Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Bloggers in PJs are great examples of exercising free speech.  But I'm less convinced they are "the press".  

"The press" wasn't used as a phrase to indicate "a government-recognized group of journalists" when the first amendment was written.

Freedom of the press meant freedom to publish at that time and publishing better describes what bloggers do than speaking.

It's kind of like how "well regulated" meant "well trained" when the 2nd was written and means "without guns" now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the L.A. Times opinion page.

<snip>It’s interesting to look back at letters to the editor on Watergate — not from when Nixon’s guilt became indisputable, but some time before that, when Americans were less sure of (or even concerned by) the president’s involvement, and the question of whether to pursue impeachment remained far from settled.

Below are some of the letters from the weeks that followed former White House counsel John Dean’s bombshell testimony in June 1973 to the Senate Watergate Committee. Some of the defenses and criticisms of the president might sound familiar to readers today.

On June 30, 1973, Edward Johnson of Palm Desert wondered what all the fuss was about:

Assuming President Nixon was involved in the Watergate cover-up and further assuming he told a little white lie about it — what’s the big deal?

It’s true that his image might be affected and he may not command the respect due a man in that high office, but no one can dispute his major accomplishments.

So why should the man be crucified for something so minor when he is the first American president in over 40 years to establish an atmosphere of world peace and friendly coexistence with the communist power on Earth? …

His involvement with Watergate could be paralleled to a financial expert coming into a company on the brink of bankruptcy and not only saving the company, but putting it on a sound financial footing. Later, this same man is fired for stealing a box of paper clips and for lying that he only took a couple.

In the same day’s paper, George W. Turner of San Clemente faulted the media:

When our president says he had no prior knowledge of Watergate nor subsequent efforts to cover [it] up, why don’t we believe him? Why does the press continue to publish reports based on hearsay and undisclosed rumors? And, why in heaven’s name don’t we give our president credit for all the good he has done since he has been in office?

On July 22, 1973, Ursula and Wiley Kennedy of Tustin questioned Watergate’s historical significance:

In a few years the Watergate scandal will be forgotten or at the most relegated to a mere sentence in the history books on the Nixon administration. In the future people will be ... celebrating our splendid scientific fete of landing on the moon. ...

So let’s take a break from breast-beating over Watergate and congratulate ourselves for going to the moon that first time four years ago.

On July 26, 1973, Robert Pace of Los Angeles expressed support for investigating the president:

It is somewhat amusing, yet at the same time alarming, that so many of my fellow citizens see the Watergate hearings as nothing more than an attempt by several glory-seeking senators “inspired either by their own self-interest or ego gratification” to persecute President Nixon and his administration. However, my frustration abounds at the extent of ignorance that leads one to pass off the Watergate break-in as merely a bit of extreme campaign tactics by the president’s well-meaning but imprudent aides and followers.

Until the facts of these clandestine operations are uncovered, with or (most likely) without the help of the president, we may never fully realize the extent to which the government of the United States has been taken away from the majority of its citizens.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-07-26/watergate-john-dean-1973-scandal-mueller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Duopoly War On Section 230
 

Quote

 

...

The Threat From the Right

The free-speech merits of the law haven't stopped lawmakers on both sides of the aisle from attacking 230, using varying justifications. Some claim it allows companies to be too careless in what they allow. Others claim it encourages "politically correct" censorship by tech-world titans.

"If they're not going to be neutral and fair, if they're going to be biased, we should repeal" Section 230, argued Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) last fall. Cruz has helped popularize the idea that only through increased government control over online speech can speech really be free.

No U.S. politician has been more aggressive in pushing this idea than Sen. Josh Hawley, the 39-year-old Republican from Missouri who ousted Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in the 2018 midterms. McCaskill was also prone to fits over Section 230, but mostly as part of a tough-on-crime charade against "online sex trafficking." Hawley has almost single-handedly turned tech industry "arrogance" generally—and Section 230 specifically—into a leading front in the culture war.

...

