left-wing counter-protestors in San Francisco demonstrate their stance on free speech

[Leonhard]

A black guy in the group of protesters apparently got his tooth knocked out by the leftist marxists that attacked them. All about that Black Lives Matter.

Awful, horrid, I do not condone violence.

[Leonhard]

True. It is an evolving subject.

IMO - It's one thing for a private company/individual to censor "objectionable" content. If Twitter employs a filter to censor four-letter words, that's not a precedent but is widespread practice to avoid trouble with authorities. However, when it decides to censor based on other principles then it is a publisher. It is dictating content and becomes responsible for the content.

Haven't they already been made responsible for the content in other legal situations. It seems people both want them to police their channels and take down Copyright protected material, sexually explicit content and things promoting hate-crime, yet at the same time they're supposed not to do anything.

I don't envy the position of them nor the expectations people have. This is a situation where the US and EU could poll resources and come up with some standards for these platforms.

[seanD]

No, a fake news site is very clear and simple. They're consistently posting things that are false. I'm not talking about Fox News, National Review or Breitbart here. I'm talking about dozens of accounts springing up out of nowhere all of them posting nearly simultaniously about let's say "Joe Biden wants to raise taxes to 82% when he takes office." That would be an example of something that is false on quick inspection. Typically these are part of bot networks, or click farms. I have no idea who are doing all of these accounts but it is stuff like that I support downing.

It is also vaccine misinformation campaigns, nazi propaganda and other weird accounts I've seen.



I like you seanD, I'm interested in hearing your viewpoints. But I don't understand why you want to launch full thruttle into personal attacks in all the conversations I have with you. Honestly I don't know what you have against me.

Could you give me a couple of examples of some conservatives who were banned from Twitter for their conservative viewpoints, and what it was that they said?

And I'm telling you, I've been following this subject closely, and that isn't just what facebook and twitter are banning. They aren't banning bots. They're banning conservatives for having conservative (albeit controversial at times) viewpoints. In the most recent incident, and probably the most blatant of all, they've put harsh restrictions on legit news sites like NYP, the WH press secretary, and Trump himself in order to protect Biden. So don't give that BS spiel about banning bots because that isn't all that they're doing.

[Leonhard]

They're banning conservatives for having conservative (albeit controversial at times) viewpoints.

I'll gladly look into them, if you can find examples of conservatives banned.

In the most recent incident, and probably the most blatant of all, they've put harsh restrictions on legit news sites like NYP, the WH press secretary, and Trump himself in order to protect Biden. So don't give that BS spiel about banning bots because that isn't all that they're doing.

This is news to me, I'll look into it. Thank you for providing that information.

[seanD]

I'll gladly look into them, if you can find examples of conservatives banned.



This is news to me, I'll look into it. Thank you for providing that information.

Then maybe instead of saying you support leftist marxist counter protesters who violently attacked those standing up for free speech, maybe educate yourself about this subject first. Otherwise, that just makes you a tool.

[Leonhard]

Then maybe instead of saying you support leftist marxist counter protesters who violently attacked those standing up for free speech, maybe educate yourself about this subject first. Otherwise, that just makes you a tool.

seanD, I've spoken respectfully to you and from a position of good faith. I've routinely condemned the violence. I would like you to offer me the same respect I'm showing you.

I'm even looking into the NYP story you linked to me. I don't understand why you're being so combative. Calm down.

[Ronson]

Haven't they already been made responsible for the content in other legal situations.

I'm not aware of any. Perhaps.

It seems people both want them to police their channels and take down Copyright protected material, sexually explicit content and things promoting hate-crime, yet at the same time they're supposed not to do anything.

It's tricky for sure. Napster was a platform that was shut down because of copyrighted material being shared. But Youtube hasn't been shut down for sharing copyrighted material. I suspect big money and lobbying make a difference as YT is owned by Google.

I don't envy the position of them nor the expectations people have. This is a situation where the US and EU could poll resources and come up with some standards for these platforms.

Agreed.

[seanD]

seanD, I've spoken respectfully to you and from a position of good faith. I've routinely condemned the violence. I would like you to offer me the same respect I'm showing you.

