I bet you scream about your first amendment rights being violated whenever a moderator deletes your posts.
A problem is that social media websites are simultaneously open platforms with Section 230 protections, and also publishers who have free speech rights. Those are contradictory, so which is it?
Perhaps @rottingleaf was speaking morally rather than legally. For example, I might say "I believe everyone in America should have access to healthcare"; if you respond "no, there is no right to healthcare" you would be right, but you missed my point. I was expressing an moral aspiration.
I think shadowbans are a bad mix of censorship and hard to detect. Morally, I believe they should be illegal. If a company wants to ban someone, they can be up front about it with a regular ban; make it clear what they are doing. To implement this legally, we could alter Section 230 protections so that they don't apply to companies performing shadowbans.
They are in no way publishers...ugh you people who don't know shit about the law are insufferable.
Feel free to educate us instead of just saying the equivalent of "you're wrong and I hate reading comments like yours".
But I think, in general, the alteration to Section 230 that they are proposing makes sense as a way to keep these companies in check for practices like shadowbanning especially if those tools are abused for political purposes.
I bet you think this reply was sharp-minded and on spot and something else.
How much would you like to bet? I accept PayPal.
Oh, if this is not a figure of speech, then how much was your bet? I accept BTC (being in a sanctioned country and all that).
Mine was, of course, this is not worth a penny to me, I already know your measure.
If you would bet nothing, I guess you don't actually believe your own words.
Thanks for admitting what you said was false. I think we can move on now.
If you would bet nothing, I guess you don’t actually believe your own words.
There are a few factors, one of them is your value as a person.
Thanks for admitting what you said was false.
Why would you say that if that's false?
What is my value as a person?
And your question makes absolutely no sense.
Negligible, like the effort to type this sentence.
I'll repeat - why would you say that I "admitted" something when I didn't?
And your considering people to be of lesser value than yourself is noted. I'm sure you'll be a help when the genocide comes.
And your considering people to be of lesser value than yourself is noted.
And that's fully my right and that's normal. Nobody owes you anything.
I’m sure you’ll be a help when the genocide comes.
You've just devalued this word a little bit only to support your own arrogance. This shows that I'm correct.
By the way, my strategy in such conversations is defined by just one realization in my childhood - that for any genocide I don't want to be an accomplice.
Yes, I know it's your right to consider people subhuman. And yes, that's normal. Normal for genocide.
Subhumans don't deserve human rights, now do they?
Don't say you don't want to be an accomplice to genocide if you talk about human beings as if they aren't humans.
You are a shitty human being, now get off me
Interesting accusation coming from someone who made a vague accusation about me, refused to clarify, then lied about clarifying.
Seems sort of a shitty way to behave to me, but I'm not the one who judges this sort of thing.
I bet you scream about your first amendment rights being violated whenever a moderator deletes your posts.
A problem is that social media websites are simultaneously open platforms with Section 230 protections, and also publishers who have free speech rights. Those are contradictory, so which is it?
Perhaps @rottingleaf was speaking morally rather than legally. For example, I might say "I believe everyone in America should have access to healthcare"; if you respond "no, there is no right to healthcare" you would be right, but you missed my point. I was expressing an moral aspiration.
I think shadowbans are a bad mix of censorship and hard to detect. Morally, I believe they should be illegal. If a company wants to ban someone, they can be up front about it with a regular ban; make it clear what they are doing. To implement this legally, we could alter Section 230 protections so that they don't apply to companies performing shadowbans.
They are in no way publishers...ugh you people who don't know shit about the law are insufferable.
Feel free to educate us instead of just saying the equivalent of "you're wrong and I hate reading comments like yours".
But I think, in general, the alteration to Section 230 that they are proposing makes sense as a way to keep these companies in check for practices like shadowbanning especially if those tools are abused for political purposes.
I bet you think this reply was sharp-minded and on spot and something else.
How much would you like to bet? I accept PayPal.
Oh, if this is not a figure of speech, then how much was your bet? I accept BTC (being in a sanctioned country and all that).
Mine was, of course, this is not worth a penny to me, I already know your measure.
If you would bet nothing, I guess you don't actually believe your own words.
Thanks for admitting what you said was false. I think we can move on now.
There are a few factors, one of them is your value as a person.
Why would you say that if that's false?
What is my value as a person?
And your question makes absolutely no sense.
Negligible, like the effort to type this sentence.
I'll repeat - why would you say that I "admitted" something when I didn't?
https://www.lsd.law/define/tacit-admission
And your considering people to be of lesser value than yourself is noted. I'm sure you'll be a help when the genocide comes.
And that's fully my right and that's normal. Nobody owes you anything.
You've just devalued this word a little bit only to support your own arrogance. This shows that I'm correct.
By the way, my strategy in such conversations is defined by just one realization in my childhood - that for any genocide I don't want to be an accomplice.
Yes, I know it's your right to consider people subhuman. And yes, that's normal. Normal for genocide.
Subhumans don't deserve human rights, now do they?
Don't say you don't want to be an accomplice to genocide if you talk about human beings as if they aren't humans.
You are a shitty human being, now get off me
Interesting accusation coming from someone who made a vague accusation about me, refused to clarify, then lied about clarifying.
Seems sort of a shitty way to behave to me, but I'm not the one who judges this sort of thing.