The Threat From the Left

What Democrats would do with the power Republicans are seeking matters too, because Democrats have their own plans for Section 230 and just as many excuses for why it needs to be gutted: Russian influence, "hate speech," sex trafficking, online pharmacies, gun violence, "deepfake" videos, and so on.

After Facebook declined to take down deceptively edited video of Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.), the House Speaker called Section 230 "a gift" to tech companies that "could be a question mark and in jeopardy" since they were not, in her view, "treating it with the respect that they should."

Senator and presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) has been pushing for the demise of Section 230 since she was California's attorney general. In 2013, she signed on to a group letter asking Congress to revise or repeal the law so they could go after Backpage for its Adult ad section.

Like Hawley, Harris and bipartisan crusaders against sex-work ads offered their own misinformation about Section 230, implying again and again that it allows websites to offer blatantly illegal goods and services—including child sex trafficking—with impunity.

Section 230 "permits Internet and tech companies like Backpage.com to profit from the sale of children online" and "gives them immunity in doing so," wrote law professor Mary Leary in The Washington Post two years ago.

"Backpage and its executives purposefully and unlawfully designed Backpage to be the world's top online brothel," Kamala Harris claimed in 2016. Xavier Becerra, California's current attorney general, said in 2017 that the law lets criminals "prey on vulnerable children and profit from sex trafficking without fully facing the consequences of their crimes."

But attorneys like Harris and Becerra should know that nothing in Section 230 protects web platforms from prosecution for federal crimes.

 

All the blessed bipartisan unity has the usual effect of making me love gridlock more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Olsonist said:

CloudFlare terminated 8Chan's service.

https://new.blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/

I actually wasn't expecting this, and I don't see this as particularly their problem. But it's good to see they made a choice. There's a quote, The internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it. But still, people make choices. In the end, all we can do is make choices.


They're free to do that but the italicized quote is correct. I'm sure a replacement is already in place.

Lots of people here choose to make a small handful of mass shooters famous, which seems to me to be what the shooters want. All we can do is make choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

When Trump issues a unitary executive order censoring it.
 

Quote

 

President Donald Trump is reportedly drafting an executive order to address allegations of bias at tech companies, which he says have unduly targeted conservatives. Although ostensibly offered in service of free speech, the order would almost certainly increase censorship instead.

The measure is far from concrete and "has already taken many different forms," Politico reports. But the most recent version, obtained by CNN, would instruct the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission to verify that social media platforms operate with political neutrality when they moderate content. If they fail to do so, the platforms could be stripped of the protections afforded under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

 

Is censoring discussion of what's actually in various "assault" weapons bans politically neutral? Dogballs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2019 at 5:15 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Bloggers in PJs are great examples of exercising free speech.  But I'm less convinced they are "the press".  

Advocating censorship can sure be confusing.
 

Quote

 

The Business Section of Tuesday's NY Times print edition blared out, in gigantic type not a whole lot smaller than "MAN WALKS ON MOON," this headline:

WHY HATE SPEECH ON THE INTERNET IS A NEVER-ENDING PROBLEM

Why? "BECAUSE THIS LAW SHIELDS IT" – referring to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provides that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

That is some serious nonsense—somewhere between terribly misleading and completely wrong. 

 

Fortunately, someone at the NY Times figured out their yuge mistake

Quote

 

It is ridiculous because, most fundamentally and depending of course on how it is defined, most of what we call "hate speech" is, however loathsome it may be, constitutionally protected. Section 230 doesn't provide Facebook et al. with an immunity from liability for publishing its users' "hate speech," the Constitution does that, in the First Amendment.***

*** Interestingly, the Times itself rather quickly recognized its error.  A correction was appended to the online version of the article:

"An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the law that protects hate speech on the internet. The First Amendment, not Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, protects it."  Oops.

