3 ms·

>If you engage in editorializing (read: controlling) content beyond what is necessary to comply with laws and regulations (eg: no child porn, no tangible death

>If you engage in editorializing (read: controlling) content beyond what is necessary to comply with laws and regulations (eg: no child porn, no tangible death threats), then you should be liable for the content you subsequently publish. So how do you propose forums deal with spam?

throwawaylinux 4y ago
Some reasonable terms of service might be required. Punishing political opinions or criticisms of corporations or governments, allowing government agencies to spread misinformation and censor people, etc., is certainly not necessary for dealing with spam though.
- Gh0stRAT 4y ago
  …and what happens when spammers realize they can mix in a political opinion with their Canadian pharmacy spam in order to gain immunity from the filters? Prepare for a world of spam like: "Your car's extended warranty is about to expire unless you act NOW. Press 1 to connect to a specialist, or press 2 to acknowledge that the FCC should be dismantled." All of a sudden, removing spam is stifling political speech and is forbidden.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    Still looks like spam to me. Arguing minutiae about what exactly spam looks like or the technical details of how it would get filtered is putting the cart before the horse though, and pretty pointless to get bogged into here. First you agree on the principles, and then you can talk about how they might be implemented and regulated. Do you agree in general that political opinion should not be punished or censored? If not you can just say that, no need to come up with increasingly byzantine ways that it couldn't be made to work.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      If it still looks like spam to you then we are right back where we started, with people disagreeing about what counts as essential speech to protect and what doesn't.
    - Gh0stRAT 4y ago
      I think people should be free to make spaces where they exclude some things as off-topic, flamebait, trolling, etc. eg If I want to run a forum about woodworking then I should be free to remove posts about abortion, guns, CRT, or whatever political hot button issue people might post about. In principal, I think the 1st amendment protects us from the government censoring speech, not from private parties doing so.
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        Okay. No need to support your position with flimsy hypotheticals about spam then.
        Gh0stRAT 4y ago
        I led with the spam hypothetical because I think it seems (from my perspective) to be inevitable and doesn't depend on us sharing the same (rather American) axioms around free speech.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        It's not productive to get bogged down into technical minutiae about how you might and might not cope with examples of spam. And it's not depending on us sharing those axioms, the point was to establish what the fundamental stance is on the point being debated. Presumably we're commenting on American courts, American laws, affecting Americans and an American corporation, so it seems like a good thing we're using a rather American frame of reference.
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        >people should be free to make spaces where they exclude some things They are. The problem is such people want that freedom with none of the liability.
Dalewyn 4y ago
You don't. Seriously. That is the price for avoiding liability: To be able to say you had nothing to do with it beyond providing a platform and abiding other applicable laws.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  So I have to allow my resources to be clogged up by others who have no skin in the game? It is my harddrive, I get to choose the ones and zeros on my private property. You do not get to fill them up with spam that I have to maintain forever.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    You're welcome to control what goes on your hard drive, but the price is (or at least should be) you're assuming liability.

throwawaylinux 4y ago

Some reasonable terms of service might be required. Punishing political opinions or criticisms of corporations or governments, allowing government agencies to spread misinformation and censor people, etc., is certainly not necessary for dealing with spam though.

Gh0stRAT 4y ago
…and what happens when spammers realize they can mix in a political opinion with their Canadian pharmacy spam in order to gain immunity from the filters? Prepare for a world of spam like: "Your car's extended warranty is about to expire unless you act NOW. Press 1 to connect to a specialist, or press 2 to acknowledge that the FCC should be dismantled." All of a sudden, removing spam is stifling political speech and is forbidden.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  Still looks like spam to me. Arguing minutiae about what exactly spam looks like or the technical details of how it would get filtered is putting the cart before the horse though, and pretty pointless to get bogged into here. First you agree on the principles, and then you can talk about how they might be implemented and regulated. Do you agree in general that political opinion should not be punished or censored? If not you can just say that, no need to come up with increasingly byzantine ways that it couldn't be made to work.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    If it still looks like spam to you then we are right back where we started, with people disagreeing about what counts as essential speech to protect and what doesn't.
  - Gh0stRAT 4y ago
    I think people should be free to make spaces where they exclude some things as off-topic, flamebait, trolling, etc. eg If I want to run a forum about woodworking then I should be free to remove posts about abortion, guns, CRT, or whatever political hot button issue people might post about. In principal, I think the 1st amendment protects us from the government censoring speech, not from private parties doing so.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      Okay. No need to support your position with flimsy hypotheticals about spam then.
      - Gh0stRAT 4y ago
        I led with the spam hypothetical because I think it seems (from my perspective) to be inevitable and doesn't depend on us sharing the same (rather American) axioms around free speech.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        It's not productive to get bogged down into technical minutiae about how you might and might not cope with examples of spam. And it's not depending on us sharing those axioms, the point was to establish what the fundamental stance is on the point being debated. Presumably we're commenting on American courts, American laws, affecting Americans and an American corporation, so it seems like a good thing we're using a rather American frame of reference.
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      >people should be free to make spaces where they exclude some things They are. The problem is such people want that freedom with none of the liability.

Dalewyn 4y ago

You don't. Seriously. That is the price for avoiding liability: To be able to say you had nothing to do with it beyond providing a platform and abiding other applicable laws.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nickthegreek 4y ago
So I have to allow my resources to be clogged up by others who have no skin in the game? It is my harddrive, I get to choose the ones and zeros on my private property. You do not get to fill them up with spam that I have to maintain forever.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  You're welcome to control what goes on your hard drive, but the price is (or at least should be) you're assuming liability.