4 ms·

No - I think there's a strong case to be made that FB and Twitter aren't like email providers or other forums like Reddit which are neutral in just showing cont

No - I think there's a strong case to be made that FB and Twitter aren't like email providers or other forums like Reddit which are neutral in just showing content. Nor am I saying anything should be censored by the government. All I'm saying is that to the extent Twitter increased the viewership of some piece of propaganda, they should be allowed to be sued for damages. It's their ability to amplify that's the issue, particularly to amplify horrendous lies to the most gullible (and to profit from that). It's not their simple transmission from peer to peer. They're explicitly not just a forum, and they're not a telecommunications service.

aspenmayer 5y ago
> All I'm saying is that to the extent Twitter increased the viewership of some piece of propaganda, they should be allowed to be sued for damages. With potentially infinite violations and incalculable damages, it’s no wonder why no one who runs any kind of user-submitted content site wants what you suggest here.
- noduerme 5y ago
  They don't want it, but I used to run a BBS, and a casino, and a forum, and I was aware I could be held accountable if I furthered the dissemination of something nefarious. Doesn't have to be CSAM, but the worse it is, the worse the penalty would be. It would be a hard pull to sue a provider over simple defamation that way if they did nothing to encourage or re-post it. But should Ron Watkins be made to answer for what's on 8kun? Fuck yea. And if he should, then why not Zuck? If you want to run a system that amplifies shitheads, you're a shithead, and if they can be sued, so should you be. We're past the point where we need stimulus to encourage people to start message boards by shielding them from liability for what their users post. Again, this isn't an argument for censorship whatsoever, just allowing private parties to apportion blame when aggrieved. So even then, the scale of allowing something on a baby message board is nothing compared to the network effect of Twitter or FB. Let them bear the social costs that they're so desperate to externalize. FB and Twitter made their explosive growth exactly by exploiting their exemption from the thing that closed down publishers, namely, bearing responsibility for the content they publish.
  - aspenmayer 5y ago
    I told you why I thought your idea was logistically unfeasible and politically incongruent with free speech and right to assembly. You called me a shithead. I don’t think your argumentation strategy is convincing me, but I’ll admit I’m not the smartest guy.
    - noduerme 5y ago
      I didn't call you a shithead! This may be a classic case of me using the general "you" and someone taking it to mean you, personally. I'm not talking about you personally. *unless you're Ron Watkins. I'm saying if (someone) wants to run a board for conspiracy theorists and it includes amplifying defamation, e.g. saying someone drinks the blood of babies and doxing people, then they should be held responsible for the content posted by the shitheads they allow to post. Very clear. Not about you.
      - aspenmayer 5y ago
        I was mostly joking to prove a point, but I appreciate you saying that. I was just trying to cool the debate a bit, not stir the pot. I’ll admit I may have inflamed tensions myself, and for that I apologize. You seem to be arguing in good faith, even if I disagree with your position. You seem like a decent person. I guess I’m more of a discordian, or a culture jammer type, and I view the kinds of conspiracies you’re talking about as cognito hazards that spontaneously occur when you have a large enough target demographic for them to appeal to. I suppose I just find your cure worse than the disease. I’d rather take the bathwater and the baby than just the baby. Call me crazy, but I think that variety is the spice of life. Some conspiracies are true, and are only theories until proved. I look at them as pathogens that are endemic, yet without them, we would have no EICAR test files for validating legitimate points of view and nothing with which to compare the status quo. Outsider voices have free speech rights too, even if they use them for ends antithetical to our own; that we oppose them doesn’t justify annihilating them, or their views. If discourse got us into this mess, I can’t see how less of it is going to get us out of it. We need more spaces for productive discussions, and we need more outreach to the fringes. How else will we convince anyone? If all you want is compliance, then the law is a poor tool for that. It only incentivizes circumvention once ratified.

aspenmayer 5y ago

> All I'm saying is that to the extent Twitter increased the viewership of some piece of propaganda, they should be allowed to be sued for damages. With potentially infinite violations and incalculable damages, it’s no wonder why no one who runs any kind of user-submitted content site wants what you suggest here.

noduerme 5y ago
They don't want it, but I used to run a BBS, and a casino, and a forum, and I was aware I could be held accountable if I furthered the dissemination of something nefarious. Doesn't have to be CSAM, but the worse it is, the worse the penalty would be. It would be a hard pull to sue a provider over simple defamation that way if they did nothing to encourage or re-post it. But should Ron Watkins be made to answer for what's on 8kun? Fuck yea. And if he should, then why not Zuck? If you want to run a system that amplifies shitheads, you're a shithead, and if they can be sued, so should you be. We're past the point where we need stimulus to encourage people to start message boards by shielding them from liability for what their users post. Again, this isn't an argument for censorship whatsoever, just allowing private parties to apportion blame when aggrieved. So even then, the scale of allowing something on a baby message board is nothing compared to the network effect of Twitter or FB. Let them bear the social costs that they're so desperate to externalize. FB and Twitter made their explosive growth exactly by exploiting their exemption from the thing that closed down publishers, namely, bearing responsibility for the content they publish.
- aspenmayer 5y ago
  I told you why I thought your idea was logistically unfeasible and politically incongruent with free speech and right to assembly. You called me a shithead. I don’t think your argumentation strategy is convincing me, but I’ll admit I’m not the smartest guy.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    I didn't call you a shithead! This may be a classic case of me using the general "you" and someone taking it to mean you, personally. I'm not talking about you personally. *unless you're Ron Watkins. I'm saying if (someone) wants to run a board for conspiracy theorists and it includes amplifying defamation, e.g. saying someone drinks the blood of babies and doxing people, then they should be held responsible for the content posted by the shitheads they allow to post. Very clear. Not about you.
    - aspenmayer 5y ago
      I was mostly joking to prove a point, but I appreciate you saying that. I was just trying to cool the debate a bit, not stir the pot. I’ll admit I may have inflamed tensions myself, and for that I apologize. You seem to be arguing in good faith, even if I disagree with your position. You seem like a decent person. I guess I’m more of a discordian, or a culture jammer type, and I view the kinds of conspiracies you’re talking about as cognito hazards that spontaneously occur when you have a large enough target demographic for them to appeal to. I suppose I just find your cure worse than the disease. I’d rather take the bathwater and the baby than just the baby. Call me crazy, but I think that variety is the spice of life. Some conspiracies are true, and are only theories until proved. I look at them as pathogens that are endemic, yet without them, we would have no EICAR test files for validating legitimate points of view and nothing with which to compare the status quo. Outsider voices have free speech rights too, even if they use them for ends antithetical to our own; that we oppose them doesn’t justify annihilating them, or their views. If discourse got us into this mess, I can’t see how less of it is going to get us out of it. We need more spaces for productive discussions, and we need more outreach to the fringes. How else will we convince anyone? If all you want is compliance, then the law is a poor tool for that. It only incentivizes circumvention once ratified.