I'm even looking into the NYP story you linked to me. I don't understand why you're being so combative. Calm down.

I didn't link to a NYP story, I linked to a zerohedge story about the protest. I'm combative because I'm especially passionate about this subject, and it irks when folks spew out disinfo about it, even if they're supposedly doing it unwittingly. Free speech is getting attacked in my country which has grave implications on religious freedom, so I take it seriously.

[Leonhard]

I didn't link to a NYP story, I linked to a zerohedge story about the protest. I'm combative because I'm especially passionate about this subject, and it irks when folks spew out disinfo about it, even if they're supposedly doing it unwittingly. Free speech is getting attacked in my country which has grave implications on religious freedom, so I take it seriously.

Correct, you mentioned it and I googled it. You soft linked it

At any rate I support the actions I mentioned in this thread. Shadow banning QAnon, Holocaust denial, anti-vax ads and other nonsense also seems fair game, but we're increasingly moving into problematic territory there and without governments putting down standards it's hard to truly justify it. However I doubt it's this kind of stuff conservatives think is wrong to suppress. It effectively reduces spread of those ideas, and I don't blame Twitter for not wanting to be a platform for those ideas. It seems with the NYPost that might have been overstepping the bounds a bit. With that story I just need to check on how likely it was that they could have known the flaws in the Hunter-Biden story (as well as checking that story). Still looking into that one.

And it was definitely fair-game for the weird bot driven astroturfing twitter posts in support of various political movements.

But I'm not sure why you think it's effective to accuse me of bad morals, when I'm trying to find out what you believe. At best that makes me want to put you on ignore, and keep on posting like. However I kinda wanna find out, because that's the thing I missed from the discussions in the past about this. Everyone talked about something happening, but no specifics were mentioned. And the only specifics I've ever known about were literally sub-reddits dedicated to harassing women journalists because of the game reviews they wrote or the opinions they had, as well as sub-reddits that openly supported doxxing targets, or even ones explicit promoting violence. That's the stuff I saw.

[Terraceth]

It's tricky for sure. Napster was a platform that was shut down because of copyrighted material being shared. But Youtube hasn't been shut down for sharing copyrighted material. I suspect big money and lobbying make a difference as YT is owned by Google.

Actually, I believe it's a matter of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The DMCA, as I understand it, states that websites are generally not responsible for holding copyrighted content put up by a third party if, upon receiving a notice it's copyrighted, they take it down immediately. So if I notify YouTube that copyrighted content of mine is on their site via what's called a DMCA Notice, they take it down on the spot without any review process beforehand. (you can do a review after the fact to make sure that the DMCA claim was true and such, but if YouTube has to take it down immediately to avoid liability)

The DMCA does have some problems. In concept it's a great idea; without this shield, YouTube wouldn't be able to exist as we know it because they'd have to manually screen every single video before putting it up. The problem with the DMCA is that people can abuse it. If I file a DMCA Notice, then it's basically guilty until proven innocent; the person who uploaded the thing has to prove that they didn't violate copyright in order to get it back. Even worse, there's basically no penalty to filing a false DMCA Notice. Technically, doing so falsely constitutes perjury but the amount of money and time required to sue someone for perjury is so great it's very difficult to actually punish someone for "false flagging" videos.

Napster, to my knowledge, wasn't making use of the DMCA in that same way, so it got in legal trouble.

Another notable factor that YouTube later engaged in that Napster never did was "revenue sharing." YouTube has an algorithm that allows it to notice copyrighted material and automatically flag it, like music. In the past this would result in automatic takedowns but a lot companies, particularly music companies, now take the more moderate position of having YouTube put up ads on the videos and have the revenue go to them, which allows users to still watch the applicable videos but still give money to the copyright holders.

