[The New Yorker] Alex Jones, the First Amendment, and the Digital Public Square

who is arguing these companies are required to?

 

'A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."'

I brought up an argument 'presented by the opponent'. I even showed them presenting it. Don't give the definition of 'strawman' if it doesn't help you.

 

It's more narrow than speech, it's about hate speech and how hate speech has become an integral part of conservative politics. It's when hate speech is thinly veiled as political speech. Further, it's about how terrorist organizations like Nazis and the Klan and by extension, white nationalists, are given a pass when other terrorists like ISIS and Al-Qaeda are not simply because significant segments of American society and governance share belief with these white nationalist terrorists.

 

OK, so "a less important argument for net neutrality was..." would have been the accurate statement. But you had to dig for a way to ding "liberals" so you keep being you...

 

Its important to al franken. he calls it the 'free speech issue of our time'

Its important to the ACLU

 

Look at who is getting banned...the conspiracy type conservatives....

Because people are acting on these BS conspiracies and causing lawsuits... guess what happened?

 

Then argue with Al then. Here, there were more important concerns voiced including the unfair control over content and the delivery of that content.

 

Does any conservative think Clutch doesn't have the authority to ban someone who violates the rules?

 

I can't disagree with that. The hard part is knowing where the dividing line is and how to find consistency.

 

But that doesn't matter - because if you stifle the bullshit, society adjusts.....

Take away the CON MEN'S platform and they fade into nothingness.

I would be in favor of legislation that if you use the term NEWS anywhere on your site or channel you have to report facts....and if not you would be libel.

DD

 

LOL, in a different world Alex Jones would work for Howard Stern

 

This dude is a total douche bag of hot air.

 

I actually made a Nike meme about him yesterday

 

Its amazing that the political discourse has devolved to physically bullying shown in the video. I give Rubio credit for not rearing back and biffing the guy.

 

What I find interesting in this alternative given is that the voting booth serves no discourse or remedy for the root causes. On a simpler level, it's like assuming that Rockets fans accept the Warriors had the better team because they "won on the court with 8 people" and "all discussion for that matter will be decided next season".

It's a lazy boilerplate solution for democratic governments the writer haphazardly applied because I'm assuming he likely agrees with the companies actions (after several years of deliberations and ugly fake far-right-driven scandals later) but disagrees with them on principle of free speech and liberalist ideas.

I've been hearing more in podcasts that these tech companies are more or less quasi-nation states, some with a market valuation of trillions. They've had to taper down on their libertarian "anything goes" attitude because bad apples spoil and disseminate much quicker on the internet. Algorithms and even rules/decrees don't carry as far because they're working on a scale and speed that's incomprehensible to the average person.

Legally, they're safe because they can change the rules whenever they want. Business-wise, it's a ticking time bomb not to censor because of the power their platform provides to anyone. They can get screwed by customer reactions or through congress.

My proposal is that they open up the rule writing to everyone. While that means giving the average Youtube commenter a voice, it also gives participation and a veneer of ownership to the medium itself. There would be implications for a Facebook to admit their platform is a commons of sorts but I imagine the benefits outweigh whatever schemes they're planning.

My guess to what those schemes would be is to have even more robots remove the decision making for us and to sell us the idea that they're wiser and more impartial than the dumbest mouth breathing neighbor you tolerate.

It's a message so simple, they could broadcast it to everyone, deepen the root cause while pretending to be the answer.

 

Which is why nowadays TV News has no obligation to tell the truth

Rocket River

 

There is no definition of "hate speech" or law against it in the United States, and it has long been protected by legal precedent.