Conversation

Notices

1. Sir Alberto Barbosa (conti@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 03:44:18 JST Sir Alberto Barbosa

   That escalated quickly

   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 03:44:14 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     @guizzy @conti @Moon these posts aren't illegal either, won't meet the "true threat" requirement
   • an actual bear in a hazmat suit (guizzy@pleroma.guizzyordi.info)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 03:44:15 JST an actual bear in a hazmat suit

     in reply to

     • Infected Moomin
     @Moon @conti They think they're being clever and that if they get their posts removed or account banned they can say "See how hypocritical these free speech people are!"Except what people are complaining about Twitter hiding, removing or banning for years is, for the most part, not already illegal personally targeted death threats. While many would argue these should be allowed, it's not even close to being the first hill people would propose to die on.
   • Infected Moomin (moon@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 03:44:16 JST Infected Moomin

     in reply to
     @conti is reporting them to the FBI a violation of their free speech
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 03:52:41 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @ademan @conti @helene @guizzy @Moon "true threat" is the legal term in the US, and these posts, being part of a "playful" fad with ulterior motive, don't meet the requirementwhether they're removed or not doesn't depend on them being considered legal free speech, though, because twitter is not the government and can act at its own discretion
   • Ademan (ademan@thebag.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 03:52:42 JST Ademan

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Hélène

     They aren’t credible threats, but neither are 99.9999% of the things twitter removed that they called “credible threats” in the past. Most of these are worse than posts I’ve seen get removed, but this is nothing new to twitter’s double standards.

   • Hélène (helene@p.helene.moe)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 03:52:43 JST Hélène

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     @shmibs @conti @guizzy @Moon if you try hard enough, they will be considered as real threats, i can assure you
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 03:55:20 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @ademan @conti @helene @guizzy @Moon it's a private company looking out for it's own best interests
   • Ademan (ademan@thebag.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 03:55:21 JST Ademan

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Hélène

     whether they’re removed or not doesn’t depend on them being considered legal free speech, though, because twitter is not the government and can act at its own discretion

     Never said it did, I’m saying they’re selectively enforcing hypocrites

   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 03:55:48 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @ademan @Moon @conti @guizzy @helene sorry, not private, just company
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:00:51 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @ademan @conti @helene @guizzy @Moon yes? corporations tend to be controversy-averse except in cases the attention brings in more business, and they don't have a legal obligation to "not be hypocrites"when everyone's stuck using the corporations's service that's obviously not ideal for users, but the solution is not "force the walled garden to become the government" but rather "remove the walls", which is why i thought we're here? or i am anyways and never used those sites
   • Ademan (ademan@thebag.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:00:52 JST Ademan

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Hélène

     do you actually believe that?

   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:04:51 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @Moon @ademan @conti @guizzy @helene or i guess it is private now? since guy purchased it
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:07:16 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @ademan @conti @helene @guizzy @Moon twitter banning and shadow banning people has to do with "that's too scary for us to have around", which is why they also purged all the sex workers etc
   • Ademan (ademan@thebag.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:07:17 JST Ademan

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Hélène

     I’m sure the crackdowns had nothing to do with social media companies being repeatedly hauled into congress in the wake of the 2016 elections, nothing at all. And of course nothing to do with “stakeholder capitalism” which does not universally prioritize the health of the company the way you are indicating they do.

   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:11:07 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @ademan @conti @helene @guizzy @Moon "scary" == "will make people upset at usso it's to do with how the public perceives it. though having so many millions people using there's going to be "innocent" stuff picked up by automated systems and employees acting on their own discretion etc of course
   • Ademan (ademan@thebag.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:11:08 JST Ademan

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Hélène

     again, things milder than the OP were getting banned, so it’s provably not about what’s “too scary”

   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:16:28 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @ademan @Moon @conti @guizzy @helene but again, solution is not changing laws to force websites to act as extensions of the government. that way lies mandatory filtration software etc, https://creativecommons.org/2022/03/22/cc-opposes-mandatory-copyright-filters-as-well-as-using-cc-to-justify-them/but rather making not-use-twitter-et-al a viable alternative, which here seems to be doing pretty well at
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:21:28 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @ademan @conti @helene @guizzy @Moon i'm not trying to "excuse the corporations behaviour". when twitter and the others banned all those sex workers it sucked for them, being locked out of any discussion the sesta / fosta thing and then people being dead (probably would have passed regardless butit's dumb expecting corporation to "act fairly", though, and trying to force it to do so will make things worse
   • Ademan (ademan@thebag.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:21:29 JST Ademan

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Hélène

     Sorry, that’s just not what happened. The double standard was and is clear as day. I’m genuinely surprised you’re working this hard to excuse a corporation’s behavior.