[Ronson]

Actually, I believe it's a matter of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The DMCA, as I understand it, states that websites are generally not responsible for holding copyrighted content put up by a third party if, upon receiving a notice it's copyrighted, they take it down immediately. So if I notify YouTube that copyrighted content of mine is on their site via what's called a DMCA Notice, they take it down on the spot without any review process beforehand. (you can do a review after the fact to make sure that the DMCA claim was true and such, but if YouTube has to take it down immediately to avoid liability)

The DMCA does have some problems. In concept it's a great idea; without this shield, YouTube wouldn't be able to exist as we know it because they'd have to manually screen every single video before putting it up. The problem with the DMCA is that people can abuse it. If I file a DMCA Notice, then it's basically guilty until proven innocent; the person who uploaded the thing has to prove that they didn't violate copyright in order to get it back. Even worse, there's basically no penalty to filing a false DMCA Notice. Technically, doing so falsely constitutes perjury but the amount of money and time required to sue someone for perjury is so great it's very difficult to actually punish someone for "false flagging" videos.

Napster, to my knowledge, wasn't making use of the DMCA in that same way, so it got in legal trouble.

Another notable factor that YouTube later engaged in that Napster never did was "revenue sharing." YouTube has an algorithm that allows it to notice copyrighted material and automatically flag it, like music. In the past this would result in automatic takedowns but a lot companies, particularly music companies, now take the more moderate position of having YouTube put up ads on the videos and have the revenue go to them, which allows users to still watch the applicable videos but still give money to the copyright holders.

I've also noticed that Youtube doesn't acknowledge the "fair use" claims of copyrighted material. A person can put up a 10-minute video that might contain 5 seconds of a copyrighted song playing in the background, it can be flagged and blocked. Anyway, Napster was far more clearly a platform than is Youtube, the latter with all sorts of original political content to sift through.

The one thing about the DMCA law that is problematic is that copyright owners are expected to police Youtube for infractions - not Youtube. I understand some copyright owners pay for algorithms to automatically search uploads, but I know that UMG hires people to manually search for uploads of its material. One might conceivably spend more money policing Youtube than what it's worth.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You've missed the point, Leon. The point is not whether what Twitter is doing is wrong or right (but in a land that prides itself on allowing free speech, it's very wrong),

Would you have supported Streicher's right to free speech? Would you have campaigned to have him released and set free?

I appreciate that, in principle, free speech is something we all support but are there ever moments when you think it might have gone too far?

[Maranatha]

I never support violence in protests, whether its Proud Boys beating up people and pretending it was in self-defense, or Antifa throwing firecrackers into crowds, or fires started or anything like that.

As for this protests, I agree with what Twitter is doing. Fake News websites posting false information is not something they have to provide a platform for, nor do they have to support organized hate and mobbing campaigns like the ones I've seen the feminists get from conservatives. There's an argument to be had that they need to apply their principles equally, but what they're doing in at of itself seems better than the alternative.

Firecrackers?

The one where the jackwagon caught himself on fire was hilarious. And those times they blinded policemen, a laughfest. Oh ya, shooting police is always a good time. They brought the house down when they barricaded the cops and tried to murder them....good times. Oh wait, they didn't bring down the house. My bad.

That is all I will think about you whenever I see your posts.

[Leonhard]

That is all I will think about you whenever I see your posts.

You may think whatever you want. I've always and consistently condemned violence. There's nothing in your post that I condone or support.

[Sparko]

I think platforms like facebook, twitter (and even tweb) should just have rules about what types of content are allowed, not play editor and decide what viewpoints are allowed. As long as people follow the rules here (language, posting allowed and not allowed in certain areas,etc) then they can express whatever viewpoint they want. Liberal, conservative, atheist, Christian, pro-life, pro-choice, they can post fake news or real news. It's not up to us to decide if what someone is posting is real or fake. People can call them out on it in the thread if they want to. But if someone believes something, they should be able to say so, even if it is what other people consider untrue. I understand stopping tweets that call for violence, or promoting hatred of other races or groups, or posting nudity or profanity, as long as the rules apply to all and are not stifling free speech. When a platform like twitter starts making decisions on what viewpoints are allowed because they disagree with it or believe it false, then they become editors and publishers instead of a communication platform. And I think that opens them up to lawsuits.

I think they are going to end up making the government declare such platforms as telecommunications companies, like the phone company or your internet provider. Then they will not be able to censor viewpoints but are only a service provider. Can you imagine if Verizon or AT&T started screening phone calls and blocking calls that express views they don't agree with? Heck they won't even block scam calls.