3 ms·

>Yeah, if you’re going to be soliciting personal information for vigilante harassment, I’m not sure why you’d imagine that a standard mainstream host would want

>Yeah, if you’re going to be soliciting personal information for vigilante harassment, I’m not sure why you’d imagine that a standard mainstream host would want to touch you. They are a state government attempting to enforce a law. By definition, it is not vigilante. Whether the law is agreeable or just is another question entirely; a political question.

dundarious 5y ago
The website is run by a private entity, not an arm of the government.
rsynnott 5y ago
This isn’t the government; it’s some private organisation.
cududa 5y ago
The only reason the law doesn’t violate Roe v Wade because it tasks citizens to turn people in
- kemayo 5y ago
  For that matter, it's still entirely plausible that when someone actually sues under the law it's going to get appealed up and revoked because of Roe. I say plausible, because I'm sure the conservative majority would like to overturn Roe, but I'm not sure if this particular law is the vehicle they'd want for that. All the Supreme Court said so far was that they didn't think there was a cause of action at the moment because of how the law was structured. (Now, was that decision perhaps slightly motivated by the conservative majority and the exact topic of the law? Seems likely. I bet they'd have stayed a law that was exactly the same other than the reportable-act being handgun ownership, for instance.)
quotemstr 5y ago
> They are a state government attempting to enforce a law. By definition, it is not vigilante. Whether the law is agreeable or just is another question entirely; a political question. Have you been asleep? The OP sees the Texas law as vigilantism because he doesn't believe that the people of Texas have a right to self-determination --- he believes, essentially, that angry-Twitter ought to get a veto over Texan law, and that Texan law that angry-Twitter doesn't like isn't really law at all.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  Oh, for fuck’s sake. The people of Texas, of course, have limited right to self-determination; whether the absurd law their government had just passed falls under that or not will be determined later. However, in this case, it’s nothing to do with the people of Texas. This is a private vigilante group, not the government. Not, really, that it matters in this case. Even the full majesty of the Texas state government presumably can’t force a webhost to ignore its ToS if it doesn’t want to. But in this case it’s not the government, it’s a weird private organisation.
  - quotemstr 5y ago
    > Even the full majesty of the Texas state government presumably can’t force a webhost to ignore its ToS if it doesn’t want to Given that there's a growing movement to use state power against tech censorship, I expect this claim to be empirically tested in the near future.

dundarious 5y ago

The website is run by a private entity, not an arm of the government.

rsynnott 5y ago

This isn’t the government; it’s some private organisation.

cududa 5y ago

The only reason the law doesn’t violate Roe v Wade because it tasks citizens to turn people in

kemayo 5y ago
For that matter, it's still entirely plausible that when someone actually sues under the law it's going to get appealed up and revoked because of Roe. I say plausible, because I'm sure the conservative majority would like to overturn Roe, but I'm not sure if this particular law is the vehicle they'd want for that. All the Supreme Court said so far was that they didn't think there was a cause of action at the moment because of how the law was structured. (Now, was that decision perhaps slightly motivated by the conservative majority and the exact topic of the law? Seems likely. I bet they'd have stayed a law that was exactly the same other than the reportable-act being handgun ownership, for instance.)

quotemstr 5y ago

> They are a state government attempting to enforce a law. By definition, it is not vigilante. Whether the law is agreeable or just is another question entirely; a political question. Have you been asleep? The OP sees the Texas law as vigilantism because he doesn't believe that the people of Texas have a right to self-determination --- he believes, essentially, that angry-Twitter ought to get a veto over Texan law, and that Texan law that angry-Twitter doesn't like isn't really law at all.

rsynnott 5y ago
Oh, for fuck’s sake. The people of Texas, of course, have limited right to self-determination; whether the absurd law their government had just passed falls under that or not will be determined later. However, in this case, it’s nothing to do with the people of Texas. This is a private vigilante group, not the government. Not, really, that it matters in this case. Even the full majesty of the Texas state government presumably can’t force a webhost to ignore its ToS if it doesn’t want to. But in this case it’s not the government, it’s a weird private organisation.
- quotemstr 5y ago
  > Even the full majesty of the Texas state government presumably can’t force a webhost to ignore its ToS if it doesn’t want to Given that there's a growing movement to use state power against tech censorship, I expect this claim to be empirically tested in the near future.