The Worst People in the World...

[Deleted User 89]

DC, how about you offer your opinion on how best to deal with fuck nuts that can’t/won’t take a hint about the kinds of behavior are appropriate, and even civil

[DCHawk1]

So there's this. From a U.S. Senator, who could have been the Democratic Party nominee. This OK with you?

you disagree with anything?

You and trad.

Forever the fascists.

[DCHawk1]

DC, how about you offer your opinion on how best to deal with fuck nuts that can’t/won’t take a hint about the kinds of behavior are appropriate, and even civil

Sure. Ignore them.

[Deleted User 89]

tried it

it still decreases my enjoyment of this site

got another bright idea?

[DCHawk1]

So there's this. From a U.S. Senator, who could have been the Democratic Party nominee. This OK with you?

ok with which?

do i think social media sites have a responsibility to regulate their content?

yes

i realize this stance carries with it problems associated with “gray areas”

but, imz/count doesn’t fall into that category

neither does the donald posting flat out lies fit into that category

Why do social media sites have this "responsibility?" Under what authority do you propose compelling them to do so?

[twocoach]

Stormfront still around? there are plenty of sites that welcome racists.

Right ( and maybe not as extreme as stormfront ).
There should be sites that I feel should be protected by the 1st no matter what they are saying on said sites -- the person who runs it decides.
If count wants to go there, or sit around his lawn and chat with his fam/friends about things we think are vile, he should always have that right, and it would be against much of what I think this country has to offer over others to try and stop that.

On this site, however, there's a line, and i've warned him so many times.

Free speech does not mean "free from consequences", which seems to be the piece that all these "Free Speech" loons screaming about Facebook/Twitter/YouTube conveniently ignore.

If a platform owner states in their terms of usage that you cannot use the word 'steak' because their loved one died after choking on a piece of meat and it makes them sad to see the word and you agree to the terms of usage then you deal with the consequences of breaking that agreement. All your "free speech" rights get you is that you couldn't be arrested for violating those terms of usage by using the word 'steak'. But you can still lose your right to utilize the platform, as you know.

Most rants about free speech boil down to the same toddler mentality of "I want to do/say/get whatever I want, whenever I want and you can't do anything about it" that is rotting this country from the core. Most toddlers grow out of this mindset and become adults but some just grow into larger, older toddlers.

[Deleted User 89]

So there's this. From a U.S. Senator, who could have been the Democratic Party nominee. This OK with you?

ok with which?

do i think social media sites have a responsibility to regulate their content?

yes

i realize this stance carries with it problems associated with “gray areas”

but, imz/count doesn’t fall into that category

neither does the donald posting flat out lies fit into that category

Why do social media sites have this "responsibility?" Under what authority do you propose compelling them to do so?

it’s just my opinion

we disagree on this mechanism for curbing behavior

you’ve yet to offer anything of substance as an alternative

[pdub]

Of course it doesn't mean free from consequences.
That's why if an individual doesn't agree with policy they can find another place to have their voice heard or create something on their own.

[DCHawk1]

tried it

it still decreases my enjoyment of this site

got another bright idea?

I'm having trouble keeping up.

If your question was about this site, then you have the options of: ignoring him; pressuring PDub to ban him; or leaving.

If ignoring him doesn't work for you, then you have the other two options. I'd imagine that PDub would rather have you here than him, so...perhaps, in time, pressure will work.

If it was about society more generally, then you just suck it up and decide that a societal ethos that encourages free expression will prove more beneficial over time than one that demands conformity in the name of "decency," as defined by a majority.

[DCHawk1]

it’s just my opinion

we disagree on this mechanism for curbing behavior

you’ve yet to offer anything of substance as an alternative

That's because I don't believe that there is a "substantive alternative" to curbing behavior.

[pdub]

I don't agree that social media sites have a responsibility to regulate their content.
But I also don't agree that if they decide to, not matter how the sites decide to regulate, people should be able to force them to not do so or to alter the way they regulate.

[DCHawk1]

Free speech does not mean "free from consequences", which seems to be the piece that all these "Free Speech" loons screaming about Facebook/Twitter/YouTube conveniently ignore.

If a platform owner states in their terms of usage that you cannot use the word 'steak' because their loved one died after choking on a piece of meat and it makes them sad to see the word and you agree to the terms of usage then you deal with the consequences of breaking that agreement. All your "free speech" rights get you is that you couldn't be arrested for violating those terms of usage by using the word 'steak'. But you can still lose your right to utilize the platform, as you know.

