.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:12PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:12PM (#1028877)

        Review the link to Mike Masnick's blog below, where he touches on this.

        While Congress could have left Internet publishers alone and never created Section 230, they didn't. Just because Section 230 did not always exist does not mean that changes to it are exempt from First Amendment scrutiny. Congress could even repeal it in its entirety. But they cannot pass a law that punishes companies for their editorial decisions - even if the punishment is simply in the form of revoking protections they would have otherwise had.

        Suppose Congress passes a tax cut, but then they come along and say "except you have to pay the original higher rate if you say something we don't like." They didn't have to pass that tax cut. But given that they did, they can't gate it behind speech restrictions.

        • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:27PM (4 children)

          by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:27PM (#1028889) Journal

          Revoking S230 is not an impingement in speech. It is simply the removal of a block against the consequences of speech.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:56PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:56PM (#1028910)

            Again, for all you idiots, removing 230 will result in many users being outright banned and INCREASED censorship as corporations install filters toprevent being liable for anything.

            I am floored that you are being hoodwinked like this. Soon they'll wring their hands and say sooorrry you got deplatformed but we don't wanna be sued. I don't know if this is intentional manipulation or just collectuvely stupid outrage, but the end result of repealing 230 will be more corporate control over speech on their platforms.

            It will not work out how you hope.

            • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:42PM (1 child)

              by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:42PM (#1029003) Journal

              So once twitter and facebook kill themselves with these filters, people will disperse into the smaller corners of the internet and life will get better. The power and influence concentrated in Google, FB, and Twitter is exceptionally dangerous and anything that kills them is good. If there are collateral effects, we can deal with those later.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:33AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:33AM (#1029047)

                Way to completely miss the point.

                Decentralized services are great and all, but what would actually happen is that twitter/fb and any decentralized server nodes would start locking down and banning users. That already happens with decentralized servers, admins have to be cautious of who they allow into their "network" or risk being banned from the larger node that do not tolerate certain subjects.

                The dream you have will fall to pieces in reality as paranoia of lawsuits increases. So you'll be forced into even more controlled walled gardens then now, or live in the fringes publishing your own content as you are able to right now. There is really no upside except some self-righteous sense of retribution against the tech industry.

                I'm starting to wonder if these attacks on 230 aren't a sly attempt to enact even stricter controls while allowing corporations to shrug their shoulders and say their hands are tied. Right now they don't have that excuse, their actions sit on their own shoulders.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:56PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:56PM (#1028929)

            Again, see my previous post.

            "You're not being arrested. It's simply the removal of your being able to go home."

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:55PM (34 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:55PM (#1028720) Journal

    Just remember, conservative who are cheering this on, SoylentNews is also protected by 230. And they also exercise editorial control over what gets published so if this gets repealed, and someone posts copyrighted material in a comment, this site can be sued out of existence very easily. YAY FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:23PM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:23PM (#1028750)

      Big tech companies have used 230 to become the richest most powerful corporations in the world. With a bait and a switch. "We like freedom of speech". Now? Removing communication from the government whether that be from Trumps twitter or dropping CSPAN on youtube because a politician said THE NAME THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED.

      Eric Ciaramella

      I don't think a corporation should be able to exert so much power and influence on the country at the expense of the people rights. Before it was Rober Barons and Company Towns. Now it's social media.

      Whatever happens the result should be more freedom for people. I thought liberals stood for the little guy? When did they become the party of corporations?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:30PM (#1028759)

        Whatever happens the result should be more freedom for people. I thought liberals stood for the little guy? When did they become the party of corporations?

        The democrat party? Probably when Clinton took control. The bleating sheep? I guess they're only there because of the brand's name recognition. Sort of like boomers watching CNN because they used to be a news channel.

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:51PM (4 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:51PM (#1028776) Journal

        I thought liberals stood for the little guy?

        Little guys like SoylentNews? Ones you're willing to sacrifice to satisfy your revenge boner for Twitter?

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @05:28PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @05:28PM (#1028796)

          It is a shame that the big companies abused those protections that this has become an issue that threatens smaller players. Any change should maximize freedom and protections for those not abusing their positions to exert undue influence and control over nations and people.