   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:37:04 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @guizzy @conti @helene @Moon @ademan oh my gosh, not the "publisher / platform" thing again, pleasewhat the law says is "users are not the website", e.g. "random person who signed up on twitter is not like a paid employee or contractor writing for a newspaper, and website can't be held accountable for what the random person says
   • an actual bear in a hazmat suit (guizzy@pleroma.guizzyordi.info)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:37:05 JST an actual bear in a hazmat suit

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @shmibs @ademan @Moon @conti @helene There is a distinction between "forcing them" and "not enabling them"; a company that is allowed by the government to do things others are not allowed to do (in this case, publish content that would expose, for instance, a newspaper to lawsuits) has to be held to a higher standard.
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:40:12 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @guizzy @Moon @ademan @conti @helene which means in practice not "they would be forced to allow people to say what they want and not arbitrarily ban" but rather "they would be forced to police what users say even more, because they'll be personally held responsible otherwise
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:47:13 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @guizzy @conti @helene @Moon @ademan specifically on the basis of allowing websites to exist, because they otherwise would be too expensive to run, and it's also dumb to treat every random person who signs up to a website as being affiliated with the website. that has nothing to do with making laws restricting the website's free speech
   • an actual bear in a hazmat suit (guizzy@pleroma.guizzyordi.info)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 04:47:14 JST an actual bear in a hazmat suit

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @shmibs @Moon @ademan @conti @helene >oh my gosh, not the "publisher / platform" thing again, pleaseYes, that again. It's important.The website can't be held accountable because of exceptions carved specifically on the basis of extending free speech. The spirit of the law as to why those exceptions were carved out is clear.
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 05:30:55 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @guizzy @conti @helene @Moon @ademan > put up a whiteboard on my lawn asking people to draw things for collaborative art project> either not allowed to erase anything people say on my own whiteboard on my own property or held legally liable for everything they say, even though i'm off at work and can't watch the thing all day constantlythat's just dumb
   • an actual bear in a hazmat suit (guizzy@pleroma.guizzyordi.info)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 05:30:56 JST an actual bear in a hazmat suit

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @shmibs @Moon @ademan @conti @helene They don't have to be affiliated, but once a website demonstrate the ability and willingness to curate content on other basis than simple technical merits (spam) or strict legal requirements, they are not just acting as simple conduits, they are clearly making editorial decisions.
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 05:49:37 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @guizzy @conti @helene @Moon @ademan the distinction does not exist in current law, and inventing it is a dumb idea that would have bad results (e.g. no more comment boxes on blogs or people hosting small fedi serversunless you introduce also some "only applies to big corporations" caveat, in which case... that sounds like admitting that big corporations become government 2.0, which thought your idea of economics was predicated on not being the case?
   • an actual bear in a hazmat suit (guizzy@pleroma.guizzyordi.info)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 05:49:38 JST an actual bear in a hazmat suit

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @shmibs @Moon @ademan @conti @helene >even though i'm off at work and can't watch the thing all day constantlyThat used to be the case, but now they do have the tools and the manpower to keep watch essentially 24/7, they keep demonstrating it every day. Good faith clauses could also be given, providing them with reasonable chance to do moderate speech that opens them to liability.I know this this would suck, I don't WANT them to take this route, and I don't think they would, but to avoid the charge that this is forcing companies to act like a government, they have to be given that option.I would much rather they decide to broadly allow content that is legal and not breaking the site on a technical basis and avoid all this. It's really not that hard for them to be; just don't hire activists to do your moderation, fire them when you catch them doing politically motivated moderation.
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 06:09:27 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • an actual bear in a hazmat suit
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @guizzy @conti @helene @Moon @ademan making new laws to restrict speech is not "granting", and and holding individuals responsible for what random strangers say on the hobbyist forum they run will have a chilling effect (see how well fair use worked in practice for copyright stuff; it's allowed, but everyone's too scared to anyways because the lines are blurry
   • an actual bear in a hazmat suit (guizzy@pleroma.guizzyordi.info)'s status on Thursday, 28-Apr-2022 06:09:28 JST an actual bear in a hazmat suit

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     • Infected Moomin
     • Ademan
     • Hélène
     @shmibs @Moon @ademan @conti @helene >only applies to big corporationsYou don't really have to, you could easily modulate the expectation of moderation in a good faith clauses to the ability of the party in question. The ability of a small blog or small fedi server to moderate content that opens them to liability is not the same as that of a big corporation. While infringing content could be reasonably left for a week on a small blog because the only moderator is on vacation and couldn't be expected to remove it, a large corporation with a staff that's watching 24/7 wouldn't be given the same benefit of the doubt if they ignored for a week something that's been flagged for their moderators to look at (I guess unless they can give a really good reason as to why no one had a chance to take it down).Another possible type of moderation that I could see granting for companies that chose to be conduits for speech rather than curators, is that of off-topic speech, provided the scope of what is on-topic is clearly delineated and that the application of the moderation is not fickle but even-handed. If a site wants to be an echo chamber, they have to own it, say it, and apply it fairly.