prev <-> next
[2021-01-12 21:04:11] - Like lots of people talked about Pence being taken away but no one says they were telling people where Pence was. -Daniel
[2021-01-12 21:03:12] - a/ pierce: Do you guys have deleted tweets or something that Boebert sent out? I've seen other places use very similar phrases as "livetweeting pelosi's location" but all I can find is the tweet where she says Pelosi left the chamber. Which I don't think I would label as "livetweeting pelosi's location" -Daniel
[2021-01-12 21:02:05] - a: unless some clear evidence comes out that she was helping coordinate the attack ahead of time, I don't think you could convince a jury beyond a shadow of a doubt that the tweets were intended as "come get the speaker". it could be played as just keeping the outside world informed of the situation, she was distraught and didn't think about the security implications. - pierce
[2021-01-12 20:58:18] - she represents more landmass than most senators, I'm pretty sure. - pierce
[2021-01-12 20:57:08] - pierce: yeah, i've read over those tweets multiple times. part of me is like, forgive her; for she knows not what she does. the other part of me is like, that was clearly on purpose. she's actively trying to get polosi killed. if it was clearly on purpose, though, clear to everybody: if she was actively trying to get polosi killed, then won't she see jail time? ~a
[2021-01-12 20:50:45] - daniel: lauren boebert, the qanon believer who was livetweeting pelosi's location during the attack, represents basically the entire western half of colorado. that's not really relevant to your point about the number of people but it's just a staggering amount of geographical area for someone so bonkers. - pierce
[2021-01-12 20:44:49] - pierce: mmmm. taxi drivers aren't asked to make art. art that supposedly goes against their religion? so maybe we need an analogy that involves non-commodities? ~a
[2021-01-12 20:38:57] - a: (correct me if you don't think that analogy accurately characterizes your point) - pierce
[2021-01-12 20:37:28] - or to draw from an earlier analogy, is there a meaningful distinction between a taxi driver refusing to pick up a passenger they reasonably believe is robbing a bank, and a taxi driver refusing to pick up black people? or are they comparable infringements on freedoms? - pierce
[2021-01-12 20:15:22] - paul: the baker's would-be customers weren't trying to kill anyone. the baker was trying to discriminate based on a protected class? i'm fully aware of the lack of consistency here, but try to see some nuance: is the fact that the customers weren't trying to literally kill us senators too much nuance? ~a
[2021-01-12 20:13:28] - i was not in favor of the baker. ~a
[2021-01-12 20:13:15] - a: Just out of curiosity, do you see any contradiction between your un-concern here and your stance on the gay wedding cake issue? Sorry if I am remembering incorrectly, but I assume you were not in favor of the baker? -Paul
[2021-01-12 20:10:56] - Sorry, yeah, terminology problem. -Paul
[2021-01-12 20:10:26] - i'm not concerned. ~a
[2021-01-12 20:09:55] - The ironic thing here is that after 9/11, we were all concerned about the government taking away our liberties. Now, the concern seems to be more about the actions of private companies. -Paul
[2021-01-12 20:09:44] - paul: I wouldn't say civil liberties since we aren't actually talking about government infringements. - mig
[2021-01-12 20:09:23] - I think about the Ben Franklin quote, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.". I also think about 9/11 when we were all convinced we needed to give up a bunch of civil liberties to stop more planes from falling on our heads. -Paul
[2021-01-12 20:09:20] - paul: i think daniel pierce and i are standing up for civil liberties. generally the government doesn't have the right to force you who to associate with? ~a
[2021-01-12 20:08:00] - mig: Unsurprisingly, I agree with Miguel. I understand the Capitol invasion was unsettling, and I understand that certain limited and targeted actions might need to be taken in the short aftermath to prevent other attacks, but I think it is times like these when it is most important to stand up for civil liberties. -Paul
[2021-01-12 20:05:12] - mig: and the complaints from pierce and me? mine was the fact that the 2001 "free expression" was being infringed by government, and the 2021 "free expression" was very much not being infringed by the government? ~a
[2021-01-12 20:00:06] - Probably needed better context on that statement. The observation was less about the Republican vs. Democrat dynamics and more the overall discussion with the prevailing attitude of "Quaint discussion about free expression must take a back seat to combating bad thing X", which definitely seemed the vibe on here and on that verge article. - mig
