With the profoundly disturbing power imbalances that exist in who controls our online speech, who gets to demand a moderation improvement plan from Silicon Valley?

And the stupidity continues unchecked. The government controls speech, and has since day one. Those corporations are not controlling speech, they are controlling their property as a responsible property owner should. If you disagree with their policies don't use their fucking services, problem solved. No one has a gun to your head forcing you to do so. Go start a competing service. Jesus, Mary, and Glavin! Why haven't these same morons been up in arms about film censorship? That's actual censorship.

Honestly, these fuckin' people, man. So anyone should be able to post anything without consequence right, because you know...freedom.

Cutter wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 11:51:

With the profoundly disturbing power imbalances that exist in who controls our online speech, who gets to demand a moderation improvement plan from Silicon Valley?

And the stupidity continues unchecked. The government controls speech, and has since day one. Those corporations are not controlling speech, they are controlling their property as a responsible property owner should. If you disagree with their policies don't use their fucking services, problem solved. No one has a gun to your head forcing you to do so. Go start a competing service. Jesus, Mary, and Glavin! Why haven't these same morons been up in arms about film censorship? That's actual censorship.

Honestly, these fuckin' people, man. So anyone should be able to post anything without consequence right, because you know...freedom.

Cutter, you are kind of right, but realize Canada and the USA have different concepts of "free speech". For instance, if the Canadian government interprets what you are saying as "hate speech", the Canadian government can prosecute. In the US, you are allowed to say whatever you want as long as you are not inciting or "terrorizing" people (screaming fire in a theater is not protected).

In canada, you can potentially defend women's rights by condemning Islam and, at the same time, be spewing hate speech. Its a weird problem that made me very uncomfortable when I lived in Canada... not because I make a habit of saying hateful things, but because of problems around the influx of refugees that were abusing their women.

I think Trump incited a mob and knew how to raise the temperature enough to get them to do something violent while he could sit back and not accept any culpability. Sites like Parler contribute to that. Hell, conversations on Youtube go over that line, imo. Difference is that the big tech companies are trying to moderate that while Parler wants it to be a free for all and use the constitution improperly as a shield.

"Why no one should be worried about Parler being booted from AWS, Apple and Google" fixed that article title for you. Because Parler (or anyone else) can always find alternate hosting, or host themselves. Expensive, but not illegal or even prohibited. Why should any business be forced to broadcast somebody's hate speech? Answer: in the USA you can be dropped at any time from any business. Thanks, conservatives.

Don't worry fascists, Gab and other less public social media toilets still exist. Go there.

“should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions—especially when political realities make those decisions easier.”*

This is bullshit naturally. They are checked by not only by Civil, State and US government but International governments, not to mention International law.
These people keep acting like it wasn't SPECIFICALLY the US government who asked/advised/warned them, they could be coupable.
Under the current circumstances, do you think the FBI, CIA and NSA will openly admit they are currently trying to stop an ongoing threat to prevent more bloodshed.
There is a current threat against all 50 state capitals on Jan 19+ and those republican terrorists are coordinating on those apps.

For the life of me, I don't understand why conservatives want to repeal section 230. I can only assume that because of Trump's misunderstanding of what it is (I'm sure he never bothered to read it, since he couldn't be bothered to read the Constitution in the last four years), and his constant repeating of the 'repeal 230' chant, everyone is just buying into it.

Probably the same stupidity as the left's 'defund the police' mantra. Everyone wants a pithy sound bite, with zero explanation or details.

Repealing 230 would make every web hosting service, social media outlet, blog, and even a BBS like mine or Blues, liable for anything someone posted on it. If anything, you would see companies like AWS have even stricter guidelines for content on hosted sites, in order to appease their attorneys, and social media sites like Twitter or Gab, would likely cease to exist entirely, as they wouldn't be able to afford the liability, or only the richest ones would.

230 ALLOWS for free speech. There will always be guidelines and restrictions. There have to be to make the lawyers happy, and even under 230 the Feds can take down your site for illegal activity. Look at what happened to Silk Road.

