5 ms·

OK, but, we already have social/legal/cultural norms for deciding what thoughts are bad and what thoughts are good. Here are some things I can't do via Mailchim

by geofft 5y ago

OK, but, we already have social/legal/cultural norms for deciding what thoughts are bad and what thoughts are good. Here are some things I can't do via Mailchimp for either legal or cultural reasons (see also https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use/ https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use/): - Advertise pornography - Plan attacks against the United States government - Advertise medical cures that the government doesn't approve of - Sell counterfeit products - Pump and dump a stock - Reveal the identities of CIA operatives All of these are thoughts, just as much as advocating against vaccines or for alternative cures or what-have-you are thoughts. Who gets to decide any of the above? Would it be a good idea to set up society such that all of the above thoughts are protected speech?

naasking 5y ago
They're not just thoughts but also actions. Actions are typically what's regulated by governments, not thought. Maybe by "thoughts" you meant "ideas".
kmonsen 5y ago
They are not thoughts as sibling mentioned. If you think any of these things in your own mind but don't take any action on it that is perfectly ok and carries no legal risk.
- geofft 5y ago
  But this article isn't complaining about Mailchimp shutting people down for thinking things in their own mind, it's complaining about Mailchimp shutting people down for publishing and advocating those thoughts. What is the argument that saying "Ivermectin is being suppressed by Big Pharma, anyone who takes it will get cured of covid" is simply a thought whose publication is worthy of both social and legal protection, but saying "Contoso has a groundbreaking product they're going to reveal next week, anyone who buys the stock now is sure to make a profit" is illegal securities fraud? How do you distinguish those cases?
Turing_Machine 5y ago
Other than advertising (legal) pornography, all of those are actual violations of the law, at least in the United States. Clearly MailChimp (or any other service) can't knowingly allow their platform to be used to violate the law, or they would be held accountable.
- geofft 5y ago
  The comment I'm replying to is asking where, if at all, society should be structured to prevent people from spreading bad thoughts, and it's clearly leaning towards the angle that nothing should prevent people from spreading bad thoughts, and listeners should be free to make up their own minds. If certain types of bad thoughts are illegal to spread, the argument, I would think, is they should stop being illegal. (On a more practical note, Mailchimp's legal department is not a court of law. If freedom of speech / of thought-spreading is important enough to your society that you want to place legal obligations on private companies' platforms not to interfere with it, as TFA advocates, I think a natural consequence is that private companies should not decide what crosses the line and what doesn't, and probably that private companies should not be liable for what's said on their platform. In fact, that's more or less what Section 230 gives us! In a world with strong free-speech protections, it seems to me that Mailchimp should say that you can send whatever you want through their service, and should be encouraged by the government to take that approach, and that if you send something illegal, that liability is on you alone, after due process of law.)
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  > Advertise medical cures that the government doesn't approve of There is nothing wrong with advertising the truth that certain medical treatments exist which are not government approved in the US, or, legal in the US, but are defintely viable, and are actively used in other parts of the world, or, could be by physicians for off-label use. domperidone [1] is a drug that is used for a few indications overseas. There is an active discussion around it on a number of social media sites, but the FDA warns against importing it, for violating an FDA Act. It is possible to get an exception for one indication in the US, potentially...... But, many women want it because it helps with lactation, and for a woman with a hungry infant, this is a big issue. You get a screaming baby that wants 8 oz more of milk a day, and lemme tell you, can't negotiate with a screaming baby! Off Label uses of medications also, is common among Physicians. Viagra is one drug that has a number of utilities in off-label use. BigTech squelching the conversation around Domperidone is fairly similar to BigTech squelching the standard COVID treatment protocols [2], from Zelenko [3] & McCullough [4], which will likely become standard of care fairly shortly, and are now in evidence on CDC websites too [5], but significantly trailing the most updated protocols. But they don't squelch Domperidone talk, and the reason is simple. Pushing vaxxes are a big priority for the govt, while going after the discussion of secrets for increasing breastmilk outputs would probably be bad optics. > actual violations of the law, at least in the United States. Covid protocols have nothing to do with actual violations of Law, and, they will be standard of care shortly, as the CDC website writing [5] is on the wall. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30000430/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30000430/ [2] https://www.wired.com/story/stop-ignoring-the-evidence-on-covid-19-treatments/ https://www.wired.com/story/stop-ignoring-the-evidence-on-co... [3] https://vladimirzelenkomd.com/zelenko-prophylaxis-protocol/ https://vladimirzelenkomd.com/zelenko-prophylaxis-protocol/ [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHi3lX3oGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHi3lX3oGM [5] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guida...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by geofft 5y ago

naasking 5y ago

They're not just thoughts but also actions. Actions are typically what's regulated by governments, not thought. Maybe by "thoughts" you meant "ideas".

