Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[Endus]

So, nowhere did I say it should be unlimited. Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

Did you use the word "unlimited"? No.

Did you argue that any restriction on speech is censorship and you oppose all censorship? Yes.

Right there in what I linked.

The fact that i said that's the way it is (where it is currently not unlimited), and I say that is the way it ought to be (means I agree with it).

That makes you wrong. It's that simple. Thanks for proving me right with my own quote!!!

Even if you want to claim that (which it isn't; current law censors a lot of speech, which you claim you admit, now), it means you don't have a position for opposing further restrictions on speech. You've admitted that such restrictions can be justified, so you can't just go "but that's censorship, and I oppose that". Because you've already agreed that censorship is a necessary good.

[Machismo]

[QUOTE=Elegiac;53396124]*gestures*


[quote=Endus]The only way that functions as an argument is if you oppose curtailing those freedoms, regardless of the reason; you skip right past asking if there's a justification for doing so, to insisting there cannot be, because no speech should be "censored".

QED.

never said it should be unlimited.

It is currently not unlimited, is it?

And yet, you have me saying it should stay as it is.

So, thanks for also noting that Endus was wrong.

[Elegiac]

never said it should be unlimited.

It is currently not unlimited, is it?

Social media? In the US?

It's less regulated than you think. It's largely "self-regulating" (which is a thing capitalists say when it's actually unregulated).

[Machismo]

Did you use the word "unlimited"? No.

Did you argue that any restriction on speech is censorship and you oppose all censorship? Yes.

Right there in what I linked.



Even if you want to claim that (which it isn't; current law censors a lot of speech), it means you don't have a position for opposing further restrictions on speech. You've admitted that such restrictions can be justified, so you can't just go "but that's censorship, and I oppose that". Because you've already agreed that censorship is a necessary good.

Nope, I didn't.

It is currently not unlimited, and I am fine with that. It is as it ought to be.

I can oppose further restrictions, and I am... right now, and have been. This is especially the case when people cannot even say how they plan on restricting it... just that they want to restrict it.

So, to make it abundantly clear. I do not think speech should be unlimited.

There, now there's no way you can lie about this, again.

- - - Updated - - -

Social media? In the US?

It's less regulated than you think.

I never said how regulated it was.

I simply understand that speech is not unlimited, and I accept that, and I am fine with some restrictions to speech.

[Elegiac]

I never said how regulated it was.

I simply understand that speech is not unlimited, and I accept that, and I am fine with that.

Oh, so you are in fact capable of grasping that limitations on a right is not an automatic slippery slope into authoritarianism.

Remind me what your argument was, again? Because if it's that "present regulations are sufficient", that's already been debunked.

[Endus]

Nope, I didn't.

It is currently not unlimited, and I am fine with that.

You accept and support the status quo.
The status quo currently includes wide swaths of censorship of various forms of speech.
Therefore, you accept and support censorship.

You can't hold that position and oppose censorship on the basis of it being censorship. You've already admitted you're cool with censorship.

It is as it ought to be.

That is a conclusion for an argument you have made no effort to present. I can thus dismiss it out of hand.

I can oppose further restrictions, and I am... right now, and have been. This is especially the case when people cannot even say how they plan on restricting it... just that they want to restrict it.

You'd need a reason to oppose it.

And you can't use "it would be censorship to restrict it, and I oppose censorship" as a reason. You've already admitted you accept and support censorship, as a practice.

[Machismo]

Oh, so you are in fact capable of grasping that limitations on a right is not an automatic slippery slope into authoritarianism.

Remind me what your argument was, again? Because if it's that "present regulations are sufficient", that's already been debunked.

Once again, this isn't an argument I ever made, which was made clear.

I am grasping something that you claimed I couldn't understand.

My argument is that I want the first Amendment to remain intact, as well as Section 230 of the CDA. I am fearful of unnamed legislation that people cannot define.

I'm also opposed to the idea of nationalizing all social media sites, including this one.

- - - Updated - - -

You accept and support the status quo.
The status quo currently includes wide swaths of censorship of various forms of speech.
Therefore, you accept and support censorship.

You can't hold that position and oppose censorship on the basis of it being censorship. You've already admitted you're cool with censorship.



That is a conclusion for an argument you have made no effort to present. I can thus dismiss it out of hand.



You'd need a reason to oppose it.

