4 ms·

Don't think its honest to label conservatives we don't like as alt-right just to ban them. If they are pushing violence, ban them under the TOS for violence.

colanderman 9y ago
Your suggestion is literally what Medium did. From the article: > The “Hate Speech” section has been significantly expanded […], disallowing posts that “glorify, celebrate, downplay, or trivialize violence, suffering, abuse, or deaths of individuals or groups,” including “the use of scientific or pseudoscientific claims to pathologize, dehumanize, or disempower others.” Also prohibited: “calls for intolerance, exclusion, or segregation based on protected characteristics, nor do we allow the glorification of groups which do any of the above” and “hateful text, images, symbols, or other content in your username, profile, or bio.”
- srslack 9y ago
  >“We do not allow posts or accounts that engage in on-platform, off-platform, or cross-platform campaigns of targeting, harassment, hate speech, violence, or disinformation. We may consider off-platform actions in assessing a Medium account, and restrict access or availability to that account.” Can you cite the instances where the individuals in question were calling for violence on Medium, even considering off-platform communications which apparently they're now policing? Personally, I wish that leftists would stop wearing liberal's clothing. Free speech is free speech. "Disinformation" is a weasel word, and so is "hate speech."
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Is calling for violence really the only limitation you'd accept? What about calling for segregation? Or calling all Islamic people savages? Those are things Laura Loomer has done. I'm about as far right as you can get economically and I wouldn't give her a platform in spite of fully supporting her right to spew nonsense. The freedom of association carries with it the freedom to not associate.
    - srslack 9y ago
      That's entirely their right to police their own platform as they wish, even if they're not honest about it (which seems to be the case here.) The line for me, personally, is the line that the Supreme Court of the United States has held time and time again, which is realistic threats of violence, if I were to run a platform like Medium. That's her right to be a jackass. It's beautiful. You can point and laugh at her rambling if you wish, if the content were still available. Your opinions on mean words are just opinions. It's just virtue signalling to be offended for someone else and go so far as to give them the power and satisfaction of being a martyr. This has done nothing but give the "alt-right" ammo, in that context, it certainly has not stopped any violence. Not that there was any violence inspired by any of the prominent writings mentioned in the article, in the first place.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        Except in this case it requires the platform owner to spend real resources in order to make sure "mean words" are promoted. If it is causing you real, measurable harm in that it costs you money, it's not simply virtue signaling.
      - locopati 9y ago
        Maybe it's just virtue instead of virtue signaling.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    The right for free speech only applies to the government being prohibited from banning speech. There is no constitutional right for a person to say what they want on someone else's platform.
    - srslack 9y ago
      Yeah, there is. It's called the spirit of free speech. Utilizing your rights to the fullest extent allowed by law to protect your users, no matter their opinions. And make no mistake, these users were banned for opinions. There were no calls to violence. Medium has made martyrs of them, and given them more power than they had before by attempting to silence them. I'm sure the absolute flood of subscriptions after banning some obscure bloggers will be worth the loss of integrity as a publishing medium.
      - scarface74 9y ago
        There is no constitutional "spirit of free speech". Nothing gives you the right to say what you want on someone else's platform or property.