kmonsen 5y ago

They are not thoughts as sibling mentioned. If you think any of these things in your own mind but don't take any action on it that is perfectly ok and carries no legal risk.

geofft 5y ago
But this article isn't complaining about Mailchimp shutting people down for thinking things in their own mind, it's complaining about Mailchimp shutting people down for publishing and advocating those thoughts. What is the argument that saying "Ivermectin is being suppressed by Big Pharma, anyone who takes it will get cured of covid" is simply a thought whose publication is worthy of both social and legal protection, but saying "Contoso has a groundbreaking product they're going to reveal next week, anyone who buys the stock now is sure to make a profit" is illegal securities fraud? How do you distinguish those cases?

Turing_Machine 5y ago

Other than advertising (legal) pornography, all of those are actual violations of the law, at least in the United States. Clearly MailChimp (or any other service) can't knowingly allow their platform to be used to violate the law, or they would be held accountable.

geofft 5y ago
The comment I'm replying to is asking where, if at all, society should be structured to prevent people from spreading bad thoughts, and it's clearly leaning towards the angle that nothing should prevent people from spreading bad thoughts, and listeners should be free to make up their own minds. If certain types of bad thoughts are illegal to spread, the argument, I would think, is they should stop being illegal. (On a more practical note, Mailchimp's legal department is not a court of law. If freedom of speech / of thought-spreading is important enough to your society that you want to place legal obligations on private companies' platforms not to interfere with it, as TFA advocates, I think a natural consequence is that private companies should not decide what crosses the line and what doesn't, and probably that private companies should not be liable for what's said on their platform. In fact, that's more or less what Section 230 gives us! In a world with strong free-speech protections, it seems to me that Mailchimp should say that you can send whatever you want through their service, and should be encouraged by the government to take that approach, and that if you send something illegal, that liability is on you alone, after due process of law.)
OrvalWintermute 5y ago
> Advertise medical cures that the government doesn't approve of There is nothing wrong with advertising the truth that certain medical treatments exist which are not government approved in the US, or, legal in the US, but are defintely viable, and are actively used in other parts of the world, or, could be by physicians for off-label use. domperidone [1] is a drug that is used for a few indications overseas. There is an active discussion around it on a number of social media sites, but the FDA warns against importing it, for violating an FDA Act. It is possible to get an exception for one indication in the US, potentially...... But, many women want it because it helps with lactation, and for a woman with a hungry infant, this is a big issue. You get a screaming baby that wants 8 oz more of milk a day, and lemme tell you, can't negotiate with a screaming baby! Off Label uses of medications also, is common among Physicians. Viagra is one drug that has a number of utilities in off-label use. BigTech squelching the conversation around Domperidone is fairly similar to BigTech squelching the standard COVID treatment protocols [2], from Zelenko [3] & McCullough [4], which will likely become standard of care fairly shortly, and are now in evidence on CDC websites too [5], but significantly trailing the most updated protocols. But they don't squelch Domperidone talk, and the reason is simple. Pushing vaxxes are a big priority for the govt, while going after the discussion of secrets for increasing breastmilk outputs would probably be bad optics. > actual violations of the law, at least in the United States. Covid protocols have nothing to do with actual violations of Law, and, they will be standard of care shortly, as the CDC website writing [5] is on the wall. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30000430/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30000430/ [2] https://www.wired.com/story/stop-ignoring-the-evidence-on-covid-19-treatments/ https://www.wired.com/story/stop-ignoring-the-evidence-on-co... [3] https://vladimirzelenkomd.com/zelenko-prophylaxis-protocol/ https://vladimirzelenkomd.com/zelenko-prophylaxis-protocol/ [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHi3lX3oGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHi3lX3oGM [5] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guida...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]