These FIVE men control your freedom

[EOTB]

True libertarianism is telling all of America they need to learn to code.

[consolcwby]

What happens when Microsoft decides your political viewpoint 'violates' their terms of service?

You thank Linus Torvalds, and move on.

Oh, so Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, and Google Cloud services play no part in datacenters...

Buy your own server. They're not that expensive, and they're an important part of a backup plan.

You think of all this in the most simplistic terms! That's okay. You just don't know. But you WILL find out soon enough!
Take care of yourself Pat, and good luck in all you do!

[GameDaddy]

Trump was forced by the Supreme Court to allow everyone to see his Tweets.
But Jack Beaner can decide to stop everyone from seeing Trumps tweets.

Well, I never saw Trumps Tweets, because I didn't follow him on Twitter. So the Supreme Court was tremendously unsuccessful in allowing me to see his Tweets. as in epic fail level.

Jack can decide to stop everyone from seeing Trump tweets, but If I wasn't seeing the tweets in the first place, ...will I still hear the screams of outrage?...

Jack can do whatever he wants with Twitter. I'm still on it now because there are a few muggles I keep in touch with there. chances are, it won't last though, something better will come along, or someone will launch a Nuke into space and EMP fry all the lectronics in the western hemishere, and then Jack, along with everyone else, won't be able to  do anything with Twitter at all. My suggestion is to prepare for that day and figure out another way to stay in touch with your muggle friends. One that doesn't rely on Jack, or any of Jacks' services.

[Ghostmaker]

Trump was forced by the Supreme Court to allow everyone to see his Tweets.
But Jack Beaner can decide to stop everyone from seeing Trumps tweets.

Well, I never saw Trumps Tweets, because I didn't follow him on Twitter. So the Supreme Court was tremendously unsuccessful in allowing me to see his Tweets. as in epic fail level.

Jack can decide to stop everyone from seeing Trump tweets, but If I wasn't seeing the tweets in the first place, ...will I still hear the screams of outrage?...

Jack can do whatever he wants with Twitter. I'm still on it now because there are a few muggles I keep in touch with there. chances are, it won't last though, something better will come along, or someone will launch a Nuke into space and EMP fry all the lectronics in the western hemishere, and then Jack, along with everyone else, won't be able to  do anything with Twitter at all. My suggestion is to prepare for that day and figure out another way to stay in touch with your muggle friends. One that doesn't rely on Jack, or any of Jacks' services.

Sigh. The problem isn't 'Jack can do what he wants with Twitter'. Because, yeah, he can, short of a First Amendment ruling (which would open up a can of worms I'm not comfortable with).

The problem is that Jack and his buddies will happily kneecap competitors. So the whole 'if you don't like it, start your own X' meme falls apart, because you are prevented from doing so.

[jhkim]

Sigh. The problem isn't 'Jack can do what he wants with Twitter'. Because, yeah, he can, short of a First Amendment ruling (which would open up a can of worms I'm not comfortable with).

The problem is that Jack and his buddies will happily kneecap competitors. So the whole 'if you don't like it, start your own X' meme falls apart, because you are prevented from doing so.

What do you mean by "kneecap" here?

All businesses will do steps that try to undercut the competition. They'll be sneaky, underhanded, and mean in trying to crush their competitors. What they *shouldn't* be allowed to do is things that are illegal, like actually breaking people's kneecaps, smashing servers, and the like.

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

[Ratman_tf]

Sigh. The problem isn't 'Jack can do what he wants with Twitter'. Because, yeah, he can, short of a First Amendment ruling (which would open up a can of worms I'm not comfortable with).

The problem is that Jack and his buddies will happily kneecap competitors. So the whole 'if you don't like it, start your own X' meme falls apart, because you are prevented from doing so.

What do you mean by "kneecap" here?

All businesses will do steps that try to undercut the competition. They'll be sneaky, underhanded, and mean in trying to crush their competitors. What they *shouldn't* be allowed to do is things that are illegal, like actually breaking people's kneecaps, smashing servers, and the like.

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

So let's say an authoritairan, tyrranical faction takes control of the public square, and uses purely legal and legitimate means to sieze control of the cultural levers of power, do we tolerate that? Where do we draw the line? When do we draw the line? Do we draw the line or just go along with things?