 

Would "the press" have corrected their mistake without bloggers in pajamas to point it out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling Informants "Snitches" May Be a Federal Felony
 

Quote

 

...Joy Edwards made numerous derogatory posts on Facebook about a confidential informant who testified against her brothers during their criminal trial. The Facebook posts revealed the informant's identity and called him—among other things—a "snitch." Edwards was indicted on a single count of retaliating against a witness in violation of 18 U.S.C § 1513(e). At a bench trial, the district court found that the informant suffered harm as a result of these Facebook posts and that the posts were intended to retaliate against the informant. Edwards was convicted and sentenced to short terms of prison and lesser forms of confinement….

...DEA Special Agent Heufelder testified that law enforcement considers the label "snitch" to be a threat to its informants. D.B. testified about how his life changed after the Facebook posts, including his increased difficulty in seeing his children, decreased employment opportunities in the area, and his fear for his safety and for the safety of his family….

Now it seems to me that, read as broadly as it is written, the statute violates the First Amendment. Cases such as NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982) make clear that speech intended to retaliate against people, and even harm them economically (and risk leading to violent attack against them), is constitutionally protected: There, it was speech by black activists retaliating against black citizens who refused to boycott white-owned businesses, but for First Amendment purposes retaliation for lawful (indeed, constitutionally protected) purchasing behavior can't be different from retaliation for passing information to the police....

 

The DEA and the informant considered the Facebook posts to be a threat. Snitches do sometimes get stitches, or drive-by's.

Joy Edwards seemed filled with hate for the snitch.

So was that hate speech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you had no hate speech for Dylann Roof

you offered "religious or political assassination"

then you began to dance around

 

you had no hate speech for the Charlottesville driver guy

you called for a ban on Dodge Chargers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 6:14 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

When Trump issues a unitary executive order censoring it.
 

Or, when Beto implements his similar censorship regime
 

Quote

 

...

he would mandate that internet platforms "ban hateful activities, defined as those that incite or engage in violence, intimidation, harassment, threats, or defamation targeting an individual or group based on their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability."

In essence, O'Rourke wants the government to suppress speech that he finds distasteful. But as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear, "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.

Most recently, the Court affirmed that principle in Matal v. Tam, which ruled 8-0 that the Asian-American band The Slants could trademark its name, even though some people found the name to be racially objectionable. In his opinion, Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged that "speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful." However, "the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate.'"

...

 

I think Beto and Donald should both fuck off and show us their wive's or girlfriends' tits.

Was that hateful? Or herassmeant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

When Censors Try To Help
 

Quote

 

We’ve already seen what happens when Congress fails to listen to the people it’s pushing offline. Congress passed the so-called Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) last year — the only major change to Section 230 in its 23-year history — despite the objections of many of the people it would directly impact. FOSTA amended Section 230 to create new legal liability for online platforms that sex workers used. Sex worker advocates pled with Congress not to throw sex workers off of the internet and into far more dangerous street-based sex work. Anti-trafficking experts tried to explain to lawmakers how taking sex workers offline would make it harder to find and help people being trafficked.

When the law passed, the internet turned into a more exclusionary place almost overnight. Internet companies became significantly more restrictive in their treatment of sexual speech, taking innocent people off of the internet. The law also threw important harm reduction activities into a legal gray area, making it harder for people in need to get help. And law enforcement agencies around the country report that their work to stop traffickers has hit a wall.

Congress failed to listen to the people it was removing from the internet, and put them in more danger as a result. Amidst today’s calls for more regulation to curb extremism and terrorist speech, we must avoid repeating the same mistake.

The entire history of censorship shows that it magnifies existing imbalances in society, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not. In the same way that a bill intended to fight traffickers made the problem worse, attempts by social media platforms to restrict extremist speech frequently silence the people trying to document and fight violent extremism. That’s not a hypothetical: there are many, many stories of Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter taking down important work to document human rights violations under their anti-extremism policies.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle routinely treat Section 230 as a handout to tech companies — or a “gift,” as Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently put it. It’s a mistake to characterize large internet companies as the primary beneficiaries of Section 230. Let’s not forget that Facebook and other big internet companies actively lobbied for FOSTA, a law that made it considerably more difficult for a startup ever to unseat Facebook. You can’t make this up: Just a few weeks after the president signed FOSTA and multiple dating sites shut down, Facebook announced that it was entering the dating business.