    - sevvierose 9y ago
      You might want to look into Marsh v. Alabama. The more a private entity opens itself and invites others to use their property, the more their rights are circumscribed by the constitutional rights of those they invite onto their property.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  Did they? The article is suspiciously silent on what, if anything, might have triggered bans and Medium themselves refuse to say. I went and found a cached copy of the "How I'd run for Congress" article it talks about: http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=How+I+Would+Run+for+Congress+cernovich&d=5011034540282539&mkt=en-GB&setlang=en-GB&w=Y5hW9Mb889nmwWWUCp8GzIUcirRxW8qI http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=How+I+Would+Run+for+Congres... Looks fine to me. But it sounds like it's time to stop using Medium. Updating their ToS to say that they can pull your content at will, for no reason beyond someone there not liking something you did or said that isn't even on their platform? Like, it could literally be something said in person that was overheard by someone who works there. A blog is a long term thing, it's not a set of tweets. The content should last for years. Medium have clearly gone full blown Valley SJW and the people who thought freedom of speech mattered have either been shouted down or changed. Who knows what Medium considers to be "disinformation"? Anything that criticizes Hillary Clinton?
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    I'm curious about your thoughts on those Loomer quotes. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer I personally have a hard time faulting a private platform for not wanting to promote ideas like racial segregation in taxi services. I was going to say religious segregation, but I can't imagine how she was able to discern someone's religion by their Uber/Lyft profile.
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      I'm sure she has a bunch of ideas that offend lots of people. Seems like a distraction. Yes, obviously Medium can do a bait-and-switch in which they attract people by claiming to value free speech and then abandoning those ideals after people have built up followers and PageRank using their service. They can do what they like. However, the problem with picking sides like this, as Medium and Twitter are doing, is that it inevitably leads to gross and shameful hypocrisy. Just based on a quick search, here are some shockingly hateful quotes that quite obviously violate their new policies, but which I don't believe for one second will lead to account bans: https://medium.com/the-archipelago/men-get-on-board-with-misandry-4a3bc6c08e16 https://medium.com/the-archipelago/men-get-on-board-with-mis... I drink from a coffee mug that says “Male Tears.” Female friends sign off emails to me with “ban men” or “kill all men.” But let’s be honest: the more time you spend thinking about the patriarchy, the more you’re genuinely like UGH DUDES AMIRITE. Because the thing is, patriarchal culture actively trains men to be awful I do think the concept of “manliness” needs to be taken out and shot. It goes on and on like that. Clearly, anything Loomer has said about Muslims is matched by anything Jess Zimmerman has said about men.
- david38 9y ago
  That covers a lot of territory. Trivialize abuse? If I say getting pushed by someone is no big deal because you couldn't dress/act/whatever however you wanted because you could have avoided it (assuming the other group said it would be a reprocussion) I guess I would get banned? If I say your suffering is less severe than mine because of XYZ, will I get banned? I'm going to guess yes if I'm a white male and no if I'm anything else. What is a protected characteristic? The historical legal set including Vietnam service status, race, religion, etc, or are there newer ones?
- cryptonector 9y ago
  Nah, that's not violence. That's something else. I want more speech, not less. Even speech I don't like, like yours in this case.