Most rants about free speech boil down to the same toddler mentality of "I want to do/say/get whatever I want, whenever I want and you can't do anything about it" that is rotting this country from the core. Most toddlers grow out of this mindset and become adults but some just grow into larger, older toddlers.

My goodness, that's a mess of word vomit.

[twocoach]

So there's this. From a U.S. Senator, who could have been the Democratic Party nominee. This OK with you?

ok with which?

do i think social media sites have a responsibility to regulate their content?

yes

i realize this stance carries with it problems associated with “gray areas”

but, imz/count doesn’t fall into that category

neither does the donald posting flat out lies fit into that category

Why do social media sites have this "responsibility?" Under what authority do you propose compelling them to do so?

I don't think they have a legal responsibility, nor should they, but I do think they risk harming their reputation to the point where users stop using their platforms. I have stopped posting to Facebook. I keep my page up so that my wife can tag me in pics of my kids and my friends can see them but soon enough I will go through the gruesome process of getting that taken apart, too. And I know several others who no longer utilize the platform either.

Facebook to me is a social media version of Imzcount. It may serve some useful purpose to someone and should be allowed to exist as it is but it's generally full of hate and bullshit.

[Shirley]

Fortunately, here's an expert with a short seminar on this very area:

[pdub]

"I don't think they have a legal responsibility, nor should they, but I do think they risk harming their reputation to the point where users stop using their platforms."

And that's fine.
That's their choice and on them.

[twocoach]

Free speech does not mean "free from consequences", which seems to be the piece that all these "Free Speech" loons screaming about Facebook/Twitter/YouTube conveniently ignore.

If a platform owner states in their terms of usage that you cannot use the word 'steak' because their loved one died after choking on a piece of meat and it makes them sad to see the word and you agree to the terms of usage then you deal with the consequences of breaking that agreement. All your "free speech" rights get you is that you couldn't be arrested for violating those terms of usage by using the word 'steak'. But you can still lose your right to utilize the platform, as you know.

Most rants about free speech boil down to the same toddler mentality of "I want to do/say/get whatever I want, whenever I want and you can't do anything about it" that is rotting this country from the core. Most toddlers grow out of this mindset and become adults but some just grow into larger, older toddlers.

My goodness, that's a mess of word vomit.

Then ignore me; pressure PDub to ban me; or leave.

[pdub]

The difference between a phone call and twitter/fb is that your message can be sent to millions of people all over the world so like twocoach said, they shouldn't legally have to regulate the content, but if they choose to do so, it's not like silencing a phone call, because your phone call is typically intended for a small audience.

Because of how large these companies have grown, i'd be wary if I was in charge of say Twitter, to outright ban/silence an account -- but i do think a fact check warning on a tweet for those who are in power and abusing is - is perfectly acceptable and wise.

[DCHawk1]

Free speech does not mean "free from consequences", which seems to be the piece that all these "Free Speech" loons screaming about Facebook/Twitter/YouTube conveniently ignore.

If a platform owner states in their terms of usage that you cannot use the word 'steak' because their loved one died after choking on a piece of meat and it makes them sad to see the word and you agree to the terms of usage then you deal with the consequences of breaking that agreement. All your "free speech" rights get you is that you couldn't be arrested for violating those terms of usage by using the word 'steak'. But you can still lose your right to utilize the platform, as you know.

Most rants about free speech boil down to the same toddler mentality of "I want to do/say/get whatever I want, whenever I want and you can't do anything about it" that is rotting this country from the core. Most toddlers grow out of this mindset and become adults but some just grow into larger, older toddlers.

My goodness, that's a mess of word vomit.

Then ignore me; pressure PDub to ban me; or leave.

lulz

You misunderstand me. I enjoy watching you tie yourself in knots trying to justify your shitty ideas.

[pdub]

Obviously this thread has gotten into poli-territory, and i'm def to blame for part of that, and in Off Topic some threads inevitably steer that way, and this thread can keep doin' it's thing, but for the most part, the threads on this bored and more importantly all other boreds besides the 'ugh' bored, should be clean of poli-talk.

[DCHawk1]

Fortunately, here's an expert with a short seminar on this very area:

He's not wrong.

If platforms get into moderating political speech, then they risk running afoul of the dreaded Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects them from any liability for user-generated content as platforms, not publishers. If they choose sides politically (as opposed to censoring content that "must, at a minimum, involve or be similar" to obscenity, violence, or harassment), then they become publishers and are thus subject to different liability rules.