4 ms·

>“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 di

>“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.

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.