6 ms·

Huge sections of the internet and entire companies would likely die off if Section 230 was removed. It would be pretty crazy if this happened. reddit for exampl

by edm0nd 2y ago

Huge sections of the internet and entire companies would likely die off if Section 230 was removed. It would be pretty crazy if this happened. reddit for example.

wakawaka28 2y ago
If they do anything to Section 230, I assume it will be some kind of revision to handle the case of news feeds and page ranking algorithms, and potential fake users. If social media sites stopped manipulating content feeds and let things happen organically so far as provided by the First Amendment and relevant laws, no change would actually be needed. But if they want to assume a role analogous to Editor in Chief then they get to share the blame for what they push. That seems OK to me.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- igetspam 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    How about addressing the merits of my points instead of slinging mud and calling on a horde of lemmings to silence me? Your gay cake dog whistle says a lot about you. Do you want LGBT bakers to be forced to bake obscene cakes for Muslims who hate them? People should have some discretion in choosing the work they do. A special order item at a bakery is not the same kind of issue as getting service off a menu in a restaurant open to the public. There is ample evidence of media lying to suit "liberals" (who really aren't). Social media was censored largely (though not entirely) by Democrats as exposed by Matt Taibbi. This isn't any conspiracy theory, it's documented fact. Elon Musk spent $44 billion just to give us the proof and open things back up again. If you actually care about free speech like a true liberal then you should be singing his praises.
    - consteval 2y ago
      > Your gay cake dog whistle says a lot about you That's not the correct usage of dog whistle. > People should have some discretion in choosing the work they do Oh, so you are now magically in favor of 230? If people should have some discretion, then why should I, a private social media company, be forced to provide bandwidth and data for speech I don't agree with? Why is it fine that I can withhold icing from homosexuals, but I can't withhold database rows from racists? > Elon Musk spent $44 billion just to give us the proof and open things back up again Using X as an example is a poor choice. Elon Musk is not a champion of free speech, and he regularly amplifies conservative voices. Also, the incidence on of the n-word on Twitter went up, like, an order of magnitude under his rule. I don't want to see the n-word on Twitter. I don't want to see tweets of scummy men threatening to rape women. Do you? Probably not. X then is an example of what NOT to do.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        >That's not the correct usage of dog whistle. Close enough. >Oh, so you are now magically in favor of 230? I'm saying you can't not be an editor yet do editorial things at the same time. >If people should have some discretion, then why should I, a private social media company, be forced to provide bandwidth and data for speech I don't agree with? There are multiple problems with this. For one, the government has been asking "private" companies to take stuff down. The act of asking alone is a form of intimidation. Secondly, even private companies can be public commons. The sheer scale of social media and the way that different sites seemingly coordinate to ban people they don't like (often in tandem with the government) is a threat to free speech. >Why is it fine that I can withhold icing from homosexuals, but I can't withhold database rows from racists? Because democracy and critical individual rights do not rely on being able to get cake from a particular person or company? There's no conspiracy among bakers to deprive these people of cake, after all. This is a prime example of fishing for lawsuits. It's not about the cake, it's about deliberately disrespecting and offending one guy to the point where he would risk losing money in a lawsuit to fight them off. Just as your employer cannot compel speech just because they pay you, the customer of a baker should not be able to compel speech from him either. In both cases, the employed person should be able to refuse work. Here's another example: Should a printer be able to refuse to print some booklets he disagrees with? I'm sure he does not have to. The cake thing is very much like that. >Using X as an example is a poor choice. I didn't say it was an example of shining free speech. I said it was an example of government censorship exposed to the world. I know X is not perfect but it is freer than practically any other social media right now. >Elon Musk is not a champion of free speech, and he regularly amplifies conservative voices. Also, the incidence on of the n-word on Twitter went up, like, an order of magnitude under his rule. First of all, X is much freer than it has been in a long time. I know it isn't perfect but you won't find anything on that scale that is remotely as permissive for free speech. I don't think Musk is excessively promoting conservatives, despite sponsoring them in politics. Liberals simply forgot that many conservatives even existed because they were all strategically purged from the old Twitter, an action which goes against Western liberal values of free speech. Conservatives generally aren't racist, but that is the trope that the leftists have put forward about them. If you look for it you will find many instances of racism against every race online. Racist comments against white people (and sometimes against Asian people) are allowed on Twitter and every other social media platform. In most cases women are given carte blanche to defame and demonize men in general and in particular. The only thing that has changed with X now is people aren't being banned for most legal speech. As I said, X isn't a perfect fountain of free speech but it is at least much better than it was. >I don't want to see the n-word on Twitter. I don't want to see tweets of scummy men threatening to rape women. Do you? Probably not. X then is an example of what NOT to do. I don't especially enjoy seeing scummy posts either. But threats are legally actionable speech and do get taken down off of X. As for offensive things, I'm sure we all have opinions that offend someone. Free speech with all the mistakes and friction that it entails is what led our civilization to where it is. In a marketplace of ideas, the best ideas win. But if you put your thumb on the scales and gaslight everyone, eventually that will lead to huge problems. It may come as a shock to you but the N-word was not always this absurdly charged third rail. People used to say it all the time regardless of their race. Everyone went from thinking it was slightly profane to so awful that any black person in earshot has the license to kill the speaker if they happen to be white. I am only slightly exaggerating. People are now getting in trouble for talking about the word itself. One professor got fired for simply pointing out that there was a Chinese word that sounded almost the same. I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of filtering mode, like a "safe search" or "parental filter" that can easily be turned off, just to satisfy people like yourself. I'm not a kid or a thin-skinned adult so I want it off. People died fighting to create a system that gives us the right to say what's on our mind. Don't take that for granted.
mike503 2y ago
Also truth social and twitter.
- dnissley 2y ago
  Likely hacker news as well

by edm0nd 2y ago

Huge sections of the internet and entire companies would likely die off if Section 230 was removed. It would be pretty crazy if this happened. reddit for example.