Parler was smoking dope thinking they could just allow anything to be posted with minimal moderation. Trust me, Parler will be back, which suits me fine. Keep the nut jobs in their own echo chamber. It's Parler's own stupid fault they didn't have a backup plan all lined up before this, but worst case they can find some off shore host that cares more about money than bad publicity. They've already found a new domain registrar.

Paler is already back up I thought on Epik the home of Nazis?

Call it Paler as skin tone test is needed to signup.

The Flying Penguin wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 13:40:
For the life of me, I don't understand why conservatives want to repeal section 230. I can only assume that because of Trump's misunderstanding of what it is (I'm sure he never bothered to read it, since he couldn't be bothered to read the Constitution in the last four years), and his constant repeating of the 'repeal 230' chant, everyone is just buying into it.

Probably the same stupidity as the left's 'defund the police' mantra.

Now don't be disingenuous. You're comparing apples to oranges. The "left" ( rest of the world's center ) has been pretty clear what they meant with "defund the police", they meant to reduce its funding to:

-Demilitarize it.
-Divert some of the funding to social programs.
-Reduce the police's workload by letting other organisms funded by the social programs deal with calls that have nothing to do with crimes and which police routinely bungles and has no training to deal with, often resulting in tragic unnecessary deaths and violence from the police.
-Other provisions I don't remember which are as clear as those stated above.

The far right ( and also to some extent the MS media ) equated "defund" with completely eliminating funding, which was a strawman from the start.

Could you stop mindlessly regurgitating that myth please? Ty.

LArac wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 13:41:
Paler is already back up I thought on Epik the home of Nazis?

Call it Paler as skin tone test is needed to signup.

No, they just changed the domain registrar to Epik, because the old registrar was being pressured to drop them.

It'll take a while. They're such a small company I bet their back end coders are all contract programmers and not in-house. It'll take a a while to find a scalable host, port the data to the new system, modify code as needed, etc.

Simon Says wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 13:45:

The Flying Penguin wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 13:40:
For the life of me, I don't understand why conservatives want to repeal section 230. I can only assume that because of Trump's misunderstanding of what it is (I'm sure he never bothered to read it, since he couldn't be bothered to read the Constitution in the last four years), and his constant repeating of the 'repeal 230' chant, everyone is just buying into it.

Probably the same stupidity as the left's 'defund the police' mantra.

Now don't be disingenuous. You're comparing apples to oranges. The "left" ( rest of the world's center ) has been pretty clear what they meant "defund the police", they meant to reduce it's funding to:

-Demilitarize it.
-Divert some of the funding to social programs.
-Reduce the police's workload by letting other organisms funded by the social programs deal with calls that have nothing to do with crimes and which police routinely bungles and has no training to deal with, often resulting in tragic unnecessary deaths and violence from the police.
-Other provisions I don't remember which are as clear as those stated above.

Not being disingenuous at all. It's a marketing slogan. Something easy to yell over a bullhorn, but unfortunately it's a poor choice of words.

I know what they mean by it, but it just gives the Right, fuel to mis represent it. Obama himself pointed this out after the election. He specifically called out using the phrase 'defund the police' as what likely caused the loss of house seats.

I'm a left leaning independent, and fully support the idea of 'demilitarizing the police' (there, a better slogan, I offer it royalty free for anyone's use).

You and I may understand what it means, but you and I read a wide range of news sources. Conservatives (even the reasonable moderate ones) get their news from Fox or worse, and they constantly take the literal meaning of the phrase and use it to stoke fear of the 'socialist agenda'.

I have lot's of reasonable conservative friends, not MAGA hat wearing nut jobs, who nonetheless, still believe that 'defund the police' is literal. They don't read the New York Times.

We've become a sound bite society. And that's a lousy sound bite.

This comment was edited on Jan 12, 2021, 14:24.

