Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[Machismo]

this isn't the fantasy you exist in where libertarianism is against chattel slavery. also you SERIOUSLY need to get your eyes checked when I said and I quote:


bolded for emphasis.

Once again, let's see you back this claim up. Of course, since it's literally just your opinion, it can be disregarded as that.

- - - Updated - - -

Who here's actually written proposed legislation for actual governments?

I have.

I got paid for that shit, and it took months, and it wasn't just me working on the project.

I'm not repeating that for free for a rando post on a web forum.

I didn't ask for a full bill, did I?

I asked him to be able to explain what he wanted in detail, and how he would go about doing it.

Or, as you put it.

It's not an argument.

[Elegiac]

Why would I pay you, it's your legislation you want.

You're asking for labour on my part. Do libertarians not believe in paying people for their work?

Meanwhile, this would have to limit Section 230 of the CDA

Good thing I've not proposed that.

- - - Updated - - -

Who here's actually written proposed legislation for actual governments?

I have.

I got paid for that shit, and it took months, and it wasn't just me working on the project.

I'm not repeating that for free for a rando post on a web forum.

I still have PTSD from my mock legislature days, lol.

And that was just for a bill banning bail bonds, let alone regulating social media.

[Endus]

It's not a lie, it's examples, like China. Hell, like North Korea. There's other examples of the government putting heavy control over social media.

And?

I don't care. It doesn't prove your claim. You're willfully cherry-picking to misrepresent the argument. Nothing about nationalising a company means there is anything nefarious at play.

Link the post, let's see it.

I'm not repeating myself.

[Machismo]

You're asking for labour on my part. Do libertarians not believe in paying people for their work?



Good thing I've not proposed that.

I'm asking you to actually define your stance.

So, if all you have is "legislation to do it" without being able to explain what, or even how, then that's not much.

My only response would be no thanks on that "legislation."

You haven't proposed anything, I'm simply going by the likely process to do what you want to do. The hits are going to come in 1st Amendment protections and Section 230 protections.

[Elegiac]

I'm asking you to actually define your stance.

My stance is that social media companies have deleterious real world impacts in their current state and should be subject to further regulation in order to mitigate said impacts, as I've said several times before.

Refusing to humor your demand for free labor doesn't make it not a stance in the same way "polluters should be regulated to mitigate climate change" remains a stance despite lack of elaboration. It means I owe you exactly zero favors.

My only response would be no thanks on that "legislation."

Then why the fuck would I waste time writing it for you. Kek.

[Machismo]

And?

I don't care. It doesn't prove your claim. You're willfully cherry-picking to misrepresent the argument. Nothing about nationalising a company means there is anything nefarious at play.



I'm not repeating myself.

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

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!!!

- - - Updated - - -

My stance is that social media companies have deleterious real world impacts in their current state and should be subject to further regulation in order to mitigate said impacts, as I've said several times before.

Refusing to humor your demand for free labor doesn't make it not a stance, lol.

And you cannot explain what those "further regulations" would be.

That's the point.

Does it mean taking away their Section 230 protections, making them liable for the things people post?

Does it mean forcing them to ban more and more content?

Does it mean forcing them to ban anything you deem to be misinformation?

[Elegiac]

So, nowhere did I say it should be unlimited.

*gestures*

"Just because you don't like speech, doesn't mean it ought to be censored. That is the way it is, and that is the way it ought to be."

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.

[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.