          Without addressing this issue we are on course for a social credit system implemented by Google and Facebook. They are private and can do anything they want. Cutting off your access to participate in society is just small cost to bear so that they can maintain their profits. Why would a bank want to do business with an unperson?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @03:55AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @03:55AM (#1029100)

            Without addressing this issue we are on course for a social credit system implemented by Google and Facebook. They are private and can do anything they want. Cutting off your access to participate in society is just small cost to bear so that they can maintain their profits.

            Google and Facebook and Twitter are *not* society. They're just websites.

            They are completely superfluous and unnecessary. That many people flock to those websites doesn't make them the *entirety* of culture/society.

            Maybe read a book or go to a museum or a concert instead. I guarantee you'll be much happier for it.

            I ignore all that garbage and I certainly am.

            And I'm currently reading Ian Banks' Culture Series [wikipedia.org] myself. It's a little uneven, but an interesting fictional universe. Or John D. McDonald's Travis McGee novels. Or Spengler's "Decline of the West." Or watch a movie. Or any of tens of millions of other things you could be doing instead of either inifinitely scrolling your FB/Twitter/Instagram/whatever feed, or whinging about how much that sucks. Get a life.

            Doing that is much more enjoyable than looking at photos of some asshole's dinner or reading some in[s]ane screed about how Bill Gates wants to anally probe you and implant a tracking device in you.

            Get a grip.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:50PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:50PM (#1029278)

              People are losing their jobs from social media campaigns. People have lost access to their lines of credit and bank accounts from social media campaigns.

              It doesn't matter if you are on those platforms or not anymore because the mob is on them. The social media lynch mob uses them to coerce companies to stop any business with an unperson.

              Facebook already collects information and has profiles for people not on their accounts. I wouldn't be surprised if google did something similar. They have already developed a social credit system for China. I don't find it a stretch to think that big companies and bank would outsource "safe" people searches and deny business with unpeople.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @04:08PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @04:08PM (#1029341)

                It doesn't matter if you are on those platforms or not anymore because the mob is on them.

                Back in the early '90s, the company I worked for connected their email system to the Internet. When rolling this out, a memo was sent to employees about their policies WRT using external email.

                The memo suggested (paraphrasing) that one should *not* put anything in an email that "...you wouldn't want to see on the front page of your local newspaper."

                That was good advice then, and it's even better advice (and more important for "social media" posts) now.

                Freedom of speech means that the *government* isn't allowed to retaliate against you for the things you say. That does *not* apply to individuals or private organizations.

                Trying to get someone fired because they said something you don't like, outside of the context of their job is a dick move.

                And while it's nasty and inappropriate, it's not a crime. If you think it should be, write your congressman.

                Alternatively, take a page from those assholes and build support for getting *them* fired for being assholes.

                The government may not censor your speech (although that's not absolute -- nor should it be -- either) or retaliate against you for your speech. In most other contexts (at least in the US), those restrictions do not apply.

                That's the law. If you don't like it, work to get it changed.

                What's more, there have *always* been assholes and busybodies (look up 'poison pen' letters for an example). In fact, I'm pretty sure that's been going on at least since we learned to speak.

                The only difference is that instead of only your town or neighborhood potentially reacting to what you say, just about everyone can do so.

                Is it right? I don't think so. But any *legal* mechanism that might restrict the assholes (a tiny minority of us) from speaking out also restricts the rest of us. And that's something I strongly oppose.

                If you want freedom of expression to be a real thing, even malicious, nasty scumbags have to be allowed to speak too.

                Heinlein, as usual, had useful things to say about this:
                https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/135412-the-correct-way-to-punctuate-a-sentence-that-states-of [goodreads.com]

                The correct way to punctuate a sentence that states: "Of course it is none of my business, but -- " is to place a period after the word "but." Don't use excessive force in supplying such a moron with a period. Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about.

                But that's not enough in this context. The other side of the coin is:
                https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3264-i-am-free-no-matter-what-rules-surround-me-if [goodreads.com]

                I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.[emphasis added]

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:53PM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:53PM (#1028838) Journal

        Insightful grouping:

        Robber Barons, Company Towns, Social Media

        The first two are easily seen for the disgusting abuse they were. The last will be seen that way 100 years hence, and some will see it now.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:47PM (21 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:47PM (#1028774)

      A very fair point.

      Most of the early internet was 'the gentlemans agreement'. Basically do not act like a prick and you are cool. The existing 230 basically put that into law. However, the DNC decided to dropkick the GOP off the internet. There are videos of insiders talking about exactly that. They have discussions on how to suppress speech that does not match their worldview. The 'gentlemans agreement' is basically broken at that point. They decided to act like a prick. Do you expect the other side to say 'ah no problem' or do you think they might maybe fight it?

