Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[Machismo]

Good on you admitting this isn't remotely a function of you caring about anyone's free speech rights but just an extension of the eternal "government bad" crusade. *slow clap*

Umm, no... you're simply wrong.

I'm not even sure how you got that from my comment.

It's literally a support of private property rights, and the free speech rights of private individuals and business owners.

[Elegiac]

I'm not even sure how you got that from my comment.

*gestures*

Oh, okay, so you're totally fine with people being banned for saying true things as long as it's just a private entity doing so.

A private entity can do what the hell it wants. If they want to ban me for reciting pi, bully for them. They are free to do it

If something is only bad when the government does it, your issue is with government rather than the thing being done. Don't write cheques you aren't prepared to have cashed.

[Machismo]

Good on you admitting this isn't remotely a function of you caring about anyone's free speech rights but just an extension of the eternal "government bad" crusade. *slow clap*



Please point me to the part of Section 230 that entitles people to use that microphone.



"If you like this precedent then you must also like this other one" is some lazy ass arguing on your part.

That's where I said the First Amendment comes in. If both the microphone owner wants them to use it, and the person wants to use the microphone, then that is a voluntary agreement. Both of them have First Amendment rights, including both speech, as well as association.

You argued "common law" as your basis, so deal with the "common law" as the basis when it works against you. Of course, if you want to come up with another argument besides that, let me know.

- - - Updated - - -

*gestures*




If something is only bad when the government does it, your issue is with government rather than the thing being done. Don't write cheques you aren't prepared to have cashed.

My issue is with protecting constitutional rights.

The difference with a company doing it, is I can simply stop using it. Hell, I stopped using Facebook. So, this is not my argument, merely your improper interpretation.

[Elegiac]

That's where I said the First Amendment comes in.

Please point me to the part of Section 230 that entitles people to use that microphone.

You argued "common law" as your basis

I argued Falwell v. Hustler as my basis for pointing out your assertion that truth is the distinguishing factor was wrong. Not sure how that implies support for Citizens United unless one believes that you can't like some laws but not others.

- - - Updated - - -

My issue is with protecting constitutional rights.

Indeed, because on your part "constitutional rights" are a convenient cudgel in aforementioned "government bad" crusade rather than because said rights actually furnish people's welfare.

The difference with a company doing it, is I can simply stop using it.

You have in excess of 191 other countries to choose from, too.

[Machismo]

Please point me to the part of Section 230 that entitles people to use that microphone.



I argued Falwell v. Hustler as my basis for pointing out your assertion that truth is the distinguishing factor was wrong. Not sure how that implies support for Citizens United unless one believes that you can't like some laws but not others.

Once again, that's where the First Amendment comes into play.

I pointed to both for a reason.

Hustler won, which was a win for free speech, and limited the ability to punish speech. Not only that, the truth is protection against attempts to stifle speech. That's why I cited the California law, because it requires that the statements be false. Since the statements are true, then it's a non-starter.

Your argument was "common law," so the argument against you is "common law."

- - - Updated - - -

Please point me to the part of Section 230 that entitles people to use that microphone.



I argued Falwell v. Hustler as my basis for pointing out your assertion that truth is the distinguishing factor was wrong. Not sure how that implies support for Citizens United unless one believes that you can't like some laws but not others.

- - - Updated - - -



Indeed, because on your part "constitutional rights" are a convenient cudgel in aforementioned "government bad" crusade rather than because said rights actually furnish people's welfare.



You have in excess of 191 other countries to choose from, too.

Once again, this is what you keep pretending it is, when I have been very consistent that this is about protecting rights.

Of course, if you don't like it, you can use your own argument, and pick one of those other countries, instead of trying to stifle free speech.

[Elegiac]

Once again, that's where the First Amendment comes into play.

So it's not actually a function of Section 230 but rather what you want the First Amendment to say. Good to know.

Hustler won, which was a win for free speech, and limited the ability to punish speech.

Without removing it; ergo, free speech and some level of restriction are not incompatible and your slippery slope fallacies are just that.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, if you don't like it, you can use your own argument, and pick one of those other countries, instead of trying to stifle free speech.

That's nice. Still means your "I can choose not to use Facebook but I'm stuck with the US government" was a false statement, though.

[Endus]

I never said they don't restrict speech, you are beating a dead straw man.

Then you can stop complaining about restrictions of harmful speech.

If you're gonna go back to that, I'm gonna bring this up again, because you're being a hypocrite and trying to have things both ways.

Except, this would mean punishing the literal and objective truth. So, we both agree libel laws will not cut it.

Literally no one was talking about libel laws in this respect. It's not libel, in the first place.

We also agree that corporations have the First Amendment rights.

Trivially irrelevant, since if misinformation is not protected speech, it's not covered by the First Amendment in the first place.

So, the only way to do this, would be new legislation, which would not only be nearly impossible to pass, would have to dramatically impact the First Amendment rights of those social media companies, as well as those pushing that misinformation. Any law would be immediately challenged, and rightfully so.

If you're talking about practical realities, with a proto-Fascist GOP using these exact propaganda tools themselves, fine.

If you're talking about what ought to happen, it shouldn't be "nearly impossible", it would only have comparable "impacts" as banning child porn. So where's the grounds for legitimate challenge?

[Machismo]

So it's not actually a function of Section 230 but rather what you want the First Amendment to say. Good to know.