 

Alternatively, when regulatory capture of a market segment succeeds, as in the last paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

When your friends say things our government doesn't like.
 

Quote

 

Ismail Ajjawi flew to the U.S. from his native Lebanon last week. He had gained admission to Harvard University, and was excited to begin classes.

When he arrived at Logan Airport in Boston, a U.S. Customs and Border Protect agent detained him for eight hours."She called me into a room, and she started screaming at me," Ajjawi later told The Harvard Crimson. "She said that she found people posting political points of view that oppose the US on my friend list."

Ajjawi protested that he was not responsible for his friends' political opinions—and noted that he had not liked or shared them.

"I have no single post on my timeline discussing politics," he said.

The officer was unmoved. She canceled Ajjawi's visa and put him on a plane back to Lebanon.

Harvard's administration is justifiably outraged, and it is working with Ajjawi and a team of lawyers to remedy the situation. They hope to have him back in the U.S. by September 3, the first day of fall classes.

It's a terrible situation, and it at least partly reflects the Trump administration's warped immigration priorities....

 

With the usual apology for posting more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading, of course.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Settle Tom,  you are having a run at a lot of threads at once !!!!

I want more trail camera shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DtM said:

Settle Tom,  you are having a run at a lot of threads at once !!!!

I want more trail camera shots.

Sorry, nothing interesting on the camera. I'm kind of expecting another hawk picture because I've seen two of them hunting in my yard near the camera the past few days but so far none on the camera. It's a waiting game.

For social media relevance, Trail Camera Shots go here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

When a conservative establishment and their LGBT kink educator allies try to misapply the first amendment.

Quote

PragerU's suit says that YouTube is essentially a "public forum" that should be subject to government intervention. In court, Peter Obstler, head counsel for PragerU, said that YouTube is "not just the company town. They're arguably a company country and maybe a company world force."

 

In response, Judge Jay Bybee appeared to be skeptical. "If your representations are correct, it seems deeply disturbing that they put your stuff in the restricted area," he said. "I'm not sure that creates a First Amendment issue."

Attorneys for Google countered that a win for PragerU would have deleterious effects on the internet. For one, companies would lose their right to remove pornography and abusive content, which Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act expressly allows them to scrub as they see fit. But they see a more frightening consequence as well: platforms such as their own would have the incentive to abandon current claims of political neutrality to avoid similar lawsuits, and would thus be likely to censor more content—not less.

...

That implausibility is at least partially wrapped up in the fact that Google has not been restricting PragerU's content on ideological grounds—at least not on its face. Somewhat ironically, lawyers for the conservative nonprofit are also representing a pair of LGBT "kink educators" who allege First Amendment censorship, as their content has also been demonetized and age-restricted. In general, the tech giant flags far more content from liberal groups, such as HuffPost, Vox, Buzzfeed, NowThis, and The Daily Show. The Young Turks, a far-left channel, has 71 percent of its content restricted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

When The New York Times Says 'Free Speech Is Killing Us.' But Violent Crime Is Lower Than Ever.

Quote

 

...

In a New York Times op-ed headlined "Free Speech Is Killing Us," Marantz writes that "noxious speech is causing tangible harm." Citing the ideologically motivated killings in Charlottesville and El Paso, he warns that something must be done to prevent extremist speech from continuing to inspire violence.

Here are some of his ideas:

I am not calling for repealing the First Amendment, or even for banning speech I find offensive on private platforms. What I'm arguing against is paralysis. We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks. And we can take steps to mitigate those risks.

 

The Constitution prevents the government from using sticks, but it says nothing about carrots.

Congress could fund, for example, a national campaign to promote news literacy, or it could invest heavily in library programming. It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC. It could rethink Section 230 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—the rule that essentially allows Facebook and YouTube to get away with (glorification of) murder.

