4 ms·

> Its obscene, flagrant garbage. It is. So what? > there isn't a place for that kind of conduct on platforms with any kind of standards. Flag it as "obscene,

by maratd 8y ago

> Its obscene, flagrant garbage. It is. So what? > there isn't a place for that kind of conduct on platforms with any kind of standards. Flag it as "obscene, flagrant garbage" and hide it. Allow the user to decide. If they want to switch their account to "allow all", that's their choice. Google does this with search. They can easily do this on YouTube. They choose not to, which is unfortunate.

reilly3000 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... The tradition of American law certainly flies a different way than the approach you suggest. I sincerely respect your position, but feel that wisdom and tradition have found value in taking a more nuanced approach.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- maratd 8y ago
  That’s a list of speech that can be justifiably repressed by the government. It doesn’t apply here. We’re talking about private parties and about speech that doesn’t meet those thresholds, but is nevertheless reprehensible.
  - reilly3000 8y ago
    I assert that this threshold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Fighting_words_and_offensive_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... was broken by this incident: "The Pizzagate incident, like Jade Helm before it, illustrates Jones’s ability to influence his followers to take action in the real world, no matter how far-fetched or unrealistic his claims might be. The Pizzagate “story” emerged in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign, and thanks in part to active promotion by Michael G. Flynn, the son of former National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn (who also appeared to endorse the story on social media), was still going strong a full month after Election Day, when Edgar Welch appeared at Comet Ping Pong with an assault rifle, ready to “rescue” the children he was convinced were being held in the basement. Welch fired several shots and spent close to an hour inside the restaurant before apparently determining that there were not, in fact, any signs of any criminal activity anywhere in the building. He surrendered to police, and later pleaded guilty to assault and weapons charges. Welch was sentenced in June 2017 to four years in prison." Source: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alex-jones-five-things-to-know https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alex-jones-five-... It is rather audacious to me that you seem to assert that speech in social platforms that are owned and operated in the US with US citizens talking to each other is somehow separate from the rule of law of the US government. The internet was essentially created by the US government. The notion that internet companies somehow supersede individual governments is- dangerous. The decision of social platforms to enforce their policies in this matter is in part in response to the will of their stakeholders, but also to insulate themselves from anything remotely close to being a party to defamation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law > It doesn’t apply here. <- doesn't hold up for me. One could argue that ironically, in exercising editorial discretion on content, social platforms demonstrate their ability to censure content, and thus open themselves up to liability for all of the content they chose not to take editorial action against. If you've gotten this far in this thread, please spend some time with Alex Jones' greatest hits and give me your honest opinion of its merit. Snarky disclaimer: I give money to the ACLU, I believe in free speech deeply, and though every fiber in my being is opposed to their cause I will fight for the right for Westboro Baptist Church to be able to assemble peacefully in public space. But even Alex Jones' site acknowledges the need for limits: https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/07/censorship-platforms-delete-infowars-content-not-according-infowars/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/07/censorship-platforms-...
    - maratd 8y ago
      You've made a couple of points here. With regard to the Pizzagate incident, using the same set of arguments, I can claim that fringe leftist publications resulted in the Congressional baseball shooting where people were actually hurt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting#Perpetrator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh... So are you arguing that all those groups he participated in should be banned? That's what it sounds like. Are you willing to ban Bernie for incitement? > It is rather audacious to me that you seem to assert that speech in social platforms that are owned and operated in the US with US citizens talking to each other is somehow separate from the rule of law of the US government. The internet was essentially created by the US government. The notion that internet companies somehow supersede individual governments is- dangerous. It is not the job of private companies to enforce the law. That's the government's job. And there's a reason for that. You do not get to be judge, jury, and executioner because you have some superiority complex. If the government took action, we can have a substantive discussion over the merits of the case ... but it's irrelevant, because they didn't. > The decision of social platforms to enforce their policies in this matter is in part in response to the will of their stakeholders, but also to insulate themselves from anything remotely close to being a party to defamation. It doesn't matter what reason they had for doing it. They may not even have had a reason. It is their right to do it ... but just because you can, doesn't mean you should. That was my point. It's a poor decision. > If you've gotten this far in this thread, please spend some time with Alex Jones' greatest hits and give me your honest opinion of its merit. What merit does the WWE ( https://www.wwe.com/ https://www.wwe.com/ ) have? He's the equivalent in the talk show space. It's entertainment. Do some people take it seriously? I'm sure they do. Some people take the WWE seriously too and think that it's real. So what? Even if the content has no merit whatsoever, so what? Again, we're not talking about the government censoring him. That's when merit would come into play. It's a private party. They can absolutely do it. And they shouldn't, because censorship is bad. Really, really bad. And let's not pretend like their censorship is targeted at only undesirables. Well, I suppose it is, but it depends on who is pointing the finger. These same shitty companies censor perfectly legitimate content in China, because $$$. Not cool. All these private companies that banned him, they all categorize content. They can easily have a nutjob category and if I want to watch that, it's my business. I don't need the social engineering, thanks. Also, social engineering usually backfires. I hear Alex Jones has a really popular app and website now due to all the publicity?