      I have been saying this for years. The whole tech speech thing is ripe for a "Title I" style law. Make no bones about it. Google and Facebook lead the charge in 2008. Obama himself called it a new way to run elections using Share Blue. The DNC was cool with that until they realized they had created a monster that the RNC can use too. Now they are trying government censorship by proxy.

      When you have senators and congresscritters unable to run their own campaigns because they get marked down as 'hate speech' you are going to end up under a regulatory set of laws that will make Title I fines look like small pocket change.

      It is funny as this is nearly the same reasons we ended up with Title I in the first place. Title II is about to get gutted and re-written if the DNC does not back off. FAANG and twitter is going to have to deal with that fallout. It will cost them billions. They will wage an information campaign and gaslight us how we are wrecking their free speech while on the other hand they suppress thousands of others.

      Instead of removing these people. Give the people the ability to filter it. "I do not want to see anything from this person ever again". I use the hell out of that feature on any platform that has it. It makes things much nicer. When all the blue checkmarks went 'silent' for a few days twitter was actually kinda cool again. But they are right back at it.

      Then on top of all of that. Getting rid of actual trolls and people just muckmaking will be a real PITA. All because the DNC has collectively stopped and said 'hey wait what if my ideas actually suck. Nope not possible they suck even harder and not only that they are evil so I am justified in this'. Discussion is impossible under these rules. They know it and they love it.

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:54PM (13 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:54PM (#1028777) Journal

        However, the DNC decided to dropkick the GOP off the internet.

        HAHAHAHAHA!!! Add that to the list of superpowers the DNC possesses. It goes under the mind control ray they used to force more people to vote for Biden in the primary.

        *waves hand* this is not the website you are looking for [gop.com]

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:42PM (10 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:42PM (#1028898)

          I can find vids of Obama praising it. I can find videos of top Google people crying about 'orange man elected'. I can find vids of internal people at facebook saying they are just deleting conservative posts.

          Your pathetic sith tricks do not work on me.

          Remember Twitter does not shadowban people. Because their GUI does not say 'shadowban'.

          You for one second think the lady who hung out with Jim Jones does not control the DNC? She does not mind taking money from someone who humble brags about not quite being a Nazi but it being the best time of his life? The same guy who humble brags he nearly tanked the brithish pound? Pull the other one.

          You think for one second that what they show you is true? This is the truth. This is what they have planed for you.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJSiV_R2uiI [youtube.com]
          Pay attention to the one guy in the crowd yelling. He sees them for what they are and how they are fucking him over (again). How does he know? He lives their shit every day. Democrat run cities are crap holes because the democrats made it that way. NY we joked about walling it off and turning it into a prison until they elected a Republican to clean that shit up. 2 terms of Democrats and that joke is starting to be kind of funny again.

          Add that to the list of superpowers the DNC possesses/I
          They fucking censored the president of the united states. In what way is it not a super power? Explain please? Because we are all ears on how the DNC has not coordinated a full on attack on the GOP.

          For their next trick watch them blame the riots on Trump. Watch how all the news orgs suddenly change what they say about 'protesters' to suddenly being 'agitators and white supremacists'. That is happening right now before you eyes.

          The DNC has brought their A game out this time for persuasion. If it was not downright evil you could admire it.

          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:55PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:55PM (#1028908)

            I can find vids of Obama praising it. I can find videos of top Google people crying about 'orange man elected'. I can find vids of internal people at facebook saying they are just deleting conservative posts.

            Links or it didn't happen.

            What's more, Google/Facebook != DNC

            The DNC (unlike Antifa) actually has an organizational structure, with Tom Perez at the top of that structure.

            Evidence Motherfucker. Do you have any?

            Note that typing "I saw it" isn't evidence.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:01PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:01PM (#1028913)

            Individuals being shitty is not a conspiracy. The rightwing pundits have turned you formerly reasonable people into hate filled sacks of propaganda. You generate a reality distortion field so intense that you actually LIKE Donald Trump. Wtf?

            • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 31 2020, @06:24PM (1 child)

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday July 31 2020, @06:24PM (#1029429) Journal

              Individuals being shitty is not a conspiracy. The leftwing pundits have turned you formerly reasonable people into hate filled sacks of propaganda. You generate a reality distortion field so intense that you actually LIKE Joe Biden. Wtf?

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @12:58AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @12:58AM (#1029553)

                I see what you did there. Super clever but nope, pretty much no one likes Biden. We just like him about 10^23 times more than Trump. Next time don't set the bar so low?

          • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday July 30 2020, @10:12PM (4 children)

            by meustrus (4961) on Thursday July 30 2020, @10:12PM (#1028939)

            Watch how all the news orgs suddenly change what they say about 'protesters' to suddenly being 'agitators and white supremacists'. That is happening right now before you eyes.

            When the American Wolf [washingtonpost.com] shows up, armed like cops, acting like cops, these 'agitators and white supremacists' will definitely be news. They will be the new most dangerous thing going on in America.

            It'll be just like when Egypt was in trouble over the Muslim Brotherhood. People didn't like them. Enough were sympathetic to the military that the military was able to take control. Make things 10x worse.

            Those 'agitators and white supremacists', and their sympathizers and apologists, will proudly proclaim the destruction of their enemies. You're doing it right now: you've named the DNC, accused them of pulling the strings on a massive conspiracy to...I don't know exactly, govern things incompetently?

            It will sound just like the leftist protestors in your video, who themselves sound like Trump voters four years ago. Let's burn this down. Chaos. Rebuild from the ashes.

            It's all the same, see? What you (and I) really need is some perspective.

            Talk to people that don't care about politics. There's plenty of them. Ask them how things are going. Are they better off now than they were last year? Two years ago? Four? Eight? If we don't count this year, then it seems like everything has been...mostly the same.

            Of course, a lot of people lost finances in 2008. But they didn't lose their lives. People figured something out and moved on, maybe a little less prosperous. What's really changed since then?

            I guess there's more rioting now. Social media sucks worse and worse every year. A whole lot of rich people turned out to be objectively terrible human beings; can't say I'm surprised that's true, but I guess it's surprising we care about that now.

            Are we more prosperous? Well, that depends on where we are. I've seen a huge amount of growth in my metro area for many years. I've also seen problems over the last few years with local industry, including my employer, due to...something going on with China.

            But really, things haven't changed much. America is still America. You and I might be really pissed off by opposing politics, but in the end, it all washes out.

            --
            If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @10:37PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @10:37PM (#1028952)

              a massive conspiracy to...I don't know exactly, govern things incompetently?

              Look at Russia. Imagine yourself in there. Realize that governing things incompetently enough is no laughing matter at all.
              If Russia is still too tame for you, look at Venezuela.

              There is no human creation so great that incompetent rulers and malicious hangers-on could not ruin in mere years.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @03:59AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @03:59AM (#1029103)

                There is no human creation so great that incompetent rulers and malicious hangers-on could not ruin in mere years.

                As the last three years have proven in spades. Thanks other AC!

                • (Score: 2, Disagree) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 31 2020, @06:26PM (1 child)

                  by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday July 31 2020, @06:26PM (#1029430) Journal

                  As the last three years have proven in spades. Thanks other AC!

                  Quite. Look at what Bill de Blasio has done to New York City.

                  --
                  Washington DC delenda est.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2020, @07:28AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2020, @07:28AM (#1031158)

                    Quite. Look at what Bill de Blasio has done to New York City.

                    Well, while Billy Boy may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, he's a lot less of an authoritarian, undemocratic scumbag as the previous two.

                    I'll take that every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @10:33PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @10:33PM (#1028951)

            For their next trick watch them blame the riots on Trump. Watch how all the news orgs suddenly change what they say about 'protesters' to suddenly being 'agitators and white supremacists'. That is happening right now before you eyes.

            He doesn't have to watch. DNCMonkey is already pushing that talking point.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @11:46AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @11:46AM (#1029224)

          It goes under the mind control ray they used to force more people to vote for Biden in the primary.

          That wasn't a mind control ray; it was just an endless amount of propaganda by corporate media outlets to try to convince the old voters who still stupidly watch their garbage networks to vote for Biden.