Without removing it; ergo, free speech and some level of restriction are not incompatible and your slippery slope fallacies are just that.

I even gave you the full reading of Section 230, it's why I also pointed to the 1st Amendment.

Here you go:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...irst_amendment

Some levels of restriction exist, nobody ever argued otherwise. Meanwhile, this is entirely different, because it's not about slanderous, libelous, or defamatory speech.

[Elegiac]

Some levels of restriction exist, nobody ever argued otherwise.

Aside from your insistence that restriction of speech is automatically a slippery slope into authoritarianism, you mean.

[Machismo]

Then you can stop complaining about restrictions of harmful speech.

If you're gonna go back to that, I'm gonna bring this up again, because you're being a hypocrite and trying to have things both ways.



Literally no one was talking about libel laws in this respect. It's not libel, in the first place.



Trivially irrelevant, since if misinformation is not protected speech, it's not covered by the First Amendment in the first place.



If you're talking about practical realities, with a proto-Fascist GOP using these exact propaganda tools themselves, fine.

If you're talking about what ought to happen, it shouldn't be "nearly impossible", it would only have comparable "impacts" as banning child porn. So where's the grounds for legitimate challenge?

Once again, not only do you have to show harm, you also have to show intent. And, in the case of slander and libel, you'd have to show them to be false statements.

They are not false statements.

People were talking about them, because they cited rulings based on them.

You keep trying to compare it to child porn, which is fuckin stupid. These are factual statements, that are not against the law. That's like comparing a scathing Yelp review to rape.

- - - Updated - - -

Aside from your insistence that restriction of speech is automatically a slippery slope into authoritarianism, you mean.

No, I pointed to THIS attempt as a slippery slope. I believe I was specifically referring to the government silencing verifiably truthful statements.

It goes so far beyond current precedent, that it's not even in the same neighborhood.

[Elegiac]

These are factual statements, that are not against the law.

You don't seem to have grasped that facts can be used to tell a false story.

No, I pointed to THIS attempt as a slippery slope.

Despite admitting that previous instances have not led to a slippery slope. Sure, Jan.

[Machismo]

You don't seem to have grasped that facts can be used to tell a false story.



Despite admitting that previous instances have not led to a slippery slope. Sure, Jan.

Once again, that means it cannot be deemed as libelous.

This is literally trying to restrict verifiably-true statements.

[Elegiac]

Once again, that means it cannot be deemed as libelous.

Good thing we aren't talking about libel in the case of social media.

This is literally trying to restrict verifiably-true statements.

It's restricting the use of true statements to spread false stories (i.e. misinformation). Critical difference, not sure why you're having a hard time with it besides irrational fear about the government.

[Machismo]

Good thing we aren't talking about libel in the case of social media.



It's restricting the use of true statements to spread false stories (i.e. misinformation). Critical difference, not sure why you're having a hard time with it besides irrational fear about the government.

So, what law are we talking about? the precedent is on the side of social media.

When dealing with things that are largely subjective, the courts are going to stick with protecting speech.

[Elegiac]

So, what law are we talking about?

A hypothetical future law regulating social media. You know, an ought argument.

When dealing with things that are largely subjective, the courts are going to stick with protecting speech.

I like how you have to fall back on the dysfunction of the American system as a defense rather than actually being able to justify why misinformation should be protected speech. Lol.

[Vegas82]

So, what law are we talking about? the precedent is on the side of social media.

When dealing with things that are largely subjective, the courts are going to stick with protecting speech.

The new one that is needed. Why are you still confused?

[Endus]

Once again, not only do you have to show harm, you also have to show intent. And, in the case of slander and libel, you'd have to show them to be false statements.

The "intent" is covered by "did you mean to post this statement". I have no idea why you think it goes any further than that.

And again; we're not talking about slander or libel. If it were slander/libel, it would already be covered by the extant law. You're deflecting, again.

You keep trying to compare it to child porn, which is fuckin stupid. These are factual statements, that are not against the law. That's like comparing a scathing Yelp review to rape.

Why is it "stupid"? Pornography is, explicitly and definitively, speech. Child pornography, specifically, is banned speech, in that it's criminal to disseminate or produce it at all.

I don't care that facts are misused in deliberately misleading contexts. It's those "misleading contexts" that make it disinformation. You can cite "facts" in ways that are willfully dishonest. Obviously. "But it's technically true if you add in a bunch of context I deliberately excluded" is just explaining exactly how you were maliciously dishonest, not that you weren't dishonest.

If you had your way, I could dodge a fraud accusation by pointing to the bits in the pitch that weren't lies, as if that counters all the bits that were lies.

[Shadowferal]

so we're reduced to out right lying now? that's how you think you "win" this discussion? you're pathetic...

We're also reduced to "because it's legal then it's good."

[Machismo]

A hypothetical future law regulating social media. You know, an ought argument.



I like how you have to fall back on the dysfunction of the American system as a defense rather than actually being able to justify why misinformation should be protected speech. Lol.

Then "common law" isn't going to be the future argument, and this supposed law will. Since we see no law, and cannot even properly discuss it, then it's simply a whim.

You spoke of other "western" countries talking about such laws, but never gave specifics as to what they were discussing.

[Endus]

When dealing with things that are largely subjective, the courts are going to stick with protecting speech.

Again, the literal purpose of a jury system is to introduce subjectivity into the legal process and rely on subjective interpretations of laypeople in determining what is or is not "justice".