 

I guess "rethinking" is a nicer word for "banning" but if they mean the same thing in practice... they're the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See. I told you all that 1A rights are just as deadly as the 2A. But did anyone listen?  Nooooo.......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

The Constitution prevents the government from using sticks, but it says nothing about carrots.

Congress could fund, for example, a national campaign to promote news literacy, or it could invest heavily in library programming. It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC. It could rethink Section 230 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—the rule that essentially allows Facebook and YouTube to get away with (glorification of) murder.

I wonder if the author and grabbers also thinks that education and awareness would be as equally effective for gun violence prevention?  Nah, of course not  

:lol:  What was I thinking??  Of course not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

See. I told you all that 1A rights are just as deadly as the 2A. But did anyone listen?  Nooooo.......

 

If the proliferation of speech and guns continues much longer, our violent crime rate may just drop to zero!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

When censors react to it
 

Quote

 

The First Amendment is unpopular…which is why we need the First Amendment. A recent survey commissioned by the Campaign for Free Speech underlines that point, finding that most Americans support viewpoint-based censorship, suppression of "hurtful or offensive" speech "in universities or on social media," government "action against newspapers and TV stations" that print or air "biased, inflammatory, or false" content, and revising the First Amendment, which "goes too far in allowing hate speech," to "reflect the cultural norms of today."

That last position was endorsed by just 51 percent of respondents, compared to 42 percent who disagreed and 7 percent who had no opinion. But 57 percent favored legal penalties for wayward news organizations, 61 percent supported censorship of "hurtful or offensive" speech in certain contexts, and 63 percent said the government should restrict the speech of racists, neo-Nazis, radical Islamists, Holocaust deniers, anti-vaccine activists, and/or climate change skeptics.

 

Can't believe they left out the nanothermite crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

When censors react to it
 

Quote

 

The First Amendment is unpopular…which is why we need the First Amendment. A recent survey commissioned by the Campaign for Free Speech underlines that point, finding that most Americans support viewpoint-based censorship, suppression of "hurtful or offensive" speech "in universities or on social media," government "action against newspapers and TV stations" that print or air "biased, inflammatory, or false" content, and revising the First Amendment, which "goes too far in allowing hate speech," to "reflect the cultural norms of today."

That last position was endorsed by just 51 percent of respondents, compared to 42 percent who disagreed and 7 percent who had no opinion. But 57 percent favored legal penalties for wayward news organizations, 61 percent supported censorship of "hurtful or offensive" speech in certain contexts, and 63 percent said the government should restrict the speech of racists, neo-Nazis, radical Islamists, Holocaust deniers, anti-vaccine activists, and/or climate change skeptics.

But, I thought the entire point was that if something is popular with the public - then its OK to infringe on the Bill of Rights.  Right?  Isn't that the legal test for whether its OK to ignore the BoR and restrict rights in the name of public safety and hurt feelings?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Can't believe they left out the nanothermite crowd.

You know tom..... with randumb flicked, that little jab is lost on everyone else and it makes you look kinda silly.  It was funny the first few times, but........

Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You know tom..... with randumb flicked, that little jab is lost on everyone else and it makes you look kinda silly.  It was funny the first few times, but........

Just saying.

beating the worlds smallest deadhorse long after the circus has left town is tomballs brand. if you just picked up on that.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You know tom..... with randumb flicked, t

Just saying.

I didn't know that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cmilliken said:
47 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You know tom..... with randumb flicked, t

Just saying.

I didn't know that.  

I didn't either until recently.  I was away for a bit and missed the shitshow apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't away but I tend to ignore the shit show :P  I like clever insults but those have become pretty rare.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Biden Has Officially Joined the Misguided Crusade Against Online Free Speech
 

Quote

 

...

On Monday night, the former vice president told a CNN town hall that he'd be willing to rewrite the rules for all online platforms in order to force social media companies to "be more socially conscious."

"I just think it's a little out of hand," Biden continued. "And I, for one, think we should be considering taking away the exception that they cannot be sued for knowingly engaged on (sic), in promoting something that's not true."