          Is comparing Bernie's victory in Nevada to the Nazi invasion of France fair coverage? Is it normal to you to focus on the second, third, and even fourth place finishers in a primary instead of the actual winner (Bernie Sanders), but then turn around and endlessly talk about how amazing it is that Biden won South Carolina? They did endless propaganda for Biden after his victory in South Carolina, pushing the notion that that victory somehow made him more 'electable,' in a primary that was about perceived electability. There are reports that Obama got involved behind the scenes to convince Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop out right before Super Tuesday and endorse Biden. Not surprising, but it also shows that the odds were overwhelmingly stacked against Bernie.

          Now, why would corporate media outlets like MSNBC, CNN, and so on do endless propaganda against Bernie, bemoan all of his victories, and then take the first opportunity possible to relentlessly promote a seemingly viable opponent? Because they knew he threatens the status quo and their corporate power structures.

          It's pure stupidity to say that these things didn't have an effect on the results of the primary. This is obvious to everyone but you, apparently. In the end, you're just a democratic establishment hack trying to normalize rampant corruption and distract from the massive issues the DNC has by pointing out that the RNC is worse.

          • (Score: 1, Troll) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 31 2020, @06:39PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday July 31 2020, @06:39PM (#1029440) Journal

            Yes, that is so. It is also no surprise this time because the DNC literally rigged the primaries against Bernie in 2016. The Democratic Party is a charade.

            I said as much this time to a couple friends who were fellow Bernie supporters then. They really, really thought this time it would be different, that Bernie would win through. They got more and more excited the worse Biden was doing in the early primaries. They told me I was wrong, so wrong. Even when Biden started to turn it around they assured me Bernie would prevail in a contested convention. They are chagrined now. Yet, they will probably shut up and pull the lever for Biden anyway, like good little soldiers. Tribalism is a powerful force.

            So I quite agree with you: the game is rigged. The only effective action to take is to vote with our feet and with our dollars.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:52PM (#1028905)

        However, the DNC decided to dropkick the GOP off the internet. There are videos of insiders talking about exactly that.

        [Citation Needed]

      • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @10:17PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @10:17PM (#1028942)

        The fact that this comment is modded troll really highlights who the facists are. They cant have debate, they just suppress speech they dont like. This is why these things are changing. Tech and media are for everyone, not just little wankers.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:10AM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:10AM (#1029042)
          Poor victim! Don't they know you are entitled not to be modded down? Why don't they know you are entitled?
          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 31 2020, @06:41PM (3 children)

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday July 31 2020, @06:41PM (#1029442) Journal

            Don't they know you are entitled to silence others because you are so moral, good, and perfect? Why don't they know you are so moral, good, and perfect?

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @01:02AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @01:02AM (#1029558)

              So down modding is censorship? Might want to tell TMB, he usually cares about that sort of thing and would be SHOCKED to find it happening on SN.

              ps: can you be less stupid some day?

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday August 01 2020, @01:23AM (1 child)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday August 01 2020, @01:23AM (#1029572) Journal

              You are entitled to free speech. You are not entitled to an audience or a platform. As we say in the old country, "Khrai sum moar!"

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @06:41AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @06:41AM (#1029657)

                See subject: So "that was NOT me posting" https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=37033&page=1&cid=985641#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] which YES, you said when you LIBELED me publicly BEFORE it with YOU saying "So that's a "yes" to schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder and a "no" to "am taking meds for said disorder" LIBELING ME then...?" per YOUR https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=37033&page=1&cid=982854#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] you stupid pitiful FAKENAME fuck online LIAR piece of fucking SHIT?

                OR

                Was it when I GOT YOUR REAL NAME & found you are a satanist/anti-god HERE https://redeeminggod.com/sermons/luke/luke_7_36-50/#comment-269796 [redeeminggod.com] also which most ALL you "LEFTIST" LOSER weirdos usually are (which YES, in THIS other exchange "Why do you assume that you finding discussion threads on other sites with me in them will scare me?" quoted from https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=38720&page=1&cid=1028402#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] you DID admit FINALLY to saying it was you - ESPECIALLY AFTER dozens of doctors RECENTLY seconded me on Hydroxychloroquin + Zinc (& Vitamin D3 imo along w/ other things I noted that are anti-viral + antibacterial like RAW GARLIC too)).