BIGtrouble77 wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 12:09:
Cutter, you are kind of right, but realize Canada and the USA have different concepts of "free speech". For instance, if the Canadian government interprets what you are saying as "hate speech", the Canadian government can prosecute. In the US, you are allowed to say whatever you want as long as you are not inciting or "terrorizing" people (screaming fire in a theater is not protected).

In canada, you can potentially defend women's rights by condemning Islam and, at the same time, be spewing hate speech. Its a weird problem that made me very uncomfortable when I lived in Canada... not because I make a habit of saying hateful things, but because of problems around the influx of refugees that were abusing their women.

I think Trump incited a mob and knew how to raise the temperature enough to get them to do something violent while he could sit back and not accept any culpability. Sites like Parler contribute to that. Hell, conversations on Youtube go over that line, imo. Difference is that the big tech companies are trying to moderate that while Parler wants it to be a free for all and use the constitution improperly as a shield.

Yeah, but we're not talking about Canada and it's laws. Yes, hate speech is illegal here but racist speech is not. There's a legally defined difference between racism and hatred. Yes, it's all fucking absurd and hypocritical here the same as everywhere else where liberal insanity is involved. However you can most certainly condemn Islam publicly, you just can't advocate for its elimination through violence - legally speaking. Regardless, I said as much yesterday, governments control speech - what is considered acceptable and what isn't. In the context of Parler, none of the companies refusing to do business with them are restricting Parler's right to protected speech in the US of A. And that's all that matters. Anyone who thinks this is a free speech issue is stupid, plain and simple. I hate stupid people. I wonder if Justin and his PC goons are going to come after me for that.

This is the entire first amendment. You would think it was some long, hard to read document, but it's very simple. We spent a week discussing it in Civics class when I was in high school:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

That's it. What legal scholars will tell you is that most people misunderstand what it means, it says NOTHING about free speech in the workplace, in a newspaper, a book, or having to do with any privately owned company. There are other laws that apply in those situations, like laws against hate speech, incitement of a crime, defamation, etc.

The 1st amendment is about protecting us from A CONGRESSIONAL LAW that would restrict freedom speech. Nor can the president as he has no power to enact laws (that power is solely with the Conrgess). Thus it prevents the federal government from muzzling you, as is common in less democratic countries.

BIGtrouble77 wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 12:09:

Cutter wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 11:51:

With the profoundly disturbing power imbalances that exist in who controls our online speech, who gets to demand a moderation improvement plan from Silicon Valley?

And the stupidity continues unchecked. The government controls speech, and has since day one. Those corporations are not controlling speech, they are controlling their property as a responsible property owner should. If you disagree with their policies don't use their fucking services, problem solved. No one has a gun to your head forcing you to do so. Go start a competing service. Jesus, Mary, and Glavin! Why haven't these same morons been up in arms about film censorship? That's actual censorship.

Honestly, these fuckin' people, man. So anyone should be able to post anything without consequence right, because you know...freedom.

Cutter, you are kind of right, but realize Canada and the USA have different concepts of "free speech". For instance, if the Canadian government interprets what you are saying as "hate speech", the Canadian government can prosecute. In the US, you are allowed to say whatever you want as long as you are not inciting or "terrorizing" people (screaming fire in a theater is not protected).

In canada, you can potentially defend women's rights by condemning Islam and, at the same time, be spewing hate speech. Its a weird problem that made me very uncomfortable when I lived in Canada... not because I make a habit of saying hateful things, but because of problems around the influx of refugees that were abusing their women.

I think Trump incited a mob and knew how to raise the temperature enough to get them to do something violent while he could sit back and not accept any culpability. Sites like Parler contribute to that. Hell, conversations on Youtube go over that line, imo. Difference is that the big tech companies are trying to moderate that while Parler wants it to be a free for all and use the constitution improperly as a shield.

Great analysis, thanks.

