And like the ACLU said, the opinion on what that entails can easily sway the other way. Trump would label Black Lives Matter racist. Say he’s a traitor and colluded with Russia, call it slander. Disagree with a story, call it fake news and ban it. And the completely opened ended term "hate speech" can be used to justify banning whatever the hell you want. To think there’s not a political element behind it is naive and to think it will only be used for good even more so. Google is working with the Chinese government to build out and enforce censorship. Sounds like "don’t be evil" to me.
I don’t regularly use Facebook but I do use Google and Apple. You’re being disingenuous if you think they don’t have a monolithic hold on digital life. I was absolutely in favor of NN so good try there. We do subsidize internet and yes it’s been argued it’s a necessity of modern life.
Ok. They do that, then what?
People don't stop using Facebook? They don't start spending more time on Instagram or some other service?
They can enforce whatever rules they want. You don't have to use it.
You can't go on Nickelodeon discussion forums, post racist or vulgar language and cry repression when your get banned.
I’m assuming you’re thinking I’m arguing that they can’t censor him, which is not what I’m arguing at all. They obviously can and did.
So Facebook is a public utility?
I’d argue functionally it’s in the same telecom realm as ATT or Verizon. It’s the platform on which 2+ billion people communicate.
I’d argue functionally it’s in the same telecom realm as ATT or Verizon. It’s the platform on which 2+ billion people communicate.
Common misunderstanding of how telecom versus software using telecoms infrastructure works.
Pretty sure Facebook doesn't have an easement through my property that they run wires through (for free), nor are they leasing public spectrum for broadcast.
The core flaw in the alt-right "free speech warriors" arguments is the irony that they are actually the greatest threat to free speech in America. Because 1) they believe in free speech without consequences (ie Jones), and 2) they believe in free speech but only for themselves (ie Vox Day).
So you have, in the public eye, this very vocal group of people who assert that "free speech" means that they, and only they, get to say whatever they want. And if what they happen to say is (for example) that everyone who isn't a white Christian male should be disenfranchised of their right of vote, ie of their right to have a voice in government, and you happen to disagree with that and dare speak to say so, then they will accuse you, with the most clueless lack of irony, of being against freedom and free speech.
The alt-right is mired a doublethink of the most appalling proportions. A toxic philosophy that loving freedom means hating equality and justice. So is it any wonder really that they can't justify it rationally? Or that their hypocritical rhetoric has rational people reconsidering limits on free speech?
But of course it did...it's all an elaborate conspiracy! They had to silence him first before moving on the indictments, otherwise Jones and QAnon would have led a righteous uprising!Ooooh.. just realized, yesterday happened while Jones is without a platform... Someone must be ready to pop by now....Heeeeeewhehehehehe
I agree that some level of intolerance is necessary, but at the same time continue to hold out hope that these people can be taught to see the hypocrisy of their ways.It really boils down to that "paradox of tolerance" people have talked about for so long. The intolerant exploit tolerance to try and force their intolerance on others, and the only way to fight them is to be, well, intolerant of their intolerance.
If the platforms do not pull down the likes of Jones, are they not tacitly endorsing it and exposing themselves to litigation wrt to when he commits actionable acts via those platforms?No shit.
If the platforms do not pull down the likes of Jones, are they not tacitly endorsing it and exposing themselves to litigation wrt to when he commits actionable acts via those platforms?
Thus isn't it just good business to police content on your platform and prevent terrible people from doing terrible things with it?
https://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/defamation/who-can-be-sued
Until recently, any person who caused or was responsible for the publication or broadcast of a defamatory statement could be sued by the claimant, for example a writer, producer, director, editor, interviewee, broadcaster, even, in the case of a book, the printers or the newsagents or booksellers. Now, however, claimants can only sue one or more of what are known as the "primary publishers" – the author, editor and commercial publisher of the defamatory publication.
Are not the social media companies the "publisher" in this case?
Internet Service Providers ("ISPs")I have a feeling it's going to become a lot less complicated and platforms/ISPs are going to be held liable for defamation.
The law applicable to ISPs is complex and evolving and requires specialist advice.
This is a decent case for nationalizing ISP infrastructure.I would not want ISP's specifically held liable if all they are doing is providing the path to the internet. The services, like Facebook, using the paths should be accountable.
I don't want ISP's to have that kind of control over what is going through their networks, since all they are doing is running traffic.
Hard to say these days. Safe Harbor would say no, but the degree to which these platforms start moderating, promoting, and editorializing changes that dynamic.https://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/defamation/who-can-be-sued
Until recently, any person who caused or was responsible for the publication or broadcast of a defamatory statement could be sued by the claimant, for example a writer, producer, director, editor, interviewee, broadcaster, even, in the case of a book, the printers or the newsagents or booksellers. Now, however, claimants can only sue one or more of what are known as the "primary publishers" – the author, editor and commercial publisher of the defamatory publication.
Are not the social media companies the "publisher" in this case?
Internet Service Providers ("ISPs")I have a feeling it's going to become a lot less complicated and platforms/ISPs are going to be held liable for defamation.
The law applicable to ISPs is complex and evolving and requires specialist advice.
I would not want ISP's specifically held liable if all they are doing is providing the path to the internet. The services, like Facebook, using the paths should be accountable.
I don't want ISP's to have that kind of control over what is going through their networks, since all they are doing is running traffic.
Link? I need to lol at that and repost at regular intervals...he accidentally revealed he'd been watching trans porn after showing people how to get around his site.
:laugh:
Link? I need to lol at that and repost at regular intervals...
It really boils down to that "paradox of tolerance" people have talked about for so long. The intolerant exploit tolerance to try and force their intolerance on others, and the only way to fight them is to be, well, intolerant of their intolerance.
It really boils down to that "paradox of tolerance" people have talked about for so long. The intolerant exploit tolerance to try and force their intolerance on others, and the only way to fight them is to be, well, intolerant of their intolerance.