Should AT&T and Verizon do more to combat hate speech?

[pionock]

To be clear then, if a large group of citizens got together and declared that they were forming the Corporation of Texas rather than it being a state government, would you endorse that group's authority to enforce jurisdiction over who gets to live within the property of their corporation?

Do they own all the land in Texas? If so, I don't give a shit what a private company wants to do, so long as they don't harm others. If they don't want to serve someone, fine.

Of course, good luck getting 100% of the population of Texas on board with that.

Or, to put it more simply, a company should be able to refuse service to whomever they like.

As you put it, Spectral, it sounds like "at least it's no the government." At some point, you have to dial back your "look at how principally libertarian I am" and live a bit in reality.

Edit: My stance remains the same that these companies are just platforms and shouldn't be held responsible for what others say, especially with such a nebulous term like hate speech.

[Machismo]

As you put it, Spectral, it sounds like "at least it's no the government." At some point, you have to dial back your "look at how principally libertarian I am" and live a bit in reality.

Edit: My stance remains the same that these companies are just platforms and shouldn't be held responsible for what others say, especially with such a nebulous term like hate speech.

For the record, there is no "platform versus publisher" distinction that even needs to be made. This was something pushed by conservatives like Shapiro and Ted Cruz, but is not really a thing. They law states that they are not liable for what others post. There are exceptions when it comes to things like child porn.

[Spectral]

Do they own all the land in Texas? If so, I don't give a shit what a private company wants to do, so long as they don't harm others. If they don't want to serve someone, fine.

Of course, good luck getting 100% of the population of Texas on board with that.

Or, to put it more simply, a company should be able to refuse service to whomever they like.

Wait, are you under the impression that everyone that's part of a corporation is 100% on board with every decision a corporation makes?

It's kinda weird that if a state or locale simply disbanded its government and reincorporated as a nominally private entity that you'd then be entirely fine with them restricting access to their land, services, and commerce. What do you think a democratically elected government is if not an entity that represents the interests of the citizens that elect its leaders?

[Zython]

Wait, are you under the impression that everyone that's part of a corporation is 100% on board with every decision a corporation makes?

It's kinda weird that if a state or locale simply disbanded its government and reincorporated as a nominally private entity that you'd then be entirely fine with them restricting access to their land, services, and commerce.

Sounds like the solution here is to ban corporations.

What do you think a democratically elected government is if not an entity that represents the interests of the citizens that elect its leaders?

This would be a good counter-argument if we lived in a democracy.

[Spectral]

Sounds like the solution here is to ban corporations.

I don't know of anything that committed leftists don't reply to with abolition of corporations, really.

This would be a good counter-argument if we lived in a democracy.

I deliberately didn't write "democracy". Half-assed gotcha attempt duly noted though.

[Tiwack]

Given that our friends on the left wing have made it clear that White Nationalism and Right Wing extremism is on the rise, do you think companies like AT&T and Verizon should do more to combat them? Why should we allow a hateful bigot to operate a mobile phone or have access to the internet? It seems like curtailing access to these would combat this massive problem.

I agree with you on the principle that it takes ten times the effort to dispute hateful shit compared to the effort it takes to create/spread it. Everything sticks on the internet. To maintain a free and tolerable society it's imperative to maintain a civil and constructive conversation and since everything sticks online moderation becomes necessary or it's flooded in terrorist propaganda and troll-spam. Freedom is not a natural outcome in the wild west without people standing up for it and defending it by remaining eternally vigilant. I don't see this changing any rights maintained by the state, it merely uses its courts to mediate disputes in these matters. The state won't be able to prosecute on speech alone anything targeted at it but the proliferation og graphic violence and calls for death to subvert it via proxy and tear down the tolerant environment free trade and movement hinges on is to invite fascism and surveillance capitalism to take hold as bad faith actors will abuse the same freedom they're privileged with just to undermine it for others to accomplish their own selfish goals of power, influence and money, asking speech and persons to become everything under the sun and helping themselves to become above the rules.

[Machismo]

Wait, are you under the impression that everyone that's part of a corporation is 100% on board with every decision a corporation makes?

It's kinda weird that if a state or locale simply disbanded its government and reincorporated as a nominally private entity that you'd then be entirely fine with them restricting access to their land, services, and commerce. What do you think a democratically elected government is if not an entity that represents the interests of the citizens that elect its leaders?

You specifically said they grouped together to form that "Corporation of Texas." Otherwise, why would they decide to group together?

