I think saying that I don't understand something and never will is an insult. But carry on. I know its just how you are.
Telling someone they will never understand something is insulting their intelligence. Not that I'm complaining.
don't take this the wrong way, Jay, but honestly . . . that is such a dumb question. there are literally HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of ways Twitter and Clutchfans are different. Size and scale alone are enough to distinguish the two "forums" as you call them as apples and oranges. The fact that Clutchfans is a Houston-based, focused, topic-based forum and Twitter is a global public square is another reason to distinguish between the two as almost completely different. Twitter is worth 44 billion. I'm pretty sure Dave Hardisty is not gonna be able to sell Clutchfans for 44 billion.
It's an observation, based on many posts you have made on the subject. If that offends your personal sensitivities, that's on you. I would say calling someone a fascist or a Nazi is an insult. Saying that I don't think you understand a legal concept is not, objectively.
You should probably not become a lawyer, because you would take every single interaction with opposing counsel as an insult.
Already does. A poster made some blatantly anti-Semitic posts not that long ago. Not only was he not punished, the posts were allowed to remain. They were reported numerous times…and nothing.
Is it? Did you read the link I sent you about such cases? It seems federal judges would ask this very same question and it would be a super relevant question. Why would a federal judge compare Youtube to a Comedy Club as precedence and use it as an example? Is youtube similar to a local NY comedy club? Weren't you the one telling me that the majority of people don't use Twitter? In fact, there are several social platforms much larger than it, why is it the public square when more people use Facebook? There's literally 6 other social media sites with more users. Since Facebook is much bigger than Twitter, does it make it something else entirely? Twitter is a social media website, just like Clutchfans, that one is bigger than the other doesn't make it apples to oranges. that's like saying the NBA and G-league are two completely different things.
honestly, I must have missed this. did you send that in a pm or post a link in a thread? send it again and I'll take a look. with that said, the Twitter/Clutchfans comparison is still a pretty dumb comparison. They are as different as can be.
This is good. This is where the thread needs to go. Twitter's size and scope, and the diversity of its users, means we need to be careful about overly centralized content moderation. But it also means that the stakes are extremely high, given its reach and influence (at scale that far exceeds your typical "public square"), which means they should be extremely cautious about allowing their platform to be exploited by malicious actors. Do you see how the features you are highlighting here requires looking at it from both angles?
I worded that sentence poorly and rewrote it. The size and scope you are talking about warrant extra caution on both sides -- moderating too heavily, and moderating not enough. The stakes are clearly much higher, and so finding the right balance is critical. Just ignoring that and putting one's faith in an absolutist free speech standard is a huge risk.
Musk clarified that his standard will be the law (instead of taking sides and suppressing speech of one side vs. the other). So you are saying that the standard being the law (which you don't understand) is "a huge risk"?
Saying multiple times I am somehow incapable of "ever" understanding something as important as free speech was a cheap insult, which you're prone to make when you wish to disengage from conversations. It suggests an immutable comprehension or character flaw on my part. You have a long, long history of that (if we're talking about post history), and you are a self-admitted troll, so why you are taken aback by me saying you're making insults, I don't know. Just "observing", like you.
folks keep using the term "absolutist free speech," and I don't think ANYONE is a 100% "absolutist free speech" advocate. I think the folks who are being so-labelled actually advocate a position that is closer to saying "err on the default side of free speech when all else is equal." Nobody is advocating a free for all of spam bots and the like. On the other hand, banning the President of the United States (for whatever reason) or a satire site like the Babylon Bee (for whatever reason) goes against the grain of "erring on the side of free speech." Again, this is related to Mill's corn dealer example mentioned in another thread. Hateful speech directed toward the corn dealer for "starving the poor" in a large public forum (this would be Twitter by analogy) would be an acceptable form of speech that should be tolerated. Inciting a murderous mob outside a specific corn dealer's house by egging on the mob saying "He's starving the poor! Let's get him!!" would be a case where free speech should be curtailed and limited. The Levine joke is an excellent example of speech that was SO FAR REMOVED from the "object" of the hate (Rachel Levine), and so obviously and transparently a form of political commentary, that the overreaction by Twitter to suspend Babylon Bee for "hate speech" (or however you want to sin it, "violating the terms of service") is just that, an overreaction and not justifiable. And let's be honest. People violate terms of service all the time, in all kinds of settings. Companies codify that "fine print" so that if and when a situation arises that they MUST address, they can fall back on the fine print as a way of covering their ass. For the most part EVERYONE ignores the fine print almost all the time. So I don't find the "the Bee violated the terms of service" argument all that convincing. The reality is that Twitter (and everyone else who uses TOS fine print) cherry-picks the specific times and examples when it wants to exercise its discretion to act against some party or some person.
Correction, the comedy club was a hypothetical argument Kavanaugh made in a 2019 case in which he says that providing a forum for speech doesn't make you a state actor. https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-tosses-pragerus-free-speech-claims-against-youtube/ The TLDR... And here is the snippet from Kavanaugh... this is only relevant though to the "That was a dumb question" bit because it seems when judges look at these cases they are considering a grocery store, a comedy club, a cable company, and social platform, all as the same thing or at least as things that are similar because they are privately owned. I actually did say that I think later, as digital spaces become more vital that maybe the conversation should change, if the hypothetical metaverse became a thing...but, I think i get tuned out... any ways I mean even you agree that Twitter could disappear tomorrow and the world would go on as normal, I do remember you saying that Elon could run it into the ground and you wouldn't care (or something similar to that...) so I'm really not sure how much different the two are, just that one is a lot bigger...but Facebook is a lot bigger than Reddit and they are still technically forums.
I even thought banning Trump temporarily was ok, as one could have argued he was actively inciting violence at the time. Keeping him banned but allowing Taliban etc. is more questionable.
You really do not understand. You literally just said that following the law as the standard on Twitter (which is what Musk clarified his "free speech absolutist" stance to be) "is a huge risk". And you don't even realize how silly that is.