                Do me a favor - DENY ANY OF THOSE, please & I will continue PROVING YOU ARE A SHITBAG LOSER, devil... as I already DID here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=38720&page=1&cid=1028211#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]

                The TRUE BEAUTY of SATANIST FUCKS like YOU (antigod assholes)? TRUTH & FACT DESTROYS LIBELOUS DEVILS LIKE YOU - just like I did you & OTHER AHOLES who doubted what I wrote on what is NOW PROVEN TRUE by DOCTORS, admitted in mainstream media etc. (as I showed in those links' exchanges above easily) & especially LATELY by DOZENS of doctors (I have proof from pros - NOT LIBEL like you did to me PUBLICLY & I can still FRY YOU FOR IT FUCKER, live in fear fuck) MINUS any psych pros backing you.

                SAY 1 THING, YOU STINKING LIBELOUS FUCK & I will CONTINUE LEVELLING YOU PUBLICLY with facts - not libel as you tried on me, stupid "Marissa von DUMBO", lol - please, say 1 thing & the BEATING on you, PUBLICLY will continue in this thread where you will have a HELL of a TIME "downmod burying it" via downmod brigades doubtless ONLY yourself via multiple sockpuppet accounts etc. (downodding to HIDE it? FORGET IT vs. me - everyone sees you @ it now, lol - thanks, just as I SAID "your kind", demonic SWINE/antigod LOSERS, always do).

                WHY SHOULD YOU FEAR LIBELING ME PROJECTING IT NOW, TRYING TO HIDE IT TOO?

                TOUGH HIDING YOU LIED about LIBELING ME, especially via INHERENTLY DAMAGING STATEMENTS libeling me as you did see GOLDWATER RULE below too fuckface CUNT you are (wikipedia proof https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=37033&page=1&cid=985366#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] & you said "No jury or judge would back it" here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=37033&page=1&cid=985353#commentwrap? [soylentnews.org] Ok - like I said earlier here which you TRIED TO DOWNMOD HIDE as I knew you HAVE to (everyone sees it anyhow) - TRY ME FUCKER - say 1 thing you COWARDLY STUPID LITTLE FUCK & we'll SEE what happens to you, fuckface CUNT you are).

                As I said "DO YOU WANT TO BE SUED" for breaking the GOLDWATER RULE? See here again https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=37033&page=1&cid=985329#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] for YOUR (& everyone else's) reference of YOUR LIBEL of myself

                APK

                P.S.=> Oh, I am going to have a FIELDDAY on YOUR ASS fucker - catching you not ONLY IN LIES above, but also in the fact you are a GODLESS fucking LOSER - come on, say something, question the above where you LIED fucker ("it was not me saying it" but it WAS in those links calling me a nutcase essentially when YOU SAID YOU DID NOT (because it IS grounds for SUING THE LIFE OUT OF YOUR WORTHLESS ASS because your statements are NOT BACKED BY actual psychiatric pros in professional psychiatric grounds LIBELING ME)) - oh, you are NEVER going to LIVE THIS DOWN & believe you me - I am going to MAKE SURE you don't - live with your HUMILIATION loser... apk

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @07:58PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @07:58PM (#1028866)

      SoylentNews is a centralized platform and it will be destroyed eventually. Everyone will end up on decentralized platforms or give up on free speech. Killing Section 230 just speeds up the process.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 31 2020, @06:45PM (1 child)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday July 31 2020, @06:45PM (#1029445) Journal

        Anything can be destroyed if we let it. Civilization is not an eternal state of existence. It can be destroyed quickly, too, if we let the totalitarians do it.

        Those of us who cherish democracy and pluralistic society must defend them, if we want to keep them. An easy first step in doing that is to stand up to cancel culture bullies.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2020, @11:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2020, @11:29PM (#1034614)

          Actually the easy first step is removing the fascist pricks from power. Then reverse citizen's united, remove the electoral college, and creste new legislation to prevent a future fascist from committing the same crimes as Trump.

          Says a lot about you that you think curttailing freedom of speech is the answer. Even the ACLU defended the KKK, you're just another totalitarian asshole gaslighting people with your false sense of righteousness.

    • (Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:35PM

      by slinches (5049) on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:35PM (#1028924)

      SoylentNews editors do exercise editorial control of the stories that are posted. Although, the comments are not moderated by the administrators or editors at all. So any of the proposals so far wouldn't really impact this site unless the editors posted the offending material to the front page.

      Of course that's all moot, really. If someone with an expensive lawyer wanted to get Soylent shut down (legally justified or not), they could sue and tie things up in the courts, forcing the legal defense costs to be high enough that a subscription drive couldn't raise the funds.

(1) 2