Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[szechuan]

Don't so it selectively. The second example Aurrora gave tells it all.

So it's about Fact Checking.

There are tweets by Colin Kaepernick and even politicians calling for violence,

Colin Kaepernick called for Violence?

Which Politicians were calling for Violence?

Your stupid replies to a very clear post are telling...

Said the person who thinks Fact Checking is the same as "Editing" and/or "Censoring"

- - - Updated - - -

Does twitter fact check every tweet from its other users?

They should.

The uneven application is what makes them a publisher.

It doesn't.

[Machismo]

That paper doesn't dispute anything I say, only enforces it more. Repeating my own post: "Calling those police racist? Where is the proof for that? Power hungry abusers? Of course there are those, but calling everybody that?"

Now what is the paper about? Titel is "An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force". From there we go "On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police." But also "the probability that any civilian is subjected to such treatment is small".

So again, making a broad statement that applies to maybe a very small part of the police.

Well, don't blame me, blame the statistics. Enjoy!!!

The statistics agree with me.

[Luwo]

So it's about Fact Checking.

Colin Kaepernick called for Violence?

Which Politicians were calling for Violence?

Said the person who thinks Fact Checking is the same as "Editing".

- - - Updated - - -

They should.

It doesn't.

https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/stat...46129906552832

Removing posts and replacing them with your own tweet? What do you call that? Adding information to a post? How do you call that?
Definition: prepare (written material) for publication by correcting, condensing, or otherwise modifying it.

So now show your evidence that this doesn't make them a publisher. Saying Uhuh or No to everything doesn't make you right, only look stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, don't blame me, blame the statistics. Enjoy!!!

I see you are back to willfully misrepresenting information Deriving your own conclusion from a paper, I even think you didn't read it or ith your usual bias.

[Machismo]

https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/stat...46129906552832

Removing posts and replacing them with your own tweet? What do you call that? Adding information to a post? How do you call that?
Definition: prepare (written material) for publication by correcting, condensing, or otherwise modifying it.

So now show your evidence that this doesn't make them a publisher. Saying Uhuh or No to everything doesn't make you right, only look stupid.

- - - Updated - - -



I see you are back to willfully misrepresenting information

Nope, the statistics are there. I'm still waiting for your evidence to back up this claim. You sure are ignoring a lot of empirical evidence, what a shame. (Boy, you sure read that study very quickly)

The discussion "platform" versus "publisher" will be renewed. And rightly so, I say. By editing content Twitter became a publisher.

Evidence, please.

[szechuan]

Removing posts and replacing them with your own tweet?

They didn't remove any post, Stop Lying.

Adding information to a post?

They didn't add anything to the post, they put a Warning Label near it.

I see you are back to willfully misrepresenting information

You Clearly are.

[Machismo]

I'm not sure where you got the idea I thought you cared, I'm just explaining to the legal basis as to why they should be treated as a publisher.

It doesn't bring down the legal framework for the free internet, the sites acting in good faith as platforms continue to enjoy the the freedoms of platforms. The ones selectively applying their rules do not. Chinese politicians were allowed to post conspiracy theories of the U.S. army bring the coronavirus to Wuhan for months without a fact-checking until Twitter's hypocrisy was pointed out, just today Twitter decided to mark Trump's tweet about using the national guard to fight looters as "glorifying violence" while tweets promoting rioting, arson and looting remain unflagged. This is what makes them a publisher.

Where does the law make such a distinction?

[szechuan]

https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/stat...46129906552832

LMAO
This is what you consider "Inciting Violence"?

"When civility leads to death, revolting is the only logical reaction.

The cries for peace will rain down, and when they do, they will land on deaf ears, because your violence has brought this resistance.

We have the right to fight back!

Rest in Power George Floyd"

[Luwo]

They didn't remove any post, Stop Lying.

They didn't add anything to the post, they put a Warning Label near it.

You Clearly are.

Lol, semantics. The post was hidden, replaced by their own information and only visible unless clicked on. How is putting a warning label to a post not adding something to a post?

What's with the capitals btw?

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, the statistics are there. I'm still waiting for your evidence to back up this claim. You sure are ignoring a lot of empirical evidence, what a shame. (Boy, you sure read that study very quickly)

Which claim? Ah I see, moving goalposts again when pointed out he is wrong (again).

- - - Updated - - -

LMAO
This is what you consider "Inciting Violence"?

"When civility leads to death, revolting is the only logical reaction.

The cries for peace will rain down, and when they do, they will land on deaf ears, because your violence has brought this resistance.

We have the right to fight back!

Rest in Power George Floyd"

Well, you consider Trump a rapist for a remark he made about his daughter. LMAO.

[Endus]

I'm not sure where you got the idea I thought you cared, I'm just explaining to the legal basis as to why they should be treated as a publisher.