I'd like to point out that Jim Crow was legal, and slavery was legal at one time. And people resisted sometimes using illegal, non-violent resistance. And sometimes violent resistance.

[EOTB]

You’ve participated in this thread, not knowing the circumstances and situation people are discussing; requiring a bespoke summarization of the issue at hand

 

[Shasarak]

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

For a start they allow propagation of hate speech allowing for example the trending of the "Hang Mike Pence" hash tag.

They also allow death threats and doxxing for example the right wing white supremacist hate group “ShutDown DC” recently doxxed Sen. Josh Hawley.

[jhkim]

All businesses will do steps that try to undercut the competition. They'll be sneaky, underhanded, and mean in trying to crush their competitors. What they *shouldn't* be allowed to do is things that are illegal, like actually breaking people's kneecaps, smashing servers, and the like.

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

So let's say an authoritairan, tyrranical faction takes control of the public square, and uses purely legal and legitimate means to sieze control of the cultural levers of power, do we tolerate that? Where do we draw the line? When do we draw the line? Do we draw the line or just go along with things?

I'd like to point out that Jim Crow was legal, and slavery was legal at one time. And people resisted sometimes using illegal, non-violent resistance. And sometimes violent resistance.

Well, that was part of my question - what do you think should be made illegal? The solution to legal slavery was the 13th Amendment. The solution to Jim Crow was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. How do you think the law should change to deal with Twitter and Facebook, then?

For myself, I think abolition, women's rights, and the Civil Rights movements are all good models about how to go about trying to shut down popular authoritarian ideas. They were all largely addressed within the legal system. As for specifically how to deal with Twitter and Facebook -- there can be some legal changes to make things harder for them. We should enact more serious online privacy protection laws, similar to what the EU has, to limit selling people's personal data. Also, the corporations could be broken up to a degree using antitrust laws. But I think the main pushback against them has to be cultural - talk up more about how they are a problem. We can't enact the laws until a majority of people favor such laws.

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

For a start they allow propagation of hate speech allowing for example the trending of the "Hang Mike Pence" hash tag.

They also allow death threats and doxxing for example the right wing white supremacist hate group “ShutDown DC” recently doxxed Sen. Josh Hawley.

Hate speech isn't illegal, at least within the United States. In the UK or Germany someone can be put in jail for doing a nazi salute or similar -- but I don't think that's a good thing.

Death threats are currently illegal, and should be prosecuted - but Section 230 limits Twitter's liability for someone's death threats. Doxxing often isn't even illegal - though it should be - and similarly Section 230 limits liability. I think that Section 230 should be reformed to be conditional. The only way that liability is limited is that the service has to conform to a choice of one of a few national content standards, and users can then have legal redress if they are banned for reasons outside those.

[Shasarak]

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

For a start they allow propagation of hate speech allowing for example the trending of the "Hang Mike Pence" hash tag.

They also allow death threats and doxxing for example the right wing white supremacist hate group “ShutDown DC” recently doxxed Sen. Josh Hawley.

I just heard about Twitter being sued for refusing to remove child porn because it didn’t ‘violate policies’

https://nypost.com/2021/01/21/twitter-sued-for-allegedly-refusing-to-remove-child-porn/

[Shasarak]

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

For a start they allow propagation of hate speech allowing for example the trending of the "Hang Mike Pence" hash tag.

They also allow death threats and doxxing for example the right wing white supremacist hate group “ShutDown DC” recently doxxed Sen. Josh Hawley.

Hate speech isn't illegal, at least within the United States. In the UK or Germany someone can be put in jail for doing a nazi salute or similar -- but I don't think that's a good thing.

Death threats are currently illegal, and should be prosecuted - but Section 230 limits Twitter's liability for someone's death threats. Doxxing often isn't even illegal - though it should be - and similarly Section 230 limits liability. I think that Section 230 should be reformed to be conditional. The only way that liability is limited is that the service has to conform to a choice of one of a few national content standards, and users can then have legal redress if they are banned for reasons outside those.

What about child porn?  Is that illegal in the US or covered under the freedom of speech laws?

[jhkim]

What about child porn?  Is that illegal in the US or covered under the freedom of speech laws?