The exemption that Biden is talking about is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It is the First Amendment for the online world. Just 26 words long, Section 230 promises that online platforms will not be held liable for content provided by users or other publishers.

Biden knows all about Section 230, or at least he should. He voted for it in 1995.

...

 

Those were the daze.
 

Quote

 

As Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown has written, the effort to carve away at Section 230 is backed by lawmakers on both the right and left. Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) are in many ways leading the effort, but Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) has also voiced her support for making online platforms liable for content created by users.

In practice, stripping away Section 230 protections likely would result in platforms significantly restricting the content they would host. It would also create a different standard for websites that does not exist for other forms of media.

"Holding Facebook liable for a user's false statement is like holding CNN liable if candidate Biden made a false statement on their Town Hall last night," says Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel for NetChoice, a nonprofit that favors digital free speech.

Indeed, newspapers and TV stations are not held liable for false statements made in campaign ads—which seems to be the standard Biden wants to impose on digital platforms—but are free to reject ads if they choose. Facebook and Google should be no different.

 

Biden should really think again about this, considering false statements like this one that his campaign has made. Does he really think the NY Times should be liable if they print an ad repeating that lie?

I don't.

Also, I'd like to add that Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek is a corrupt oaf

I'm not sure whether that's really true. If it's false, is that The Ed's problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does social media hate speech become a real threat?

When Andrew Yang Proposes Making Social Media Algorithms Subject to Federal Approval
 

Quote

 

...

The algorithms developed by tech companies are the root of the problem, Yang says, as they "push negative, polarizing, and false content to maximize engagement."

That's true, to an extent. Just like with any company or industry, social media firms are incentivized to keep consumers hooked as long as possible. But it's also true that social media does more to boost already popular content than it does to amplify content nobody likes or wants to engage with. And in an age of polarization, it appears that negative content can be quite popular.

To counter the proliferation of content he does not like, Yang would require tech companies to work alongside the federal government in order to "create algorithms that minimize the spread of mis/disinformation," as well as "information that's specifically designed to polarize or incite individuals." Leaving aside the constitutional question, who in government gets to make these decisions? And what would prevent future administrations from using Yang's censorious architecture to label and suppress speech they find polarizing merely because they disagree with it politically?

...

 

Opinions that don't conform to one or both halves of the Duopoly herd mentality are extremely polarizing. I know, I've been polarizing for decades.
 

Quote

 

Section 230 protects sites from certain civil and criminal liabilities if those companies are not explicitly editing the content; content removal does not qualify as such. A newspaper, for instance, can be held accountable for libelous statements that a reporter and editor publish, but their comment section is exempt from such liabilities. That's because they aren't editing the content—but they can safely remove it if they deem it objectionable.

Likewise, Facebook does not become a "publisher" when it designates a piece of content to the trash chute, any more than a coffee house would suddenly become a "publisher" if it decided to remove an offensive flier from its bulletin board.

Yang's mistaken interpretation of Section 230 is likely a result of the "dis/misinformation" around the law promoted by his fellow presidential candidates and in congressional hearings. There's something deeply ironic about that.

 

Being mistaken about Section 230 is the latest Duopoly fad, very popular with those who want to suppress dissent from both halves. Sorry to see Yang sucked in by the allure of it. But it is more than a bit ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

When does social media hate speech become a real felony?

When a 14 year old tries to sell a classmate as a slave.

Felony charges for a teenage prank in which nobody was physically injured seem excessive - unless the prosecutorial intent is to bring the charges, create an example, scare the bejeezus outta everyone involved, and then drop them before trial.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Felony charges for a teenage prank in which nobody was physically injured seem excessive - unless the prosecutorial intent is to bring the charges, create an example, scare the bejeezus outta everyone involved, and then drop them before trial.  

I think they are just following the law.  Under 16 means they get prosecuted for a juvenile felony, not tried as an adult as they would if it were especially violent or they were 17.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050k12-7.1.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I think they are just following the law.  Under 16 means they get prosecuted for a juvenile felony, not tried as an adult as they would if it were especially violent or they were 17.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050k12-7.1.htm

Thanks again for the reference - it's appreciated.  Unless there's more to the story than has been reported thus far, I still have to question bringing criminal charges.  