You seem to be misinterpreting what I said. I'll let you decide if it was on accident, or on purpose.

Meanwhile, a business owner should be free to refuse to serve people.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know of anything that committed leftists don't reply to with abolition of corporations, really.

I deliberately didn't write "democracy". Half-assed gotcha attempt duly noted though.

And yet, the people on the right are the ones who are wanting to tear down corporations right now. How does it feel that the Trumspters have gone full Marxism on your ass?

[Drusin]

If you don't want everyone in

I'm not sure what this part means, everyone in where? My house? I don't mind the people I've invited over to come in of course, anyone I didn't invite over is breaking in therefore they are breaking a law and the police can take them out. If you are saying "You don't allow everyone into your home so you are censoring them", everyone is welcome to my home, even that meth head who broke in, all you have to do is ask. As long as you are just there to hangout and say whatever you want and not steal/kill me since that has nothing to do with censoring

and want them to all say whatever you want

Whatever THEY want

without any legal chance for you to stop them

Don't see a need to stop someone from saying something

... then you are supporting censorship.

Explained above.

Your hypocrisy is pitiful

Still don't see it

and you just argued my point for me

I honestly don't know your point lol, other than you want to censor people

And yes, I do realize that you have no idea that you are actually arguing against freedom.

Can't hide behind freedom if you're taking others freedom

[Machismo]

I'm not sure what this part means, everyone in where? My house? I don't mind the people I've invited over to come in of course, anyone I didn't invite over is breaking in therefore they are breaking a law and the police can take them out. If you are saying "You don't allow everyone into your home so you are censoring them", everyone is welcome to my home, even that meth head who broke in, all you have to do is ask. As long as you are just there to hangout and say whatever you want and not steal/kill me since that has nothing to do with censoring



Whatever THEY want


Don't see a need to stop someone from saying something


Explained above.


Still don't see it


I honestly don't know your point lol, other than you want to censor people


Can't hide behind freedom if you're taking others freedom

That's the point, you are saying they don't get to "invite" people in, everyone is allowed to say whatever they want, whether the property owner likes it or not. Your continued attempts to dodge that only shows how disingenuous you are, and that you are the one opposing freedom.

I don't expect you to see your hypocrisy, that's what cognitive dissonance is for. That doesn't mean it wasn't pointed out.

Sop, those websites are uninviting people, and kicking them out. Freedom is fucking grand.

[Ghostpanther]

Not in the US. That would be too close to banning free speech. Let them bellow their nonsense from the roof tops if they want. Sometimes, people will bury themselves if you give them a shovel. I personally ignore them. Those two companies should focus on what services they provide and leave politics out of it.

[Drusin]

That's the point, you are saying they don't get to "invite" people in, everyone is allowed to say whatever they want, whether the property owner likes it or not. Your continued attempts to dodge that only shows how disingenuous you are, and that you are the one opposing freedom.

You assume I was dodging when really I had no idea wtf you were saying It took me a minute just now to figure out and I'm still not sure I got it so if I'm wrong lemme know.

So, what you're saying is. By me saying no one should be able to censor anyone, I'm stopping other peoples ability to have around who they want to have around and therefore I'm impeding upon their freedom? If that's what you're saying I just fucking got it lol. If that's what you're saying then I would say don't have an open registration My doors are open because I don't care what fucked up shit people say, that has no effect on me. If they are a bit more sensitive then I guess they should be a bit more restrictive with who they let in, but once they're in ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't expect you to see your hypocrisy

Didn't see it because I didn't understand your POV

that's what cognitive dissonance is for.

Nope, my stance was always the same, your arguments foundation was eluding me is all. Now we are on the same page and we can have a nice "yes you are/no I'm not" back and forth

That doesn't mean it wasn't pointed out.

I'll have to put on my glasses then lol

Sop, those websites are uninviting people, and kicking them out.

I don't understand this. When you say "those websites" are you speaking abstractly about websites to make a point that they can still censor or were you talking specifically websites I mentioned previously? I'm assuming you're speaking abstractly. And to that I say they shouldn't be allowed to censor, still

Freedom is fucking grand.

I know that's right, free to not be censored

[Draco-Onis]

Not in the US. That would be too close to banning free speech. Let them bellow their nonsense from the roof tops if they want. Sometimes, people will bury themselves if you give them a shovel. I personally ignore them. Those two companies should focus on what services they provide and leave politics out of it.

Free speech is only for the government you have no inherent right to free speech on private businesses / platforms.

