3 ms·

> The White House is free to make the argument that Twitter should police “misinformation” and “hate speech” on its platform. But it has no legal basis to say t

by jmyeet 4y ago

> The White House is free to make the argument that Twitter should police “misinformation” and “hate speech” on its platform. But it has no legal basis to say that Twitter must do so. False. Or, rather, it's false if you want Twitter to maintain its liability shield in Section 230 of the Cojmunications Decency Act [1], specifically 230(c)(2). Without this, Twitter becomes liable for any content. This is of course US-centric. Different countries have other requirements. > Musk may not be the best — or most consistent — messenger for free speech. And you may not agree with his interpretation of free speech. We all know what Musk means when he says "free speech". It's the same as when any conservative says "free speech". It means "hate speech". It means not wanting to get banned for spouting transphobia (in particular), homophobia, racist screeds, misogyny, etc. > If we care about an America whose support for free expression goes beyond the law, we must support a culture of free expression. No, we shouldn't. Every time some variant of free speech absolutism has been tried, the results are always the same: it fills up with Nazis. Everyone else leaves. Even 4chan has a ToS (basically "no CP"). That's the place for unhinged hate speech and conspiracy theories. Platforms don't want to be known as being a Nazi hotbed. Advertisers flee. Beyond that however platforms should consider what's best for the total user base. Allowing a few extremists to spew hate speech in the name of some ideal of free speech culture at the expense of everyone else is narcissism personified. I'll close with noting the paradox of tolerance [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

savingsPossible 4y ago
You might have misunderstood Section 230(c)(2) Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." I.e.: you can remove some content without being considered an editor reponsible for all content
savingsPossible 4y ago
Is it transphobia to argue if children should have access to surgery? To argue about puberty blockers? To argue about therapies different than transition for dysphoria? Society is changing, and people want to discuss it. To be heard. Yes, that makes change harder and slower. But you absolutely do not get to choose the "right" solution and call everyone that is concerned and unconvinced "transphobic" Eg: https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-lawmaker-files-bill-to-prohibit-gender-transition-services-for-young-people https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-lawmaker-files... Pretty weird if something can be discussed in legislature, but not on twitter I don't know that I agree with him. I'd need epidemiological data. But that is not the point. The point is that we, as a society, need to discuss.
- jmyeet 4y ago
  > Is it transphobia to argue if children should have access to surgery? It is transphobia to deliberately and knowingly lie that children are getting gender confirmation surgery. Because they aren't. > To argue about puberty blockers? Puberty blockers are non-invasive and reversible and given as medical care for harm reduction. Why do you think what medical care someone gets is anyone else's business? More importantly though, such discourse is never in good faith. > Pretty weird if something can be discussed in legislature, but not on twitter It's still misinformation and hate speech when it's "discussed" in bad faith by reactionary state legislatures. > The point is that we, as a society, need to discuss. First ask yourself why anyone else gets a say in another person's medical care. It's really no one else's business.
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    The most interesting thing about your reply is that you are, yourself, parroting misinformation. Children are being subject to surgery, and puberty blockers are not “non-invasive and reversible”. This is trivially verifiable and well-documented, including, most recently, in the New York Times; that you’d label objective, obvious truths as “transphobia” demonstrates exactly why we need robust, open discourse. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/health/puberty-blockers-transgender.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/health/puberty-blockers-t...

by jmyeet 4y ago

savingsPossible 4y ago

You might have misunderstood Section 230(c)(2) Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." I.e.: you can remove some content without being considered an editor reponsible for all content

savingsPossible 4y ago

Is it transphobia to argue if children should have access to surgery? To argue about puberty blockers? To argue about therapies different than transition for dysphoria? Society is changing, and people want to discuss it. To be heard. Yes, that makes change harder and slower. But you absolutely do not get to choose the "right" solution and call everyone that is concerned and unconvinced "transphobic" Eg: https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-lawmaker-files-bill-to-prohibit-gender-transition-services-for-young-people https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-lawmaker-files... Pretty weird if something can be discussed in legislature, but not on twitter I don't know that I agree with him. I'd need epidemiological data. But that is not the point. The point is that we, as a society, need to discuss.

jmyeet 4y ago
> Is it transphobia to argue if children should have access to surgery? It is transphobia to deliberately and knowingly lie that children are getting gender confirmation surgery. Because they aren't. > To argue about puberty blockers? Puberty blockers are non-invasive and reversible and given as medical care for harm reduction. Why do you think what medical care someone gets is anyone else's business? More importantly though, such discourse is never in good faith. > Pretty weird if something can be discussed in legislature, but not on twitter It's still misinformation and hate speech when it's "discussed" in bad faith by reactionary state legislatures. > The point is that we, as a society, need to discuss. First ask yourself why anyone else gets a say in another person's medical care. It's really no one else's business.
- catiopatio 4y ago
  The most interesting thing about your reply is that you are, yourself, parroting misinformation. Children are being subject to surgery, and puberty blockers are not “non-invasive and reversible”. This is trivially verifiable and well-documented, including, most recently, in the New York Times; that you’d label objective, obvious truths as “transphobia” demonstrates exactly why we need robust, open discourse. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/health/puberty-blockers-transgender.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/health/puberty-blockers-t...