4 ms·

So you're saying the banning substacks or any blogs with ads from posting (w/o registering with the state and filing monthly reports) is ok because people can s

So you're saying the banning substacks or any blogs with ads from posting (w/o registering with the state and filing monthly reports) is ok because people can still post about their government on sites where they aren't compensated? That's not a justification for this proposed law at all to me...

jjulius 4y ago
If you wouldn't mind showing where I tried to argue that something "is ok" or tried to justify the proposed bill, that would be great. My intent was simply to highlight a detail that I thought was worth mentioning, and I'm pretty sure I didn't try to argue one way or the other in that post. Hell, if you look further down the comment chain you'll see where I agree that the bill is BS...
- foogazi 4y ago
  Why do we need to look at all your comments to draw conclusions from one comment You wrote: > Ordinary folks ability to go to blogger, tumblr, substack, wherever and start posting about their local politicians will not be restricted. How do you know this ? How do you know they won’t sue you to disclose your payments or look at your bank accounts Florida will put you in jail for talking to your wife if you criticize the government https://theintercept.com/2023/02/05/ron-desantis-florida-villages-oren-miller/ https://theintercept.com/2023/02/05/ron-desantis-florida-vil...
  - jjulius 4y ago
    Again - please show me where I argued that this bill "is ok" or is "justified". All I did was highlight what the bill said. If folk want to assume, as you are, that that's not enough, fine, that was exactly why I tried to point out that detail in an unbiased manner - to foster discussion around the detail, not have words put in my mouth for simply going, "Uhh, hey guys, anyone see this?". If I failed, cool, but that's why I've asked you to show me where I actively argued in support of this bill. That way I can actively make myself clear in the future.
    - BoiledCabbage 4y ago
      > Again - please show me where I argued that this bill "is ok" or is "justified". So here's the explanation. > Okay, there is a huge detail missing from Ars' report, and a lot of reports about this, that is key here. You wrote here that there is a huge detail missing that is key. Implying that this missing detail, being so huge, has a change on the proposed law. There is no huge detail at all. Without your clarification they were drastically down on free-speech, with the detail they are drastically clamping down on free speech. Writing what you wrote implies that if people understood the detail it would be a different situation and there isn't an issue there. That isn't the case. The detail you were referring to was people receiving any payment. Substacks receive compensation, blogs with ads receive compensation, people with afiliate links receive compensation. Saying all of these people have to register with the government first before criticizing it is horrible and just as horrible if it were all bloggers. That is not a critical detail at all. It's like saying the law comes out and then someone runs up and says "hey everyone is missing a critical detail, it's only restricting people of a specific ethnicity from criticizing the government". That is not a critical detail at all and has no bearing on anything anyone posted. No different than positing "it's only restricting people wearing blue jeans, not everyone." That is not a critical detail, it's an irrelevant detail. And saying it's critical implies that people now need to interpret the law differently an implicitly says it's not as negative as people are saying it is. All of those are wrong. That's why everyone who is responding to you is saying exactly what they are - because your post is implying (unintentionally apparently) that that detail changes how horrible the proposed law is.
      - jjulius 4y ago
        Thank you.

jjulius 4y ago

If you wouldn't mind showing where I tried to argue that something "is ok" or tried to justify the proposed bill, that would be great. My intent was simply to highlight a detail that I thought was worth mentioning, and I'm pretty sure I didn't try to argue one way or the other in that post. Hell, if you look further down the comment chain you'll see where I agree that the bill is BS...

foogazi 4y ago
Why do we need to look at all your comments to draw conclusions from one comment You wrote: > Ordinary folks ability to go to blogger, tumblr, substack, wherever and start posting about their local politicians will not be restricted. How do you know this ? How do you know they won’t sue you to disclose your payments or look at your bank accounts Florida will put you in jail for talking to your wife if you criticize the government https://theintercept.com/2023/02/05/ron-desantis-florida-villages-oren-miller/ https://theintercept.com/2023/02/05/ron-desantis-florida-vil...
- jjulius 4y ago
  Again - please show me where I argued that this bill "is ok" or is "justified". All I did was highlight what the bill said. If folk want to assume, as you are, that that's not enough, fine, that was exactly why I tried to point out that detail in an unbiased manner - to foster discussion around the detail, not have words put in my mouth for simply going, "Uhh, hey guys, anyone see this?". If I failed, cool, but that's why I've asked you to show me where I actively argued in support of this bill. That way I can actively make myself clear in the future.
  - BoiledCabbage 4y ago
    > Again - please show me where I argued that this bill "is ok" or is "justified". So here's the explanation. > Okay, there is a huge detail missing from Ars' report, and a lot of reports about this, that is key here. You wrote here that there is a huge detail missing that is key. Implying that this missing detail, being so huge, has a change on the proposed law. There is no huge detail at all. Without your clarification they were drastically down on free-speech, with the detail they are drastically clamping down on free speech. Writing what you wrote implies that if people understood the detail it would be a different situation and there isn't an issue there. That isn't the case. The detail you were referring to was people receiving any payment. Substacks receive compensation, blogs with ads receive compensation, people with afiliate links receive compensation. Saying all of these people have to register with the government first before criticizing it is horrible and just as horrible if it were all bloggers. That is not a critical detail at all. It's like saying the law comes out and then someone runs up and says "hey everyone is missing a critical detail, it's only restricting people of a specific ethnicity from criticizing the government". That is not a critical detail at all and has no bearing on anything anyone posted. No different than positing "it's only restricting people wearing blue jeans, not everyone." That is not a critical detail, it's an irrelevant detail. And saying it's critical implies that people now need to interpret the law differently an implicitly says it's not as negative as people are saying it is. All of those are wrong. That's why everyone who is responding to you is saying exactly what they are - because your post is implying (unintentionally apparently) that that detail changes how horrible the proposed law is.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      Thank you.