[Machismo]

You assume I was dodging when really I had no idea wtf you were saying It took me a minute just now to figure out and I'm still not sure I got it so if I'm wrong lemme know.

So, what you're saying is. By me saying no one should be able to censor anyone, I'm stopping other peoples ability to have around who they want to have around and therefore I'm impeding upon their freedom? If that's what you're saying I just fucking got it lol. If that's what you're saying then I would say don't have an open registration My doors are open because I don't care what fucked up shit people say, that has no effect on me. If they are a bit more sensitive then I guess they should be a bit more restrictive with who they let in, but once they're in ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Didn't see it because I didn't understand your POV




Nope, my stance was always the same, your arguments foundation was eluding me is all. Now we are on the same page and we can have a nice "yes you are/no I'm not" back and forth


I'll have to put on my glasses then lol


I don't understand this. When you say "those websites" are you speaking abstractly about websites to make a point that they can still censor or were you talking specifically websites I mentioned previously? I'm assuming you're speaking abstractly. And to that I say they shouldn't be allowed to censor, still


I know that's right, free to not be censored

It's clear you don't have a clue what I'm saying, because you are dodging, and being a blatant hypocrite. Hey, that's fine, most of the people in this thread are being hypocrites. You've made it clear you are either incapable, or unwilling to see it, so I'm done with you.

[Drusin]

It's clear you don't have a clue what I'm saying, because you are dodging, and being a blatant hypocrite.

I just explained the situation, not gonna address it? That's cool

Hey, that's fine, most of the people in this thread are being hypocrites.

I'm only talking to you

You've made it clear you are either incapable, or unwilling to see it,

Maybe be more clear? No ones ever had trouble deciphering you before?

so I'm done with you.

Don't give up, I enjoy coming here every few hours knowing I'll likely have a response waiting on me

[Machismo]

I just explained the situation, not gonna address it? That's cool


I'm only talking to you


Maybe be more clear? No ones ever had trouble deciphering you before?




Don't give up, I enjoy coming here every few hours knowing I'll likely have a response waiting on me

I did address it, you said you didn't understand. There's not much more to discuss. have a very, very special day.

[breslin]

That's the point, you are saying they don't get to "invite" people in, everyone is allowed to say whatever they want, whether the property owner likes it or not. Your continued attempts to dodge that only shows how disingenuous you are, and that you are the one opposing freedom.

I don't expect you to see your hypocrisy, that's what cognitive dissonance is for. That doesn't mean it wasn't pointed out.

Sop, those websites are uninviting people, and kicking them out. Freedom is fucking grand.

So do you oppose the Civil Rights Act that prevents business owners from discriminating against people based on race and various other buzzwords? Do you support Verizon being able to refuse cell phone service to whomever they deem to be unworthy?

- - - Updated - - -

Then you should be outraged that this site doesn't host explicit porn, or that a Christian website doesn't advertise gay porn or pro-ISIS propaganda. If you only care about censorship, then you are saying you want to force those sites to host that content against their will.

- - - Updated - - -



You keep spreading that lie, it's been debunked numerous times over the last two days. You know this, so your continued attempts at repeating it mean you are a disingenuous liar.

Please show us the law that defines them as platforms.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...lisher-lawsuit

In the Six4Three case, Facebook has also cited Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, US legislation that paved the way for the modern internet by asserting that platforms cannot be liable for content users post on their sites. In court filings, Facebook quoted the law saying providers of a “computer service” should not be “treated as the publisher” of information from others.

“It just strikes me as fundamentally problematic,” said Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. “On one hand, you’re trying to argue you’re this publisher making editorial judgments. But then they turn around and claim they are protected under [Section 230] because they are not publishers.”

[bowchikabow]

The moment tele-com companies start doing that kind of policing/editorializing.. they are no longer platforms, they are publishers.. and thus would be subject to EVERY law pertaining to copyright infringement, pertaining to information sharing, they would be open to litigation from people who were or may have been victimized by something. There is a level of shit-hitting-the-fan that would fall on them that even THEY know they couldn't stop.

[breslin]

As I have said, I don't want borders to exist at all, as all property would be private property. There would be no borders, because people could let others onto their property, or not. It would be none of the government's business.

Oh look at how consistent I am.

A border is what makes a government legitimate. If our borders ceased to exist, how would elections function exactly?