[2021-01-12 19:51:54] - much better. ~a
[2021-01-12 19:51:33] - okay, I withdraw the "probably" on the kompromat. - pierce
[2021-01-12 19:48:54] - pierce: now who's buying into conspiracy theories? ~a
[2021-01-12 19:48:08] - anyway, the house votes appall me but don't suprise me. there have been reports that some of them feared for their families' safety if they defied trump. a few may be true believers. others might think trump will emerge victorious and want to be on his good side. others don't want to look like hypocrites by reversing course. others want the support of trump's base after he's gone. others probably have kompromat on them. - pierce
[2021-01-12 19:44:24] - daniel: yeah, thanks to gerrymandering, we can't say that they represent mostly rural districts. ~a
[2021-01-12 19:42:56] - a: What should blow our minds is how many people those house rep's accurately represent. -Daniel
[2021-01-12 19:42:46] - how about "we support the rhetoric of a perceived 'strongman' leader"? - pierce
[2021-01-12 19:42:45] - it isn't terrorism if you're accosting and otherwise harming a tyrant. (hopefully its clear i don't believe these things) ~a
[2021-01-12 19:41:33] - which is fine, they're different incidents and a lot of time has passed, it's not necessarily valid to draw equivalencies between them - pierce
[2021-01-12 19:40:42] - pierce: yeah sorry i started with a way to tie that in then removed it. republicans are for freedom. freedom from tyranny and freedom from terrorism. i'm sure we can work out the kinks in that one? ~a
[2021-01-12 19:39:41] - well that doesn't apply to both 9/11 and 1/6 so it's not really relevant to this thought experiment. - pierce
[2021-01-12 19:38:51] - pierce: what blows my mind is the number of house republicans that voted in a way that suggests that they buy the conspiracy. ~a
[2021-01-12 19:37:39] - pierce: its a conspiracy that requires some leaps of faith, but if you start with the (untrue) axiom that the elections were stolen, then all of our elected officials (and unelected judges) are doing some unconstitutional shit. sic semper tyrannis, man. ~a
[2021-01-12 19:32:27] - well no one's stopping you from suggesting another framing of 9/11 vs. 1/6 thing in which the republicans' positions are consistent.
- pierce[2021-01-12 19:23:56] - pierce: to play devil's advocate a bit though, not all republicans are the same. most republicans would, at least publicly, argue against saying the n-word to on-duty police officers. most would argue that white supremacy is not a goal of the republican party and in fact that there are many minorities in the republican party, at all levels. ~a
[2021-01-12 19:06:44] - "rioters shouting the n-word at capitol police" oof didn't hear about that, but i guess i shouldn't be surprised. ~a
[2021-01-12 19:05:57] - err, I wouldn't say useless. the backlash against people of color after 9/11 was real (regardless of whether they were muslim, which itself was an awful basis for backlash). and as the confederate flags and the reports of rioters shouting the n-word at capitol police demonstrate, white supremacy was an undercurrent of this recent incident as well. - pierce
[2021-01-12 19:04:52] - i do like the gay wedding cake vs AWS/parler analogy better. freedom of association is similar there. still, there are other places where the analogy falls apart. ~a
[2021-01-12 19:00:48] - yes, extremely uncharitable to the point of being useless. ~a
[2021-01-12 19:00:13] - and I'll admit that this is extremely uncharitable, but republicans' positions are consistent if you frame the issue as "we should take any steps to advance the cause of white supremacy." - pierce
[2021-01-12 18:59:52] - pierce: those differences, but also after 9/11 is it was the government trampling on liberties. as we've often stated (over and over) is that there is freedom of association in 2021. in 2001 freedom of association doesn't fix the problem if its the government trampling on your liberties. ~a
[2021-01-12 18:58:59] - mig: so in other words, you could frame the issue as "we should take actionable terrorist threats seriously and take reasonable steps to prevent violence and death" and democrats would largely be consistent (notwithstanding being duped/cowed into supporting the war in iraq). - pierce
[2021-01-12 18:57:47] - ...except even then it wouldn't be a great parallel, because we didn't have prominent democrats actively cheering on al qaeda or advocating for the establishment of a caliphate. - pierce