It doesn't bring down the legal framework for the free internet, the sites acting in good faith as platforms continue to enjoy the the freedoms of platforms. The ones selectively applying their rules do not. Chinese politicians were allowed to post conspiracy theories of the U.S. army bring the coronavirus to Wuhan for months without a fact-checking until Twitter's hypocrisy was pointed out, just today Twitter decided to mark Trump's tweet about using the national guard to fight looters as "glorifying violence" while tweets promoting rioting, arson and looting remain unflagged. This is what makes them a publisher.

The problem with this pet theory is that there it grossly misrepresents what Section 230 of the CDA means, and attempts to argue that there is some solid distinguishing line between "platform" and "publisher" under the law, when that is simply not the case. There has never been any expectation or requirement of "neutrality" in any internet platform's management and moderation. The whole "platform or publisher" thing is a right-wing fiction, invented out of lies and a persecution complex.

The worst part is, if you revoked Section 230 of the CDA, which protects websites from being held legally liable for content posted by users as long as the site is making good-faith efforts to moderate illegal activity? If you actually created this legal framework where the platform was held responsible (which isn't even legally clear without Section 230, it simply clarifies it in very overt language)? All you'd do is create a circumstance where websites could be so held legally liable. Which means those services would end. All posts would be hidden until a moderator reviewed and approved them. If they don't like what you're saying, for any reason at all, they hit "nah" and the post never sees the light of day. They not only aren't expected to be neutral, here, they're expected not to be, to aggressively and proactively restrict what gets published to only content they think is worthwhile.

It does end the Internet as we know it. Because there is no legal distinction between platform and publisher. "Platform" is not a legal term at all, distinct from "publisher", in the first place. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/1...seff-interview

The whole nonsense is a fantasy invented by right-wingers who don't want to get banned for being complete assholes on social media, and who try to pretend they were banned for "being right-wing", rather than "being abusive assholes to other users".

[Luwo]

The problem with this pet theory is that there it grossly misrepresents what Section 230 of the CDA means, and attempts to argue that there is some solid distinguishing line between "platform" and "publisher" under the law, when that is simply not the case. There has never been any expectation or requirement of "neutrality" in any internet platform's management and moderation. The whole "platform or publisher" thing is a right-wing fiction, invented out of lies and a persecution complex.

The worst part is, if you revoked Section 230 of the CDA, which protects websites from being held legally liable for content posted by users as long as the site is making good-faith efforts to moderate illegal activity? If you actually created this legal framework where the platform was held responsible (which isn't even legally clear without Section 230, it simply clarifies it in very overt language)? All you'd do is create a circumstance where websites could be so held legally liable. Which means those services would end. All posts would be hidden until a moderator reviewed and approved them. If they don't like what you're saying, for any reason at all, they hit "nah" and the post never sees the light of day. They not only aren't expected to be neutral, here, they're expected not to be, to aggressively and proactively restrict what gets published to only content they think is worthwhile.

It does end the Internet as we know it. Because there is no legal distinction between platform and publisher. "Platform" is not a legal term at all, distinct from "publisher", in the first place. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/1...seff-interview

The whole nonsense is a fantasy invented by right-wingers who don't want to get banned for being complete assholes on social media, and who try to pretend they were banned for "being right-wing", rather than "being abusive assholes to other users".

Ah, here comes Endus again with his everything is right wing theories. Amazing, we were talking about conspiracy theories before.

[Machismo]

Lol, semantics. The post was hidden, replaced by their own information and only visible unless clicked on. How is putting a warning label to a post not adding something to a post?

What's with the capitals btw?

- - - Updated - - -



Which claim? Ah I see, moving goalposts again when pointed out he is wrong (again).

- - - Updated - - -



Well, you consider Trump a rapist for a remark he made about his daughter. LMAO.

You made a claim, where is your evidence? I look forward to you being able to cite the law and language to back that up.

The discussion "platform" versus "publisher" will be renewed. And rightly so, I say. By editing content Twitter became a publisher.

It's a shame you Trumpsters hate freedom of speech so fucking much.

[szechuan]

Well, you consider Trump a rapist for a remark he made about his daughter. LMAO.

Don't know why you keep lying, I never made any claim like that.

Removing posts and replacing them with your own tweet?

They didn't Remove the Tweet.

Lol, semantics. The post was hidden, replaced by their own information and only visible unless clicked on. How is putting a warning label to a post not adding something to a post?

They added a Warning Label.
They didn't Edit the Post.
They didn't replace the tweet, it was still there.

[Machismo]

I'm not sure where you got the idea I thought you cared, I'm just explaining to the legal basis as to why they should be treated as a publisher.

It doesn't bring down the legal framework for the free internet, the sites acting in good faith as platforms continue to enjoy the the freedoms of platforms. The ones selectively applying their rules do not. Chinese politicians were allowed to post conspiracy theories of the U.S. army bring the coronavirus to Wuhan for months without a fact-checking until Twitter's hypocrisy was pointed out, just today Twitter decided to mark Trump's tweet about using the national guard to fight looters as "glorifying violence" while tweets promoting rioting, arson and looting remain unflagged. This is what makes them a publisher.