by maratd 8y ago

reilly3000 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... The tradition of American law certainly flies a different way than the approach you suggest. I sincerely respect your position, but feel that wisdom and tradition have found value in taking a more nuanced approach.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
maratd 8y ago
That’s a list of speech that can be justifiably repressed by the government. It doesn’t apply here. We’re talking about private parties and about speech that doesn’t meet those thresholds, but is nevertheless reprehensible.
- reilly3000 8y ago
  I assert that this threshold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Fighting_words_and_offensive_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... was broken by this incident: "The Pizzagate incident, like Jade Helm before it, illustrates Jones’s ability to influence his followers to take action in the real world, no matter how far-fetched or unrealistic his claims might be. The Pizzagate “story” emerged in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign, and thanks in part to active promotion by Michael G. Flynn, the son of former National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn (who also appeared to endorse the story on social media), was still going strong a full month after Election Day, when Edgar Welch appeared at Comet Ping Pong with an assault rifle, ready to “rescue” the children he was convinced were being held in the basement. Welch fired several shots and spent close to an hour inside the restaurant before apparently determining that there were not, in fact, any signs of any criminal activity anywhere in the building. He surrendered to police, and later pleaded guilty to assault and weapons charges. Welch was sentenced in June 2017 to four years in prison." Source: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alex-jones-five-things-to-know https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alex-jones-five-... It is rather audacious to me that you seem to assert that speech in social platforms that are owned and operated in the US with US citizens talking to each other is somehow separate from the rule of law of the US government. The internet was essentially created by the US government. The notion that internet companies somehow supersede individual governments is- dangerous. The decision of social platforms to enforce their policies in this matter is in part in response to the will of their stakeholders, but also to insulate themselves from anything remotely close to being a party to defamation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law > It doesn’t apply here. <- doesn't hold up for me. One could argue that ironically, in exercising editorial discretion on content, social platforms demonstrate their ability to censure content, and thus open themselves up to liability for all of the content they chose not to take editorial action against. If you've gotten this far in this thread, please spend some time with Alex Jones' greatest hits and give me your honest opinion of its merit. Snarky disclaimer: I give money to the ACLU, I believe in free speech deeply, and though every fiber in my being is opposed to their cause I will fight for the right for Westboro Baptist Church to be able to assemble peacefully in public space. But even Alex Jones' site acknowledges the need for limits: https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/07/censorship-platforms-delete-infowars-content-not-according-infowars/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/07/censorship-platforms-...
  - maratd 8y ago
    You've made a couple of points here. With regard to the Pizzagate incident, using the same set of arguments, I can claim that fringe leftist publications resulted in the Congressional baseball shooting where people were actually hurt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting#Perpetrator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh... So are you arguing that all those groups he participated in should be banned? That's what it sounds like. Are you willing to ban Bernie for incitement? > It is rather audacious to me that you seem to assert that speech in social platforms that are owned and operated in the US with US citizens talking to each other is somehow separate from the rule of law of the US government. The internet was essentially created by the US government. The notion that internet companies somehow supersede individual governments is- dangerous. It is not the job of private companies to enforce the law. That's the government's job. And there's a reason for that. You do not get to be judge, jury, and executioner because you have some superiority complex. If the government took action, we can have a substantive discussion over the merits of the case ... but it's irrelevant, because they didn't. > The decision of social platforms to enforce their policies in this matter is in part in response to the will of their stakeholders, but also to insulate themselves from anything remotely close to being a party to defamation. It doesn't matter what reason they had for doing it. They may not even have had a reason. It is their right to do it ... but just because you can, doesn't mean you should. That was my point. It's a poor decision. > If you've gotten this far in this thread, please spend some time with Alex Jones' greatest hits and give me your honest opinion of its merit. What merit does the WWE ( https://www.wwe.com/ https://www.wwe.com/ ) have? He's the equivalent in the talk show space. It's entertainment. Do some people take it seriously? I'm sure they do. Some people take the WWE seriously too and think that it's real. So what? Even if the content has no merit whatsoever, so what? Again, we're not talking about the government censoring him. That's when merit would come into play. It's a private party. They can absolutely do it. And they shouldn't, because censorship is bad. Really, really bad. And let's not pretend like their censorship is targeted at only undesirables. Well, I suppose it is, but it depends on who is pointing the finger. These same shitty companies censor perfectly legitimate content in China, because $$$. Not cool. All these private companies that banned him, they all categorize content. They can easily have a nutjob category and if I want to watch that, it's my business. I don't need the social engineering, thanks. Also, social engineering usually backfires. I hear Alex Jones has a really popular app and website now due to all the publicity?