Simon Says wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 13:45:

The Flying Penguin wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 13:40:
For the life of me, I don't understand why conservatives want to repeal section 230. I can only assume that because of Trump's misunderstanding of what it is (I'm sure he never bothered to read it, since he couldn't be bothered to read the Constitution in the last four years), and his constant repeating of the 'repeal 230' chant, everyone is just buying into it.

Probably the same stupidity as the left's 'defund the police' mantra.

Now don't be disingenuous. You're comparing apples to oranges. The "left" ( rest of the world's center ) has been pretty clear what they meant with "defund the police", they meant to reduce its funding to:

-Demilitarize it.
-Divert some of the funding to social programs.
-Reduce the police's workload by letting other organisms funded by the social programs deal with calls that have nothing to do with crimes and which police routinely bungles and has no training to deal with, often resulting in tragic unnecessary deaths and violence from the police.
-Other provisions I don't remember which are as clear as those stated above.

The far right ( and also to some extent the MS media ) equated "defund" with completely eliminating funding, which was a strawman from the start.

Could you stop mindlessly regurgitating that myth please? Ty.

Yes, but the phrase itself "defund the police" is extremely problematic, even if I myself understand what it means and agree largely with the proposed changes (see below). When 10 million more people vote for Trump in 2020 than in 2016, you can point to this phrase as one of the prime reasons. Marketing is important, and this phrase sucks. In general, liberals suck at messaging. How about instead of "gay marriage" the left had used the term "marriage freedom?" There are many more examples.

As for the policy itself, I'd like to see a lot more conflict resolution training (which will cost money) and a nationwide ban on no-knock raids except under very specific circumstances like a hostage situation.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Flying Penguin

Edit: Deleting because it was in bad taste.

This comment was edited on Jan 12, 2021, 17:50.

Tomas wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 15:04:
It's a good thing we have places like bluesnews where we can make sure our opinions are correct.

With this post, you're one step away from calling us sheeple.

Don't try to topple this or any gov't. At the top isn't Disneyland, it's as serious as terminal cancer.

You try to topple the gov't, you get things taken from you and you should.
You don't have the right to topple the gov't.

To think a gov't would sit bye and do nothing is beyond laughable.
This has nothing to do with California either, they fight for more rights in the states then anyone.

The Flying Penguin wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 13:40:
For the life of me, I don't understand why conservatives want to repeal section 230.

This to, it is just more mix up with Conservative thoughts. That is even more censorship, good or bad depending on what is being censored.

A much bigger and more immediate problem is still present: multiple armed attacks are planned before the 20th, being organized initially on Parler, now on various other services. Unfortunately the US is going to simply be too slow to shut down Gab and everything else even if they understood these other forums/programs, there will probably be gun battles in a half dozen cities before the 21st.

Really, the USA is never going to recover from the damage Trump and the Republicans have caused, and people are worried about corporate censorship, rofl.

Beamer wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 15:13:

Tomas wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 15:04:
It's a good thing we have places like bluesnews where we can make sure our opinions are correct.

With this post, you're one step away from calling us sheeple.

I would take a step towards over the past decade Blues has basically turned into an echo chamber itself where I can hardly read the comments anymore without dying a little inside; so toxic. When I do go in I already know what to expect, and my expectations have yet to be unmet.

I remember the days when the disagreements had to do with the actual gaming industry (PS vs Xbox, Nintendo vs Sega, nVidia vs AMD) where both sides could have an opinion and still be able talk to one another with some semblance of respect. Those days are sadly gone, or maybe it's just pure Mandela Effect and wishful thinking. I do know what we have now is a bunch of anonymously tough-talking keyboard warriors with a megaphone wearing earplugs. Though, I'm sure a lot of you all are probably pretty nice in person, too bad we don't get to see that side of you.

Blues was my escape from all the other crap in the world. Do we really need Twitter and FB news here? "If it bleeds, it leads", I guess. Shoot, comment totals alone tell you all you need to know.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 16:30:
...there will probably be gun battles in a half dozen cities before the 21st...

I sure hope you are wrong. Unfortunately, even if you are, there are way too many people who think it is needed...