- - - Updated - - -

TIL: Private businesses who "kick out" people for causing trouble are "publishers". That's some serious bottom-of-the-barrel shit right there.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...lisher-lawsuit

In the Six4Three case, Facebook has also cited Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, US legislation that paved the way for the modern internet by asserting that platforms cannot be liable for content users post on their sites. In court filings, Facebook quoted the law saying providers of a “computer service” should not be “treated as the publisher” of information from others.

“It just strikes me as fundamentally problematic,” said Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. “On one hand, you’re trying to argue you’re this publisher making editorial judgments. But then they turn around and claim they are protected under [Section 230] because they are not publishers.”

Although remember this thread is about AT&T and Verizon. Do you think they should be able to ban trouble makers?

[Endus]

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...lisher-lawsuit

In the Six4Three case, Facebook has also cited Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, US legislation that paved the way for the modern internet by asserting that platforms cannot be liable for content users post on their sites. In court filings, Facebook quoted the law saying providers of a “computer service” should not be “treated as the publisher” of information from others.

“It just strikes me as fundamentally problematic,” said Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. “On one hand, you’re trying to argue you’re this publisher making editorial judgments. But then they turn around and claim they are protected under [Section 230] because they are not publishers.”

That defines them as "not the publisher". It does not create a distinct legal category for "platform", nor are the narrow grounds under which they could be considered a publisher in any way enacted by banning users; it only applies to content the company produces, themselves. Youtube can be considered a "publisher" of Youtube PSAs that Youtube creates and posts on their own services. That's all Section 230 covers; there are no measures to force them to be treated as a publisher just because they're managing their user base.

Worse, what the suit is about, in that particular case, is the apps Facebook is choosing to publish through their services, so it's really not comparable to user submissions like you're trying to argue.

Yes, under some conditions, they're publishers. Under others, they're not. That's how laws work.

And further, it's irrelevant, because nothing about being a publisher obliges said publisher to publish any and all submissions to their services. If I demand Tor Books publishes my novel, they can say "nah".

This whole goddamned "platform or publisher" nonsense is entirely fabricated bafflegab. It means nothing, and argues nothing, because it's based on nonsense and lies.

[Machismo]

So do you oppose the Civil Rights Act that prevents business owners from discriminating against people based on race and various other buzzwords? Do you support Verizon being able to refuse cell phone service to whomever they deem to be unworthy?

- - - Updated - - -



https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...lisher-lawsuit

In the Six4Three case, Facebook has also cited Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, US legislation that paved the way for the modern internet by asserting that platforms cannot be liable for content users post on their sites. In court filings, Facebook quoted the law saying providers of a “computer service” should not be “treated as the publisher” of information from others.

“It just strikes me as fundamentally problematic,” said Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. “On one hand, you’re trying to argue you’re this publisher making editorial judgments. But then they turn around and claim they are protected under [Section 230] because they are not publishers.”

I think that anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. Yes, that includes things that have been covered by the CRA> If someone wants to be a homophobic or racist asshole, they should be free to be a homophobic and racist asshole on their property.

They are protected, because Section 230 applies. There is no platform versus publisher issue, it's fucking made up nonsense.

Go read Section 230, it applies to them, as both an internet company, and a company that curates their own site. They are simply not responsible for what someone else publishes on their page.

- - - Updated - - -

The moment tele-com companies start doing that kind of policing/editorializing.. they are no longer platforms, they are publishers.. and thus would be subject to EVERY law pertaining to copyright infringement, pertaining to information sharing, they would be open to litigation from people who were or may have been victimized by something. There is a level of shit-hitting-the-fan that would fall on them that even THEY know they couldn't stop.

That's not actually a law, you are pushing the same misinformation as others.

SO, please feel free to show us those laws that you claim they would be violating.

- - - Updated - - -

A border is what makes a government legitimate. If our borders ceased to exist, how would elections function exactly?

- - - Updated - - -


https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...lisher-lawsuit

In the Six4Three case, Facebook has also cited Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, US legislation that paved the way for the modern internet by asserting that platforms cannot be liable for content users post on their sites. In court filings, Facebook quoted the law saying providers of a “computer service” should not be “treated as the publisher” of information from others.

“It just strikes me as fundamentally problematic,” said Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. “On one hand, you’re trying to argue you’re this publisher making editorial judgments. But then they turn around and claim they are protected under [Section 230] because they are not publishers.”

Although remember this thread is about AT&T and Verizon. Do you think they should be able to ban trouble makers?

I simply would prefer a government that is based on voluntary participation, not on land. Base it on people.