wakawaka28 2y ago

If they do anything to Section 230, I assume it will be some kind of revision to handle the case of news feeds and page ranking algorithms, and potential fake users. If social media sites stopped manipulating content feeds and let things happen organically so far as provided by the First Amendment and relevant laws, no change would actually be needed. But if they want to assume a role analogous to Editor in Chief then they get to share the blame for what they push. That seems OK to me.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
igetspam 2y ago
[flagged]
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  How about addressing the merits of my points instead of slinging mud and calling on a horde of lemmings to silence me? Your gay cake dog whistle says a lot about you. Do you want LGBT bakers to be forced to bake obscene cakes for Muslims who hate them? People should have some discretion in choosing the work they do. A special order item at a bakery is not the same kind of issue as getting service off a menu in a restaurant open to the public. There is ample evidence of media lying to suit "liberals" (who really aren't). Social media was censored largely (though not entirely) by Democrats as exposed by Matt Taibbi. This isn't any conspiracy theory, it's documented fact. Elon Musk spent $44 billion just to give us the proof and open things back up again. If you actually care about free speech like a true liberal then you should be singing his praises.
  - consteval 2y ago
    > Your gay cake dog whistle says a lot about you That's not the correct usage of dog whistle. > People should have some discretion in choosing the work they do Oh, so you are now magically in favor of 230? If people should have some discretion, then why should I, a private social media company, be forced to provide bandwidth and data for speech I don't agree with? Why is it fine that I can withhold icing from homosexuals, but I can't withhold database rows from racists? > Elon Musk spent $44 billion just to give us the proof and open things back up again Using X as an example is a poor choice. Elon Musk is not a champion of free speech, and he regularly amplifies conservative voices. Also, the incidence on of the n-word on Twitter went up, like, an order of magnitude under his rule. I don't want to see the n-word on Twitter. I don't want to see tweets of scummy men threatening to rape women. Do you? Probably not. X then is an example of what NOT to do.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      >That's not the correct usage of dog whistle. Close enough. >Oh, so you are now magically in favor of 230? I'm saying you can't not be an editor yet do editorial things at the same time. >If people should have some discretion, then why should I, a private social media company, be forced to provide bandwidth and data for speech I don't agree with? There are multiple problems with this. For one, the government has been asking "private" companies to take stuff down. The act of asking alone is a form of intimidation. Secondly, even private companies can be public commons. The sheer scale of social media and the way that different sites seemingly coordinate to ban people they don't like (often in tandem with the government) is a threat to free speech. >Why is it fine that I can withhold icing from homosexuals, but I can't withhold database rows from racists? Because democracy and critical individual rights do not rely on being able to get cake from a particular person or company? There's no conspiracy among bakers to deprive these people of cake, after all. This is a prime example of fishing for lawsuits. It's not about the cake, it's about deliberately disrespecting and offending one guy to the point where he would risk losing money in a lawsuit to fight them off. Just as your employer cannot compel speech just because they pay you, the customer of a baker should not be able to compel speech from him either. In both cases, the employed person should be able to refuse work. Here's another example: Should a printer be able to refuse to print some booklets he disagrees with? I'm sure he does not have to. The cake thing is very much like that. >Using X as an example is a poor choice. I didn't say it was an example of shining free speech. I said it was an example of government censorship exposed to the world. I know X is not perfect but it is freer than practically any other social media right now. >Elon Musk is not a champion of free speech, and he regularly amplifies conservative voices. Also, the incidence on of the n-word on Twitter went up, like, an order of magnitude under his rule. First of all, X is much freer than it has been in a long time. I know it isn't perfect but you won't find anything on that scale that is remotely as permissive for free speech. I don't think Musk is excessively promoting conservatives, despite sponsoring them in politics. Liberals simply forgot that many conservatives even existed because they were all strategically purged from the old Twitter, an action which goes against Western liberal values of free speech. Conservatives generally aren't racist, but that is the trope that the leftists have put forward about them. If you look for it you will find many instances of racism against every race online. Racist comments against white people (and sometimes against Asian people) are allowed on Twitter and every other social media platform. In most cases women are given carte blanche to defame and demonize men in general and in particular. The only thing that has changed with X now is people aren't being banned for most legal speech. As I said, X isn't a perfect fountain of free speech but it is at least much better than it was. >I don't want to see the n-word on Twitter. I don't want to see tweets of scummy men threatening to rape women. Do you? Probably not. X then is an example of what NOT to do. I don't especially enjoy seeing scummy posts either. But threats are legally actionable speech and do get taken down off of X. As for offensive things, I'm sure we all have opinions that offend someone. Free speech with all the mistakes and friction that it entails is what led our civilization to where it is. In a marketplace of ideas, the best ideas win. But if you put your thumb on the scales and gaslight everyone, eventually that will lead to huge problems. It may come as a shock to you but the N-word was not always this absurdly charged third rail. People used to say it all the time regardless of their race. Everyone went from thinking it was slightly profane to so awful that any black person in earshot has the license to kill the speaker if they happen to be white. I am only slightly exaggerating. People are now getting in trouble for talking about the word itself. One professor got fired for simply pointing out that there was a Chinese word that sounded almost the same. I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of filtering mode, like a "safe search" or "parental filter" that can easily be turned off, just to satisfy people like yourself. I'm not a kid or a thin-skinned adult so I want it off. People died fighting to create a system that gives us the right to say what's on our mind. Don't take that for granted.

mike503 2y ago

Also truth social and twitter.

dnissley 2y ago
Likely hacker news as well