And you can't use "it would be censorship to restrict it, and I oppose censorship" as a reason. You've already admitted you accept and support censorship, as a practice.

Once again, you are claiming I said something that I did not say. So, my only response is... that's not my argument. That is not my position. I never said I'm opposed to all forms of censorship.

You asked for oughts, I gave them. You're welcome.

I gave my reasons. I will not repeat myself.

[Endus]

My argument is that I want the first Amendment to remain intact, as well as Section 230 of the CDA. I am fearful of unnamed legislation that people cannot define.

There are plenty of forms of speech that aren't protected by the First Amendment. Adding to that list in no way harms the First Amendment. And you've already admitted you're cool with such restrictions, so don't back off from that position now.

- - - Updated - - -

I gave my reasons. I will not repeat myself.

The only reason you ever gave, as I already quoted, was that you oppose censorship.

And you've already admitted that was untrue, and that you actually accept and support the use of censorship against harmful forms of speech.

And c'mon. You challenged me twice for things you claimed I never provided, and I backed myself up both times. If I'm wrong, it's trivial to prove it, isn't it? Just provide the link, like I did, for you. Twice.

[Elegiac]

My argument is that I want the first Amendment to remain intact, as well as Section 230 of the CDA

Neither of which are incompatible with regulation or even nationalization.

Good on you for admitting you're actually just talking past everyone without engaging with their positions, though. I'm sure it was very helpful in convincing the one (1) person on this website who wasn't aware you're a libertarian that you do in fact support liberty.

[Machismo]

There are plenty of forms of speech that aren't protected by the First Amendment. Adding to that list in no way harms the First Amendment. And you've already admitted you're cool with such restrictions, so don't back off from that position now.

Of course it can.

If tat form of speech is vague, nebulous, or simply heavy-handed.

If the speech that isn't protected is something like support of gay rights (like in Russia), then that would be a huge hit to the 1st Amendment.

Or, are you going to try and argue that censoring any support of gay rights wouldn't be an attack on the First Amendment? I sure as shit think it would.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither of which are incompatible with regulation or even nationalization.

Good on you for admitting you're actually just talking past everyone without engaging with their positions, though. I'm sure it was very helpful in convincing the one (1) person on this website who wasn't aware you're a libertarian that you do in fact support liberty.

Except, you have not defined your legislation you want. So, until you do, all I can do, is make guesses based on past actions, and current actions of other governments.

Of course, you could always actually define that legislation.

[Endus]

Of course it can.

If tat form of speech is vague, nebulous, or simply heavy-handed.

If the speech that isn't protected is something like support of gay rights (like in Russia), then that would be a huge hit to the 1st Amendment.

Or, are you going to try and argue that censoring any support of gay rights wouldn't be an attack on the First Amendment? I sure as shit think it would.

Y'see, if I were to entertain this derail (I won't, because it's a derail, and not relevant to the topic), I'd point to the lack of merits or the incidental harms that would be caused by such a policy, specifically. I wouldn't say it's bad because it's censorship, because that's not a defensible argument; plenty of forms of censorship (like that of child pornography, say) are very good principles. Whether any given form of censorship is good or bad is down to intent, context, and outcomes.

[Elegiac]

Except, you have not defined your legislation you want.

Something that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not free speech and regulation are mutually exclusive (They aren't. Source: You), or whether or not the state of social media regulation in the US is sufficient (It isn't. Source: The Big Lie, Antivaccination, Climate Change Denial).

[Machismo]

Y'see, if I were to entertain this derail (I won't, because it's a derail, and not relevant to the topic), I'd point to the lack of merits or the incidental harms that would be caused by such a policy, specifically. I wouldn't say it's bad because it's censorship, because that's not a defensible argument; plenty of forms of censorship (like that of child pornography, say) are very good principles. Whether any given form of censorship is good or bad is down to intent, context, and outcomes.

And you'll note, I didn't say that. This is you lying about my stance... again.

Man, it's almost as if you're finally caught up to the point where I said you would have to prove intent of that misinformation in order to justify going after it...

I simply pointed out how it can easily limit free speech rights, and often does.

- - - Updated - - -

Something that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not free speech and regulation are mutually exclusive (They aren't. Source: You), or whether or not the state of social media regulation in the US is sufficient (It isn't. Source: The Big Lie, Antivaccination, Climate Change Denial).

