3 ms·

> pretending content is not often political speech

by isoskeles 6y ago

CyberDildonics 6y ago
The person you are replying to explicitly said that is not the point in the larger issue.
- isoskeles 6y ago
  Sorry, you don't just get to decide what is a larger point in some discussion. The law is capable of distinguishing between ideas, including whether content is good-faith speech or trolling. Pretending the two are the same and that a law could not possibly allow for a platform to moderate the latter without sacrificing its "neutrality" seems unreasonable. I think it is a valid question that could be scrutinized in court, but there is no need to be obtuse about the fact that these are different categories of speech that the law could treat differently specifically with regard to how it would categorize ("neutrality" of) a platform on the internet, not whether or not the speech is entirely forbidden period.
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    > Sorry, you don't just get to decide what is a larger point in some discussion. The whole point was the editing of comments. You keep going back and forth between 'political speech' being the same or different, but you hallucinated that as having anything to do with the discussion. > these are different categories of speech Maybe to the government, not to whether a website is a publisher or a platform. Protected political speech and criticism of the government has nothing to do with the topic at hand, no matter how many times you keep trying to inject it.
    - isoskeles 6y ago
      > You keep going back and forth between 'political speech' being the same or different, but you hallucinated that as having anything to do with the discussion. I definitely never varied my own view on this. You most likely misinterpreted my first comment and the quote ">", or worse, you're being intentionally dishonest. In any case, go read the EO. Right now, your opinion amounts to, "Trump bad, therefore removing a comment that spams racial slurs is the same as editorializing a comment that states a political opinion."
      - sixstringtheory 6y ago
        > removing a comment that spams racial slurs is the same as editorializing a comment that states a political opinion This is an appeal to emotion attempting to twist the position of those who oppose this EO, but, hopefully, that won't fly in a court of law. We shall see.

> pretending content is not often political speech

CyberDildonics 6y ago

The person you are replying to explicitly said that is not the point in the larger issue.

isoskeles 6y ago
Sorry, you don't just get to decide what is a larger point in some discussion. The law is capable of distinguishing between ideas, including whether content is good-faith speech or trolling. Pretending the two are the same and that a law could not possibly allow for a platform to moderate the latter without sacrificing its "neutrality" seems unreasonable. I think it is a valid question that could be scrutinized in court, but there is no need to be obtuse about the fact that these are different categories of speech that the law could treat differently specifically with regard to how it would categorize ("neutrality" of) a platform on the internet, not whether or not the speech is entirely forbidden period.
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  > Sorry, you don't just get to decide what is a larger point in some discussion. The whole point was the editing of comments. You keep going back and forth between 'political speech' being the same or different, but you hallucinated that as having anything to do with the discussion. > these are different categories of speech Maybe to the government, not to whether a website is a publisher or a platform. Protected political speech and criticism of the government has nothing to do with the topic at hand, no matter how many times you keep trying to inject it.
  - isoskeles 6y ago
    > You keep going back and forth between 'political speech' being the same or different, but you hallucinated that as having anything to do with the discussion. I definitely never varied my own view on this. You most likely misinterpreted my first comment and the quote ">", or worse, you're being intentionally dishonest. In any case, go read the EO. Right now, your opinion amounts to, "Trump bad, therefore removing a comment that spams racial slurs is the same as editorializing a comment that states a political opinion."
    - sixstringtheory 6y ago
      > removing a comment that spams racial slurs is the same as editorializing a comment that states a political opinion This is an appeal to emotion attempting to twist the position of those who oppose this EO, but, hopefully, that won't fly in a court of law. We shall see.