Reading the excerpt of the statute, it seems that almost any cross-demographic event could be construed as a hate crime - there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut line between demographic hate being the driver and the act itself?    

Seems that we've criminalized yelling at someone.  Yippee for us.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks again for the reference - it's appreciated.  Unless there's more to the story than has been reported thus far, I still have to question bringing criminal charges.  

Reading the excerpt of the statute, it seems that almost any cross-demographic event could be construed as a hate crime - there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut line between demographic hate being the driver and the act itself?    

Seems that we've criminalized yelling at someone.  Yippee for us.  

Cool, add another article to the impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks again for the reference - it's appreciated.  Unless there's more to the story than has been reported thus far, I still have to question bringing criminal charges.  

Reading the excerpt of the statute, it seems that almost any cross-demographic event could be construed as a hate crime - there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut line between demographic hate being the driver and the act itself?    

Seems that we've criminalized yelling at someone.  Yippee for us.  

C'mon Guy, read better.   "We've" not criminalized yelling at someone.   

What happened is that the legislatures of 46 out of 50 states have criminalized hate crimes (after various controlling courts ruled them constitutional), generally because they were elected to do so or pressured by their constituents to do so.

I don't see anything in the statute that talks about yelling at someone.  A hate crime in IL is when a person commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, intimidation, stalking, cyberstalking, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action, disorderly conduct, transmission of obscene messages, harassment by telephone, or harassment through electronic communications by reason of the victims actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he or she

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically I think the only kind of hateful communication that's not covered by the hate crime statute above is direct communication: i.e. yelling at someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

C'mon Guy, read better.   "We've" not criminalized yelling at someone.   

What happened is that the legislatures of 46 out of 50 states have criminalized hate crimes (after various controlling courts ruled them constitutional), generally because they were elected to do so or pressured by their constituents to do so.

I don't see anything in the statute that talks about yelling at someone.  A hate crime in IL is when a person commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, intimidation, stalking, cyberstalking, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action, disorderly conduct, transmission of obscene messages, harassment by telephone, or harassment through electronic communications by reason of the victims actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he or she

I've been personally charged with disorderly conduct for yelling at someone.   He was an undercover liquor enforcement agent, and a jackass, but, I still got charged...  NH -  Live free or die?   Not in Portsmouth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I've been personally charged with disorderly conduct for yelling at someone.   He was an undercover liquor enforcement agent, and a jackass, but, I still got charged...  NH -  Live free or die?   Not in Portsmouth. 

Sounds like an enforcement issue and a bad cop, not an issue with the legislation.  Did the prosecutor drop the charges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MR.CLEAN said:

Sounds like an enforcement issue and a bad cop, not an issue with the legislation.  Did the prosecutor drop the charges?

I was only up there for work - and the agent and prosecutor agreed that if I came back for the court date 3 months later, and plead to "failure to follow a lawful order" and paid that fine, they'd drop the other charge.   Fugger shoulda ID'd himself before he snatched my G&T off the table in front of me.  Glad I didn't grab his arm - he'd have probably charged me w/assault.  

To your first comment - isn't ANY enforcement of legislation an "enforcement issue"?   Going back to the OP - who decided that a 14 yr old kids' CL prank constituted a felony hate crimes charge?     My point is that this legislation seems to provide excess leeway to enforcement without really defining what constitutes a "hate crime", resulting in what on the surface, to my non-legal way of thinking, an improper prosecution.     Now - if the kid in question had actually done something that harmed the other kid?   I'd feel a lot differently about it.  Reporting so far hasn't indicated that that's the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

A hate crime in IL is when a person commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, intimidation, stalking, cyberstalking, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action, disorderly conduct, transmission of obscene messages, harassment by telephone, or harassment through electronic communications by reason of the victims actual or perceived race

The only one that remotely fits seems to be herassmeant through electronic communications but the law says "as defined blah blah blah" so I'm not even sure that one fits. I would think it should take more than one instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 5:54 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

The Supreme Court seems to agree.
 