That's illegal, as I think you know, and can and should be prosecuted.

Under Section 230, Twitter, Gmail, and other app providers have limited liability for users who send child porn, though. In the article you just linked, the issue is - was this a negligent employee who just sent a form letter rather than doing their job in taking down content? Or did Twitter as a company knowingly allow child porn as policy? On search on child porn and Twitter, I see recent cases where Twitter turned in information that lead to the arrest of those sharing child porn.

A local man was arrested and charged in December after Twitter reported he had been sharing child pornography on its website.

Source: https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/local-man-arrested-for-reportedly-sharing-child-porn-on-twitter/article_66e92831-5977-57e5-b443-528eefa63b83.html

Google, Twitter alert authorities to 76-year-old man sharing child porn images

Source: https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/13/marionville-man-admits-share-child-porn-lawrence-county-google-twitter/3359301001/


Still, maybe Twitter is promoting some child porn and prosecuting others. We can wait to see claims in the lawsuit.

As far as the law goes, if we remove Section 230, then services like Twitter will be much quicker to ban and block content -- which is the opposite of what many people want. And it will make life much more difficult for competitor services which don't have Twitters legal teams and expertise.

Again, I think amending Section 230 to make limited liability require more open speech conditions, and clearer policies with legal redress.

[Ratman_tf]

All businesses will do steps that try to undercut the competition. They'll be sneaky, underhanded, and mean in trying to crush their competitors. What they *shouldn't* be allowed to do is things that are illegal, like actually breaking people's kneecaps, smashing servers, and the like.

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

So let's say an authoritairan, tyrranical faction takes control of the public square, and uses purely legal and legitimate means to sieze control of the cultural levers of power, do we tolerate that? Where do we draw the line? When do we draw the line? Do we draw the line or just go along with things?

I'd like to point out that Jim Crow was legal, and slavery was legal at one time. And people resisted sometimes using illegal, non-violent resistance. And sometimes violent resistance.

Well, that was part of my question - what do you think should be made illegal? The solution to legal slavery was the 13th Amendment. The solution to Jim Crow was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. How do you think the law should change to deal with Twitter and Facebook, then?

I don't have answers. I'm honestly asking if anyone has a solution. We're dealing with people who have straightforward said their goal is infringement on our civil liberites. I believe that free speech, even speech I abhor, is very important. But when the narrative is twisted and it becomes impossible to counter their bad speech because they control the public square, then there's no way to legally fight back.

[GameDaddy]

The problem is that Jack and his buddies will happily kneecap competitors. So the whole 'if you don't like it, start your own X' meme falls apart, because you are prevented from doing so.

Well, if Parler had done it right from the get-go they wouldn't be in the situation they are in now. They hosted their entire site on Amazon Web Servers. Literally, doing it the old fashioned way means setting up your own data centers, and then having neutral international DNS providers like Switzerland, Samoa, Netherlands, Iceland, etc....

Robert Mercer funded Parler, and he has plenty of cash reserves, but Parler didn't spend the money on building their own infrastructure and truly serving as a neutral internet host. Instead they subcontracted, and not even to the lowest bidder.

Examples of other Companies that did setup their own hosting includes Wikileaks, Pirate Bay (But they had to learn the hard way not to trust Sweden and Norway), The Silk Road, and Mega, in New Zealand. None of these are shutdown, however according to kim.com Mega has been effectively seized by the NZ government, although there is no evidence they are interfering with its operation..

[GameDaddy]

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

For a start they allow propagation of hate speech allowing for example the trending of the "Hang Mike Pence" hash tag.

They also allow death threats and doxxing for example the right wing white supremacist hate group “ShutDown DC” recently doxxed Sen. Josh Hawley.

Twitter is, and always has been a train wreck of inconsistency. They let the President have an account for eight years, then abruptly and illegally cut him off, citing safety as the reason he was being censored. Free Speech has never needed to protect the "safe" speech, Free Speech was for the protection of "unsafe" speech so people could say unpopular, untrue, or offensive speech without any actual repercussions. This allows for open dialogue to occurr, and ideas are not dismissed without a clear and prescient examination, with the trust placed in the people to make the right choice whether an idea should be implemented or not. When that choice is taken away from people, then they are no longer free.