colanderman 9y ago

Your suggestion is literally what Medium did. From the article: > The “Hate Speech” section has been significantly expanded […], disallowing posts that “glorify, celebrate, downplay, or trivialize violence, suffering, abuse, or deaths of individuals or groups,” including “the use of scientific or pseudoscientific claims to pathologize, dehumanize, or disempower others.” Also prohibited: “calls for intolerance, exclusion, or segregation based on protected characteristics, nor do we allow the glorification of groups which do any of the above” and “hateful text, images, symbols, or other content in your username, profile, or bio.”

srslack 9y ago
>“We do not allow posts or accounts that engage in on-platform, off-platform, or cross-platform campaigns of targeting, harassment, hate speech, violence, or disinformation. We may consider off-platform actions in assessing a Medium account, and restrict access or availability to that account.” Can you cite the instances where the individuals in question were calling for violence on Medium, even considering off-platform communications which apparently they're now policing? Personally, I wish that leftists would stop wearing liberal's clothing. Free speech is free speech. "Disinformation" is a weasel word, and so is "hate speech."
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Is calling for violence really the only limitation you'd accept? What about calling for segregation? Or calling all Islamic people savages? Those are things Laura Loomer has done. I'm about as far right as you can get economically and I wouldn't give her a platform in spite of fully supporting her right to spew nonsense. The freedom of association carries with it the freedom to not associate.
  - srslack 9y ago
    That's entirely their right to police their own platform as they wish, even if they're not honest about it (which seems to be the case here.) The line for me, personally, is the line that the Supreme Court of the United States has held time and time again, which is realistic threats of violence, if I were to run a platform like Medium. That's her right to be a jackass. It's beautiful. You can point and laugh at her rambling if you wish, if the content were still available. Your opinions on mean words are just opinions. It's just virtue signalling to be offended for someone else and go so far as to give them the power and satisfaction of being a martyr. This has done nothing but give the "alt-right" ammo, in that context, it certainly has not stopped any violence. Not that there was any violence inspired by any of the prominent writings mentioned in the article, in the first place.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      Except in this case it requires the platform owner to spend real resources in order to make sure "mean words" are promoted. If it is causing you real, measurable harm in that it costs you money, it's not simply virtue signaling.
    - locopati 9y ago
      Maybe it's just virtue instead of virtue signaling.
- scarface74 9y ago
  The right for free speech only applies to the government being prohibited from banning speech. There is no constitutional right for a person to say what they want on someone else's platform.
  - srslack 9y ago
    Yeah, there is. It's called the spirit of free speech. Utilizing your rights to the fullest extent allowed by law to protect your users, no matter their opinions. And make no mistake, these users were banned for opinions. There were no calls to violence. Medium has made martyrs of them, and given them more power than they had before by attempting to silence them. I'm sure the absolute flood of subscriptions after banning some obscure bloggers will be worth the loss of integrity as a publishing medium.
    - scarface74 9y ago
      There is no constitutional "spirit of free speech". Nothing gives you the right to say what you want on someone else's platform or property.
  - sevvierose 9y ago
    You might want to look into Marsh v. Alabama. The more a private entity opens itself and invites others to use their property, the more their rights are circumscribed by the constitutional rights of those they invite onto their property.
peoplewindow 9y ago
Did they? The article is suspiciously silent on what, if anything, might have triggered bans and Medium themselves refuse to say. I went and found a cached copy of the "How I'd run for Congress" article it talks about: http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=How+I+Would+Run+for+Congress+cernovich&d=5011034540282539&mkt=en-GB&setlang=en-GB&w=Y5hW9Mb889nmwWWUCp8GzIUcirRxW8qI http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=How+I+Would+Run+for+Congres... Looks fine to me. But it sounds like it's time to stop using Medium. Updating their ToS to say that they can pull your content at will, for no reason beyond someone there not liking something you did or said that isn't even on their platform? Like, it could literally be something said in person that was overheard by someone who works there. A blog is a long term thing, it's not a set of tweets. The content should last for years. Medium have clearly gone full blown Valley SJW and the people who thought freedom of speech mattered have either been shouted down or changed. Who knows what Medium considers to be "disinformation"? Anything that criticizes Hillary Clinton?
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  I'm curious about your thoughts on those Loomer quotes. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer I personally have a hard time faulting a private platform for not wanting to promote ideas like racial segregation in taxi services. I was going to say religious segregation, but I can't imagine how she was able to discern someone's religion by their Uber/Lyft profile.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    I'm sure she has a bunch of ideas that offend lots of people. Seems like a distraction. Yes, obviously Medium can do a bait-and-switch in which they attract people by claiming to value free speech and then abandoning those ideals after people have built up followers and PageRank using their service. They can do what they like. However, the problem with picking sides like this, as Medium and Twitter are doing, is that it inevitably leads to gross and shameful hypocrisy. Just based on a quick search, here are some shockingly hateful quotes that quite obviously violate their new policies, but which I don't believe for one second will lead to account bans: https://medium.com/the-archipelago/men-get-on-board-with-misandry-4a3bc6c08e16 https://medium.com/the-archipelago/men-get-on-board-with-mis... I drink from a coffee mug that says “Male Tears.” Female friends sign off emails to me with “ban men” or “kill all men.” But let’s be honest: the more time you spend thinking about the patriarchy, the more you’re genuinely like UGH DUDES AMIRITE. Because the thing is, patriarchal culture actively trains men to be awful I do think the concept of “manliness” needs to be taken out and shot. It goes on and on like that. Clearly, anything Loomer has said about Muslims is matched by anything Jess Zimmerman has said about men.
david38 9y ago
That covers a lot of territory. Trivialize abuse? If I say getting pushed by someone is no big deal because you couldn't dress/act/whatever however you wanted because you could have avoided it (assuming the other group said it would be a reprocussion) I guess I would get banned? If I say your suffering is less severe than mine because of XYZ, will I get banned? I'm going to guess yes if I'm a white male and no if I'm anything else. What is a protected characteristic? The historical legal set including Vietnam service status, race, religion, etc, or are there newer ones?
cryptonector 9y ago
Nah, that's not violence. That's something else. I want more speech, not less. Even speech I don't like, like yours in this case.