Quote

 

The Supreme Court won’t revive a lawsuit against a firearms website over a suburban Milwaukee spa shooting.

The justices rejected an appeal Monday from the daughter of one of three people shot to death by a man who illegally bought a semi-automatic pistol and ammunition from someone he met through Armslist.com.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed the suit, ruling that federal law protects website operators from liability for posting content from a third party.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does social media speech become a real threat to the English language?

In an otherwise good article about Duopoly efforts to repeal Section 230 of the CDA, one of my pet peeves appeared:
 

Quote

 

Further, a non-Section 230 world would mean internet platforms may choose not to moderate any third-party content at all. Currently, Section 230 ensures that internet platforms can perform the essential work of moderating harmful content without facing liability. Removing those protections would disincentivize platforms from removing content, allowing free reign to violent extremists, Nazis and other repugnant actors.

...

Michael Petricone is senior vice president of government affairs for the Consumer Technology Association (CTA).

 

That's a lobbying group. They're in the business of communicating. Or, you know, $peaking. And the senior VP doesn't know the expression "free rein" but still attempts to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dogballs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pelosi Reportedly Wants To Strip Online Free Speech Protections From Trade Deal
 

Quote

 

The new trade pact between the United States, Canada, and Mexico is a mixed bag, but one of its undeniably excellent components is a provision that effectively exports American protections for online free speech to other countries.

But Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) is reportedly pushing to cut that language from the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) before Congress votes on the new trade deal. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier today that Pelosi is considering removing the liability protections for online platforms from the trade deal because including that language might make it more difficult for lawmakers to hack away at those same protections domestically.

"There are concerns in the House about enshrining the increasingly controversial…liability shield in our trade agreements, particularly at a time when Congress is considering whether changes need to be made in U.S. law," a spokesman for Pelosi told the Journal.

...

Right now, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are pressing to make changes to Section 230 in a misguided attempt at holding tech platforms like Google and Facebook legally liable for comments, tweets, and Facebook posts. That would be a change for the worse here in American, and it doesn't make sense for Pelosi to weaken the USMCA just so rank-and-file Democrats (and Republicans) can strip Section 230 protections here in America too.

 

And the war on Section 230 goes international.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook is part of a toxic ecosystem of hate – it should be regulated or shut down

An investigation by the Guardian reveals that an online network has found a way to make money by pushing a steady stream of low-grade rightwing propaganda at low-information users around the world.

We might argue, then, that what they created was a miniature version of Facebook’s own business.

The investigation suggests that several deceptive operators engaged in a “covert plot to control some of Facebook’s largest far right pages”.

But it appears they did so not for ideological reasons, but because they understood it as a way to make cash by directing ordinary users to amateurish websites dripping with ads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. It seems random is

Quote

prone to consume and, importantly, share “content that is highly emotive and contains polarising and extreme material”. Their willingness to smash the share button means that they are “great for business”.

The good news is that

Quote

Facebook can’t, won’t and never will voluntarily engage in the necessary amount of proactive moderation which would inhibit hate...

I just checked and this post is still up on my page:

EvaCorruptOaf.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does bring up an interesting question though......  TV, radio, and telephone communications are all regulated and have been from their inception.  No one seems to question that. 

Why is the internetz special?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

It does bring up an interesting question though......  TV, radio, and telephone communications are all regulated and have been from their inception.  No one seems to question that. 

Why is the internetz special?

Some of us have questioned things like the "Fairness Doctrine," FCC censorship standards, and how the surveillance state uses phone records.

None of those relate to USER content.

Who is responsible for your post above: you or The Ed?

Section 230 and I say you are responsible for your post. If you were working for The Ed like a reporter works for a TV station, The Ed could be responsible for publishing what you say. But you're a user of a platform, not an employee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this