Except, Trump literally wants to get rid of that framework that makes the current internet possible.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...e2mMI0iTTyQ4VE

[Endus]

Ah, here comes Endus again with his everything is right wing theories. Amazing, we were talking about conspiracy theories before.

"Here comes Endus again" from the brand-new account.

Whining because Twitter moderates its users' content is an argument without any basis in the law or reality. They're perfectly entitled to act this way, and there is zero legal expectation that they be "neutral" in any political sense. They could straight-up ban every single person who expresses political views they dislike, if they wanted to.

Again, this whole "they're publishers and therefore can't moderate content" is imaginary nonsense without any real basis. And I've only ever seen right-wingers spew it. There's no "conspiracy" about that, it's an observation. That you're trying to make it about me rather than the complete lack of merit in your position that I demonstrated, though, is pretty telling.

[Laughingjack]

The problem with this pet theory is that there it grossly misrepresents what Section 230 of the CDA means, and attempts to argue that there is some solid distinguishing line between "platform" and "publisher" under the law, when that is simply not the case. There has never been any expectation or requirement of "neutrality" in any internet platform's management and moderation. The whole "platform or publisher" thing is a right-wing fiction, invented out of lies and a persecution complex.

The worst part is, if you revoked Section 230 of the CDA, which protects websites from being held legally liable for content posted by users as long as the site is making good-faith efforts to moderate illegal activity? If you actually created this legal framework where the platform was held responsible (which isn't even legally clear without Section 230, it simply clarifies it in very overt language)? All you'd do is create a circumstance where websites could be so held legally liable. Which means those services would end. All posts would be hidden until a moderator reviewed and approved them. If they don't like what you're saying, for any reason at all, they hit "nah" and the post never sees the light of day. They not only aren't expected to be neutral, here, they're expected not to be, to aggressively and proactively restrict what gets published to only content they think is worthwhile.

It does end the Internet as we know it. Because there is no legal distinction between platform and publisher. "Platform" is not a legal term at all, distinct from "publisher", in the first place. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/1...seff-interview

The whole nonsense is a fantasy invented by right-wingers who don't want to get banned for being complete assholes on social media, and who try to pretend they were banned for "being right-wing", rather than "being abusive assholes to other users".

You are right but there is something noble about the idea of making the internet a platform for the exchange of free ideas where rather then money the ideas that prosper are those that survival the gladiatorial nature debate.

So far few websites offer that. I would say the chan sites come the closest and those terrify people. A liberated people are a terrifying people.

[Endus]

You are right but there is something noble about the idea of making the internet a platform for the exchange of free ideas where rather then money the ideas that prosper are those that survival the gladiatorial nature debate.

So far few websites offer that. I would say the chan sites come the closest and those terrify people. A liberated people are a terrifying people.

Nobody's "terrified" of the chan sites. They're cesspools. They're not scary, they're just gross.

We already have a status quo where the Internet is a platform for the free exchange of ideas. That's the status quo you're challenging, because you want to control or restrict that exchange of ideas.\

Hell, that those chan sites exist proves this.

[Laughingjack]

Nobody's "terrified" of the chan sites. They're cesspools. They're not scary, they're just gross.

We already have a status quo where the Internet is a platform for the free exchange of ideas. That's the status quo you're challenging, because you want to control or restrict that exchange of ideas.

I mean... I call bullshit people are terrified of the chan sites. They attack them constantly for their "forbidden knowledge" (Those are not ironic quotes you can get a lot of forbidden information on the chans).

I am not really challenging it. It is more I like the concept of the free exchange of ideas. I realize its a fantasy and for damn good reason but I don't pretend that the restriction of speech by corporate interests is free speech ether.

The status quo is the rich control the platforms for speech.

[Machismo]

I mean... I call bullshit people are terrified of the chan sites. They attack them constantly for their "forbidden knowledge" (Those are not ironic quotes you can get a lot of forbidden information on the chans).

I am not really challenging it. It is more I like the concept of the free exchange of ideas. I realize its a fantasy and for damn good reason but I don't pretend that the restriction of speech by corporate interests is free speech ether.

The status quo is the rich control the platforms for speech.

Nobody is afraid of them, everyone just knows them for the the racist shitshows that they are.

[Mayhem]

If you don't live in a country where abuse by LE can be reported and gets dealt with by other members of LE, then you don't get to say "quite the opposite", because it's clearly not a civilized country. Quite simply, you'd be telling the dispatcher there are some cops killing a guy who has been neutralized. Nice job showing your true colours after calling me a troll, by the way.

You are aware that we are talking about the US here and not the country I live in?

[Laughingjack]

Nobody is afraid of them, everyone just knows them for the the racist shitshows that they are.

I mean I know my government doesn't like that I can download 3d printed guns off it. China also isn;t the greatest fan of them for their roll in allowing supplying information about convid ahead of who/cdc via the collection of whistle blowers.

Perhaps fear is to strong a word. They are more a real annoyance.