4 ms·

I found it a bit rambly and got annoyed at the "wow these are tough questions no one can ever answer" sentiment. Glenn Greenwald a.k.a. "the guy who helped Snow

I found it a bit rambly and got annoyed at the "wow these are tough questions no one can ever answer" sentiment. Glenn Greenwald a.k.a. "the guy who helped Snowden get the word out" and could be described as a disillusioned liberal, seems to have clearer principles and hence wrote a clearer article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho... One of the takeaways that nobody's really talking about is that Parler itself didn't really deserve this. If a bunch of Nazis walk over and stand near me, am I suddenly a Nazi? It's guilt by association, and if we're going with that... if we're going to, in the secret little court in each of our minds, "hold Parler liable for its moderation decisions" despite the fact that Section 230 won't allow that in a real court, then every outlet that has given Trump a voice for the past 4-5 years is just as guilty, starting with network news shows in 2016 putting his phone calls "from the campaign trail" on the air, knowing his wisecracks would draw more viewers. The profit motive accounts for 4 years of your never being able to escape Trump. And I believe the change of administrations (i.e. kissing up to the new one), not the Capitol thing, accounts for the sudden and belated change of heart. It's not Hanlon's razor but yeah never assume "ideology" as an explanation where "greed" will suffice.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Glenn Greenwald a.k.a. “the guy who helped Snowden get the word out” and could be described as a disillusioned liberal, Greenwald might be a disillusioned Leftist (not liberal), but then, so the original neoconservatives were disillusioned Trotskyites. Disillusionment is what spawns radical conversion and radical converts are often the least-open-minded, most most fact-averse, ideological crusaders. > if we’re going to, in the secret little court in each of our minds, “hold Parler liable for its moderation decisions” despite the fact that Section 230 won’t allow that in a real court, Other than civil liability of the types which are specifically dependent on status as a “publisher or speaker”, Section 230 doesn’t prevent them from being held liable. Criminal liability, or civil liability not dependent on status as a publisher (though some courts have, controversially, extended Section 230 to liability as a “distributor”) is generally outside of the scope of Section 230 protection.
- rdiddly 6y ago
  Just as often, the disillusioned are perfectly open-minded. Especially in cases where the dissent from former colleagues centers around the very issue of open-mindedness, as it does with Greenwald. In general and in this case it behooves us to ask what caused the disillusionment. Sometimes the people on your side betray the principles you thought you all had in common, for example. Which is what happened with Greenwald's former colleagues at The Intercept (which ironically he founded) and I would say is happening with the Democratic party in big ways, ever since Bill Clinton's time. When the "left" started cozying up to big money and selling out poor working people, it ceased being on the "left," and you could have predicted today's political climate and events without much effort. You're right about the scope of section 230, and given that Parler is not considered a publisher or speaker (which I think is appropriate), there is currently nothing else to consider holding them liable for, so I was using shorthand. I'm actually mostly talking about each person's individual opinion. Personally "holding them liable" for anything at this point depends on a guilt-by-association argument.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > You’re right about the scope of section 230, and given that Parler is not considered a publisher or speaker (which I think is appropriate), there is currently nothing else to consider holding them liable for, Generally, relieving them of being found to be the “publisher or speaker” of content they distribute would leave them as a distributor, having civil liability for content where they have actual (or constructive) knowledge of unlawful content that they distribute, rather than liability independent of their knowledge of the content based on the presumption of control that goes with status as a publisher.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Glenn Greenwald a.k.a. “the guy who helped Snowden get the word out” and could be described as a disillusioned liberal, Greenwald might be a disillusioned Leftist (not liberal), but then, so the original neoconservatives were disillusioned Trotskyites. Disillusionment is what spawns radical conversion and radical converts are often the least-open-minded, most most fact-averse, ideological crusaders. > if we’re going to, in the secret little court in each of our minds, “hold Parler liable for its moderation decisions” despite the fact that Section 230 won’t allow that in a real court, Other than civil liability of the types which are specifically dependent on status as a “publisher or speaker”, Section 230 doesn’t prevent them from being held liable. Criminal liability, or civil liability not dependent on status as a publisher (though some courts have, controversially, extended Section 230 to liability as a “distributor”) is generally outside of the scope of Section 230 protection.

rdiddly 6y ago
Just as often, the disillusioned are perfectly open-minded. Especially in cases where the dissent from former colleagues centers around the very issue of open-mindedness, as it does with Greenwald. In general and in this case it behooves us to ask what caused the disillusionment. Sometimes the people on your side betray the principles you thought you all had in common, for example. Which is what happened with Greenwald's former colleagues at The Intercept (which ironically he founded) and I would say is happening with the Democratic party in big ways, ever since Bill Clinton's time. When the "left" started cozying up to big money and selling out poor working people, it ceased being on the "left," and you could have predicted today's political climate and events without much effort. You're right about the scope of section 230, and given that Parler is not considered a publisher or speaker (which I think is appropriate), there is currently nothing else to consider holding them liable for, so I was using shorthand. I'm actually mostly talking about each person's individual opinion. Personally "holding them liable" for anything at this point depends on a guilt-by-association argument.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > You’re right about the scope of section 230, and given that Parler is not considered a publisher or speaker (which I think is appropriate), there is currently nothing else to consider holding them liable for, Generally, relieving them of being found to be the “publisher or speaker” of content they distribute would leave them as a distributor, having civil liability for content where they have actual (or constructive) knowledge of unlawful content that they distribute, rather than liability independent of their knowledge of the content based on the presumption of control that goes with status as a publisher.