Since you cannot define your position, I simply went with the most likely outcomes, based on prior actions of government.

If you care to refute me, then make your case with your legislation.

[Elegiac]

Since you cannot define your position, I simply went with the most likely outcomes, based on prior actions of government.

Despite having admitted that prior government actions regarding the regulation of free speech have not inevitably led to authoritarianism. Okay.

Gotta admit it's funny watching you immediately jump to the least charitable interpretation when there's a veritable salt mine of posts where you attack others for unfavorably misrepresenting your positions.

Y'all, can we just rename libertarianism to hypocrisy at this point?

[Endus]

And you'll note, I didn't say that. This is you lying about my stance... again.

Except I directly quoted you saying that.

So no. I'm not the one lying, here.

I simply pointed out how it can easily limit free speech rights, and often does.

Limiting free speech rights is potentially a positive thing. You've already conceded that point. You're now returning to exactly the same argument you just accused me of lying for pointing out that you rely on it.

[Machismo]

Despite having admitted that prior government actions regarding the regulation of free speech have not inevitably led to authoritarianism. Okay.

Gotta admit it's funny watching you immediately jump to the least charitable interpretation when there's a veritable salt mine of posts where you attack others for unfavorably misrepresenting your positions.

Y'all, can we just rename libertarianism to hypocrisy at this point?

I'm simply hesitant of anyone demanding immediate government action and legislation, yet they still cannot define how they want it done.

Considering I'm talking to another dude who wants the government to nationalize all social media sites, why should I be charitable?

- - - Updated - - -

Except I directly quoted you saying that.

So no. I'm not the one lying, here.



Limiting free speech rights is potentially a positive thing. You've already conceded that point. You're now returning to exactly the same argument you just accused me of lying for pointing out that you rely on it.

Nope, this is not true. Just like when you said I claimed to want unlimited speech.

How many straw men are you going to build?

I didn't say that, and to be clear, I do not believe that. There, now you have a quote.

[Elegiac]

I'm simply hesitant of anyone demanding immediate government action and legislation

Despite having admitted there are plenty of instances where such has not, again, led to a slippery slope into authoritarianism.

Considering I'm talking to another dude who wants the government to nationalize all social media sites, why should I be charitable?

For the same reason you believe people shouldn't misrepresent your positions, whatever that may be.

[Endus]

Nope, this is not true. Just like when you said I claimed to want unlimited speech.

How many straw men are you going to build?

I didn't say that, and to be clear, I do not believe that. There, now you have a quote.

Then stop making statements that amount to that.

Again; you've already admitted that restricting free speech rights is often a good thing. You did so again, right here. You acknowledge there are justifiable limits to free speech.

So you can't rationally oppose any proposed amendments to protected speech laws that would create a new category of unprotected speech, just because it limits freedom of speech. You've admitted that's a necessity that you support.

[Machismo]

Despite having admitted there are plenty of instances where such has not, again, led to a slippery slope into authoritarianism.



For the same reason you believe people shouldn't misrepresent your positions, whatever that may be.

And I pointed out early and often how difficult it would be, considering how nebulous that misinformation is. The key would be proving intent, and how you would regulate those social media companies.

Since you don't seem explain, I see no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why should I?

- - - Updated - - -

Then stop making statements that amount to that.

Again; you've already admitted that restricting free speech rights is often a good thing. You did so again, right here. You acknowledge there are justifiable limits to free speech.

So you can't rationally oppose any proposed amendments to protected speech laws that would create a new category of unprotected speech, just because it limits freedom of speech. You've admitted that's a necessity that you support.

Once again, this is simply you misinterpreting what I say, on purpose.

I never said speech should be unlimited. I have stated that trying to restrict misinformation on the internet would be messy, almost certainly heavy handed, and likely lead to major abuses.

I can oppose it, because I cited real-life examples of that happening as a result of such attempts by governments.

I've been saying this shit from the beginning.

[Elegiac]

And I pointed out early and often how difficult it would be, considering how nebulous that misinformation is. The key would be proving intent, and how you would regulate those social media companies.

Kinda makes all the huffing and puffing about authoritarianism look a little silly and reactionary then, doesn't it?

I do wish libertarians would start actually engaging with their opponents rather than debating the caricatures of said opponents that they form in their heads based on second hand accounts. But that would defeat the purpose of an ideology built around a persistent state of outrage. It's the OG resentment politics in this country.