Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[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.

[Machismo]

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.

Not at all, considering I pointed to it actually happening in other countries.

I find your last comment rather hypocritical, considering you admitted you had no intention of actually backing your stance. This is doubly so, since you guys keep trying to argue about libertarians.

So, if you cannot define that legislation, I will simply use other government action against social media as a reference.

[Elegiac]

Not at all, considering I pointed to it actually happening in other countries.

And you and other people have pointed out cases of it not happening.

Again, seems kinda silly and premature on your part.

[Machismo]

And you and other people have pointed out cases of it not happening.

Again, seems kinda silly and premature on your part.

Do you have any good "for instance" examples of this? don't recall anyone showing any examples of governments restricting social media in a way they liked. I do recall at least two posters going out of their way to not talk about their own countries.

So, I'd love to see your examples of what counties, and the legislation you wish to implement.

[unfilteredJW]

In one corner, we have well thought out posts pointing that we might need some regulatory legislation regarding social media.

In the other corner, we have Machismo lying, building straw men, and basically just shitting all over the game board.

His fevered hatred for Trumpers makes sense: it was like looking into a mirror, but the reflection had a red hat.

[Elegiac]

Do you have any good "for instance" examples of this? don't recall anyone showing any examples of governments restricting social media in a way they liked.

Gee, maybe because that could be because social media is largely unregulated and they're capable of understanding the difference between good and bad forms of censorship.

[Machismo]

In one corner, we have well thought out posts pointing that we might need some regulatory legislation regarding social media.

In the other corner, we have Machismo lying, building straw men, and basically just shitting all over the game board.

His fevered hatred for Trumpers makes sense: it was like looking into a mirror, but the reflection had a red hat.

Except, they haven't been able to even say what that legislation would be. So, apparently.. it's not "well thought out."

Maybe you can give them a hand.

- - - Updated - - -

Gee, maybe because that could be because social media is largely unregulated and they're capable of understanding the difference between good and bad forms of censorship.

So, no examples...

[Endus]

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.

You've declared that, without any evidence or rationale behind that, other than fearmongering about authoritarian states.

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.

And it's been irrational and unjustified from the beginning.

You're not bringing up anything new. You're just repeating the same errors of reasoning, over and over.

Are we talking about China? No. So why bring them up? Nobody's proposing their model. It's something you use to deflect.

[Machismo]

You've declared that, without any evidence or rationale behind that, other than fearmongering about authoritarian states.



And it's been irrational and unjustified from the beginning.

You're not bringing up anything new. You're just repeating the same errors of reasoning, over and over.

I've pointed to examples of types of misinformation, and how it's hard to prove intent. You ignored it. One of the key aspects would be "concerned" people who sear they mean well, but push stuff that has a grain of truth to it, even though it pushes a false narrative. I gave literal quotes.

This isn't new, that's the point. Some of this has been tried before, with disastrous results.

[unfilteredJW]

This isn't new, that's the point. Some of this has been tried before, with disastrous results.

Said the corporatist pro company towns.

This is satire, right?

[Endus]

I've pointed to examples of types of misinformation, and how it's hard to prove intent. You ignored it.

I ignored a deflection, for being irrelevant.

The point of nationalizing social media, in this particular instance, was so that actions could be taken without needing explicitly criminal behaviour to occur.

If you didn't intend to disseminate child porn, you might not be criminally charged for doing so, but your activity which did so is gonna get shut down. Intent is not relevant outside of specific legal contexts.

[Machismo]

Said the corporatist pro company towns.

This is satire, right?

what does this have to do with the thread?

[Endus]

what does this have to do with the thread?

What does China have to do with the thread? What does authoritiarianism have to do with the thread?

[uuuhname]

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.

then why even bother responding LMAO.

YOU made the claim that libertarianism doesn't allow for chattel slavery, that's your argument, back it up.