5 ms·

Echo of majority view on incident. Clarification of legal basis for censorship on private platforms. Support of section 230. Concern about bias in private censo

Echo of majority view on incident. Clarification of legal basis for censorship on private platforms. Support of section 230. Concern about bias in private censorship. Call for transparency and consistency. It's as neutral as can be.

yyyymmddhhmmss 6y ago
Yep. Despite all the agony and defeat that comes with being a trusty practitioner, Marxism comprises the only reconcilable political comprehensions of our society today.
colanderman 6y ago
They sort of have to be. In the fight to preserve electronic freedoms, freedom from censorship and freedom to operate a service as one pleases come at odds with each other in cases like this. If instead, the government had confiscated Parler's domains, or enjoined Apple, Google, and Amazon from booting them, I think EFF's response would (rightly/expectedly IMO) be very different. As an EFF member I think they made the right call here.
- repolitical 6y ago
  I guess there are ways to transcend this conflict. For example, perhaps social networks can sort themselves into two types, public-square type and non-public-square type. The networks which self-identify as public-square shall (1) employ a stronger set of freedom of speech protection rules, (2) be supervised by the government, an independent council, the media and the public, and (3) receive financial incentive, which could be a limited tax exempt status or governmental subsidy, depending on your preference.
- disown 6y ago
  > As an EFF member I think they made the right call here. They didn't. They chickened out. The ACLU was more vocal in its opposition to censorship. That should show how cowardly the EFF is being right now. You falsely made it seem like EFF only deals with or is concerned with government "suppression". That isn't true. Most of EFF dealings is with corporate "suppression". Under normal circumstances, EFF would have been far more vocal. But since they are extremely biased in this case, they chose to be anti-free speech. "The EFF was active in the United States presidential election 2016 because of online phishing related to the controversy over fabrication of election results. J. Alex Halderman, a computer security professor at the University of Michigan, wrote an article that was published in Medium in 2016 stating he thought it was advisable to have a recount on some of the election results from states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation Don't you think EFF's belief in 2016 election fraud had anything to do with their lukewarm defense of Trump's free speech here? They have a long history of questioning voting results, but only when republicans win... "The EFF has long been an advocate of paper audit trails for voting machines and testified in support of them after the United States presidential election 2004." I generally think EFF is a worthy enterprise, but it's obvious political bias is the reason for their pathetic "support" for free speech here.
  - colanderman 6y ago
    No, meaning, if they argued in favor of Parler, they'd have lost my support. My principles don't include "force tech companies to host content for terrorists trying to violently overthrow a democracy". (ACLU, on the other hand, I expect to take the free-speech-absolutist stance...)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - julianmarq 6y ago
      > they'd have lost my support. The implication being that everything the EFF has done against corporate control of the internet is only good as long as their criticism doesn't extend to corporate censorship? I hope I'm misinterpreting this.
  - astrostl 6y ago
    Where is an official ACLU statement? All I've seen are second-hand statements from senior counsel.
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      This! They don’t have the counsel’s statement on their website. Very interesting times we live in now.
  - nx20593 6y ago
    This "looking the other way if it's my guy" attitude towards violence as reached an unacceptable level. The Left and Right are both equally guilty in my view. You want to stop Systemic Racism, then end the fscking war on drugs. You want to stop White Supremacists, then perhaps we need to teach our children the simple universal spiritualist ideas such that people are to be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. People with money and power WANT Americans at each other's throats. It diverts the attention from how they have sold out our manufacturing base and jobs for short term profits.

yyyymmddhhmmss 6y ago

Yep. Despite all the agony and defeat that comes with being a trusty practitioner, Marxism comprises the only reconcilable political comprehensions of our society today.

colanderman 6y ago

They sort of have to be. In the fight to preserve electronic freedoms, freedom from censorship and freedom to operate a service as one pleases come at odds with each other in cases like this. If instead, the government had confiscated Parler's domains, or enjoined Apple, Google, and Amazon from booting them, I think EFF's response would (rightly/expectedly IMO) be very different. As an EFF member I think they made the right call here.

repolitical 6y ago
I guess there are ways to transcend this conflict. For example, perhaps social networks can sort themselves into two types, public-square type and non-public-square type. The networks which self-identify as public-square shall (1) employ a stronger set of freedom of speech protection rules, (2) be supervised by the government, an independent council, the media and the public, and (3) receive financial incentive, which could be a limited tax exempt status or governmental subsidy, depending on your preference.
disown 6y ago
> As an EFF member I think they made the right call here. They didn't. They chickened out. The ACLU was more vocal in its opposition to censorship. That should show how cowardly the EFF is being right now. You falsely made it seem like EFF only deals with or is concerned with government "suppression". That isn't true. Most of EFF dealings is with corporate "suppression". Under normal circumstances, EFF would have been far more vocal. But since they are extremely biased in this case, they chose to be anti-free speech. "The EFF was active in the United States presidential election 2016 because of online phishing related to the controversy over fabrication of election results. J. Alex Halderman, a computer security professor at the University of Michigan, wrote an article that was published in Medium in 2016 stating he thought it was advisable to have a recount on some of the election results from states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation Don't you think EFF's belief in 2016 election fraud had anything to do with their lukewarm defense of Trump's free speech here? They have a long history of questioning voting results, but only when republicans win... "The EFF has long been an advocate of paper audit trails for voting machines and testified in support of them after the United States presidential election 2004." I generally think EFF is a worthy enterprise, but it's obvious political bias is the reason for their pathetic "support" for free speech here.
- colanderman 6y ago
  No, meaning, if they argued in favor of Parler, they'd have lost my support. My principles don't include "force tech companies to host content for terrorists trying to violently overthrow a democracy". (ACLU, on the other hand, I expect to take the free-speech-absolutist stance...)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - julianmarq 6y ago
    > they'd have lost my support. The implication being that everything the EFF has done against corporate control of the internet is only good as long as their criticism doesn't extend to corporate censorship? I hope I'm misinterpreting this.
- astrostl 6y ago
  Where is an official ACLU statement? All I've seen are second-hand statements from senior counsel.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    This! They don’t have the counsel’s statement on their website. Very interesting times we live in now.
- nx20593 6y ago
  This "looking the other way if it's my guy" attitude towards violence as reached an unacceptable level. The Left and Right are both equally guilty in my view. You want to stop Systemic Racism, then end the fscking war on drugs. You want to stop White Supremacists, then perhaps we need to teach our children the simple universal spiritualist ideas such that people are to be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. People with money and power WANT Americans at each other's throats. It diverts the attention from how they have sold out our manufacturing base and jobs for short term profits.