[2021-01-12 18:57:24] - but that assumes we're in the "years after" phase of this incident, and we're not. as daniel linked, it's reasonable to think of this as an ongoing situation until trump is removed or biden takes office. so it'd be more of a parallel if democrats had argued that the national security response was an overreach while 9/11 was still happening. - pierce
[2021-01-12 18:56:24] - a: I think I get what mig is saying, that the legacy of the debate in the years after 9/11 is republicans saying to be tough on terrorism and democrats saying we shouldn't infringe people's liberty, and now the rhetoric is reversed. - pierce
[2021-01-12 18:07:52] - who's flipping sides? ~a
[2021-01-12 17:11:06] - this feels like post 9/11 but with everyone flipping sides. - mig
[2021-01-12 16:26:59] - I'll leave the twitter ban/free speech discussion with this for now, since it sums up my feelings pretty well: Why platforms had to cut off Trump and Parler - pierce
[2021-01-12 16:15:41] - So its some determination that "not enough" is being done to address some level of violence / inciting violence posts on the platform? -Daniel
[2021-01-12 16:13:37] - ah ok that's why i couldn't find it. ~a
[2021-01-12 16:13:23] - a: I don't believe amazon has made an official statement, what we know is from leaked emails. - pierce
[2021-01-12 16:02:23] - daniel: "what percent of platform needs to be used for violence to shut down the whole thing" no, this is the wrong way of thinking about it according to amazon. i can't find amazons release so i'll get the words wrong but basically it's that parler wasn't able to (or otherwise wasn't) addressing the issue with violence. its a lack of addressing issues: percentage of issues resolved vs percentage of platform used for violence. ~a
[2021-01-12 15:57:09] - Paul: I mean shutting down Parler I think was targeted - at shutting down Parler. Which I do think its fair to wonder what percent of platform needs to be used for violence to shut down the whole thing and how much of parler specifically was actually used for violence? I don't know the answer to either of those. -Daniel
[2021-01-12 15:31:11] - Daniel: I hope the actions we're taking now to respond don't become common operating procedure going forward. -Paul
[2021-01-12 15:30:36] - Daniel: Sure, if there are credible and immediate threats, then I can see the rationale for some temporary and targeted actions. Trump's ban doesn't seem temporary, and shutting down all of Parler doesn't seem targeted. 9/11 was brought up before in comparison. Well, we took a lot of actions in the wake of 9/11 to protect us from immediate threats and a lot of those are still around 19 years later. -Paul
[2021-01-12 15:26:38] - Pierce: "but now we ought to be concerned, when they're using those powers against a coup?" I don't think anybody has claimed that these concerns have started now. Now just happens to be when we're talking about it. I've been concerned about this for years and can probably dig up things I've written previously if you don't believe me. -Paul
[2021-01-12 15:25:02] - Pierce: The slippery slope is already here for me. There's plenty of bannings and suspensions that I've seen which I think were wrong and which concern me beyond a more general sense of slippery slopes and free speech. -Paul
[2021-01-12 15:23:59] - Pierce: I bring up the slipper slope comment to try to make it real for you all, because I realize it's a hard sell to get you to feel sorry for Trump losing his twitter account or Parler getting shut down or even things like Ron Paul's Facebook page getting locked. Maybe the people getting censored going forward will continue to be the "bad guys" (ie, right leaning), but it might not be. -Paul
[2021-01-12 15:07:41] - people have been talking about the outsized power of the social media companies for years, not least because their influence helped get us into this mess (I mentioned FB's director of global public policy, who was a Bush 43 guy and has reportedly intervened to protect sites like Breitbart from anti-misinformation policies). but now we ought to be concerned, when they're using those powers against a coup? - pierce
[2021-01-12 15:02:28] - after Congress again in the upcoming days. -Daniel
[2021-01-12 15:02:19] - Its hard to know how much is people just talking a big game (cause thats easy to do on the internet) but https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/congress-briefing-us-capitol-threats/index.html certainly seems to make me lean more strongly towards Pierce (though I already was) that while I do understand - if not agree - with the censorship concerns it seems like there is a strong reason to take the steps if they are still planning to go...
