Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bloop_bleep]

China, which has recognized every ex-Soviet country and has an embassy there, now says there is no international agreement for their existence. Omegalul.

Calling it "invitation to invade" is clickbaity and not journalistic though.

[Folly]

Heh. The Supreme Court is going to look at whether blocking critics from their personal social media accounts by politicians is in violation of the 1st amendment considering freedom of speech.
That's just silly.
Being blocked from responding to one or a few social media accounts is not taking away the freedom of speech of the blocked in any absolute way. It just means they need to vent their opinion on some other public place.
Imagine. Someone going to the National Bank and saying "I want to write my opinion on those sheets of special paper you use for printing money. I demand access to them! What? Access denied? Boo!! My freedom of speech!"

If the Government is explicitly restricting people's ability to express their opinions without overriding motives, it doesn't matter what the medium is, that is a violation of their rights.
If other people or entities restrict people's speech within a medium they have authority over, that's totally okay. Like you said, people can take their speech elsewhere.

However, this standard was set up when the the majority of spaces were public; a few organizations limiting certain types of speech within their domain was not particularly restrictive when most social congregations occurred in public spaces. But times have changed, and now most socializing occurs within the domains of private entities, and censorship by those entities can significantly impact a person's ability to express themselves.

I feel that it is entirely reasonable to revisit the motives behind the First Amendment, and evaluate whether those motives are being served adequately while social media platforms remain unprotected.

[Micro102]

I imagine it's similar to the ability to go up to them on a street and ask them questions with a camera.

Also, doesn't blocking someone also prevent them from seeing the comments left by said politician? There are problems with that too.

[nenjin]

What people are focusing on is the reach of social media. "Because this is where the most people will hear it, it's where my speech needs to be protected." Because there's many other venues for communication other than Twitter. I don't think it qualifies as the town square. Plus, it cuts both ways. Politicians can't block people calling them the worst things imaginable on their social media account? Then vile, racist, borderline calls to violence also can't get censored or blocked, as a similar violation of people's Free Speech.

IMO people are arguing for control of the tech, and not the actual merits of Free Speech. Even though they're adjacent. People want to litigate the rules of a non-public entity because it's where people's eyes happen to be right now, and will be for the foreseeable future unless the Golden Man Child fucks it up even more.

This is why I cringed when Trump really cemented the idea of Twitter as some sort of bedrock communication channel of American politics. Because it's not. We're practicing Free Speech, right here, which is why I imagine the First Amendment sought to protect. People's ability to gather and talk about what they felt like without being subject to arrest. Not "I have the right to talk AT YOU."

[Lord Shonus]

Regardless of what the ruling is, exploring and defining how the 1st Amendment applies to the very new technology of social media is valid. It is particularly valid to try doing so with a fairly basic case, on the principle that tough cases make bad law.

[Micro102]

Politicians can't block people calling them the worst things imaginable on their social media account? Then vile, racist, borderline calls to violence also can't get censored or blocked, as a similar violation of people's Free Speech.

Of course they can be blocked and censored. I would be amazed if the ruling was a zero-tolerance policy of any sort. That would just be a bad idea. It's not like we tolerate calls to violence in the town hall.

[nenjin]

Calling someone a racial epitaph isn't a call to violence. And I stressed _borderline_ because that's where the Right has been for 4 years now. If the rules are "every statement has to be adjudicated" then that's not policy, nor is it tenable.

[Frumple]

Calling someone a racial epitaph isn't a call to violence. And I stressed _borderline_ because that's where the Right has been for 4 years now. If the rules are "every statement has to be adjudicated" then that's not policy, nor is it tenable.

I mean... if it isn't it's pretty damn close to it. I can't think of a single fucking instance in my life where racial slurs being brought out meant anything other than the person using them thought the target was deserving of whatever they got, with the implication (when it or worse wasn't just said outright) a good beating would be a nice start.

[nenjin]

Those are, in fact, suppositions. You can't moderate a global platform based on suppositions. That isn't policy. "Racial epitaphs and foul language are unacceptable and a violation of the TOS" is a policy. But Musk clearly isn't interested in having rules that straightforward.

[Frumple]

Musk isn't particularly interested in having rules outside his own drugged out whims, to all appearances, so you're pretty on point with that one.

[Starver]

Musk isn't particularly interested in having rules outside his own drugged out whims, to all appearances, so you're pretty on point with that one.

Given the <Whatever-hue-of>-Tick fiasco, as ongoing, I'm not sure even he is sure of his whims.

(Was going to dig up and ressurect the Twitter Thread for various of a spate of news items, such as..., but hadn't. So forgive me if I hang such a relevent one off of here. Also, there was news about his ex clearly not having the same opinions, that could have more easily gone into one or other of the AI Threads... )

[Lord Shonus]

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1441


A US Treasury department determined that British American Tobacco made $250 million in carefully laundered profit from doing business with North Korea between 2007 and 2017 in violation of sanctions. A fine of over $500 million has been levied in response.

[Vector]

Meanwhile, in Montana, fascism.

[hector13]

I’d be interested to see how they describe Jan 6 if people shouting from the public gallery are described as, paraphrased, “violent Far-Left rioters”.

[bloop_bleep]

No, you don't understand. Those were righteous patriots. Until there was legal liability. Then they are antifa.