[2021-01-12 14:56:41] - ...and I just don't think there's a clear line that the slippery slope you're concerned about is more probable than it was before the 6th, or that it'd be worse for free speech than the alternative even if it does come to pass. it feels like a lot of time debating things that aren't that relevant, when there's a much more concerning ongoing situation. - pierce
[2021-01-12 14:55:38] - paul: if you're talking about your concerns about these specific bans then that's fine (though I really disagree), but you've been raising the "slippery slope" argument repeatedly. my point was that you can point to many things as slippery slopes right now, including not banning trump/parler/etc. - pierce
[2021-01-12 14:43:21] - Daniel: I am tentatively able to do any day. -Paul
[2021-01-12 05:46:22] - Paul: You ignored the sc2 email
-Daniel[2021-01-12 03:31:21] - Sorry to anybody whose question I missed. There was a lot of stuff going on and I was gone for a bit. Please let me know if I accidentally ignored something (although I would be happy to just take a break
). -Paul[2021-01-12 03:30:19] - Pierce: Similarly, I'm not clear on your point about Federal agents abducting people (not arresting them with good cause) in unmarked vans in Portland. If that is the case, then it is bad, but what exactly does it have to do with Twitter censoring certain types of speech? -Paul
[2021-01-12 03:27:49] - Pierce: Sorry, I meant, "I'm not sure I understand your point". God, I have been horrible with typos tonight. -Paul
[2021-01-12 03:27:26] - Pierce: I'm not sure about your point. Because we don't have perfect free speech and might never have it we shouldn't care about infringements against it? Because I'm not necessarily just concerned with future infringements but current ones as well (despite everybody's focus, including me, on Trump here). -Paul
[2021-01-12 00:26:52] - "i checked with the lord. i checked with him three times. i never heard a 'no.'" he checked with him three times ~a
[2021-01-11 22:56:33] - there. now free speech is slippery-sloped into oblivion no matter what twitter does. so how about we let them prevent further violence that might end american democracy? - pierce
[2021-01-11 22:51:59] - their offense was being part of a protest, so the abductions are absolutely a free speech violation. if we allow people to try to keep trump in office by disrupting the legal transfer of power, we're on a slippery slope to further free speech violations by federal law enforcement. - pierce
[2021-01-11 22:51:26] - or maybe I can just throw an alternative slippery slope and it'll counter yours: trump deployed federal agents to portland, who grabbed and abducted protestors in unmarked vans. this wasn't just intervening when they saw criminal or violent behavior, some of the abductees weren't even considered "arrested". - pierce
[2021-01-11 22:51:09] - paul: slippery slopes are a hypothetical exercise, though. free speech has never been an absolute right in this country in any sense, first amendment or otherwise. prioritizing concerns about a hypothetical outcome, over addressing an actual coup attempt with a real body count seems like misplaced priorities. - pierce
[2021-01-11 22:19:26] - a: Since apparently maybe his speech was across the legality line or whatever and even if it wasn't, I never want to be in the position of defending anything he says. I just really worry about how actively Facebook and Amazon and Twitter and Google have all been in terms of censoring speech that they don't see as acceptable. I worry about the slippery slope. -Paul
[2021-01-11 22:17:30] - a: For every "clearly impermissible" thing, there's probably hundreds of things that are 99.9% as bad, so do you ban those too? If you do, then there's hundreds of things that are 99.9% as bad there as well. In retrospect, I really hate that somehow this became all about what Trump said (although I guess that was the original point) because his is like the worst possible example to use for me. -Paul
[2021-01-11 22:16:01] - a: Right it's the glorifying violence part. "I've beaten Rand once, and I'll do it again!" Again, to be clear, I'm not calling for that to be taken down, but there's a ton of pretty edgy stuff out there and I disagree with you that it's going to be easy to moderate based on the rules Twitter has set out. -Paul
[2021-01-11 20:45:29] - or maybe it is genuinely just that amazon thinks it's worth the liability, and the collateral damage to parler itself and non-violent parler users, to take such a dramatic step if it helps mitigate the organized violence. - pierce
[2021-01-11 20:44:09] - I guess it would depend on what communication happened between AWS and Parler (were there previous warnings? etc) and what proportion of all Parler was the hate / violent speech they are being shut down for. I don't know specifics but if the hate/violent speech wasn't all there was on there I guess it comes down to how long / how many chances they have to "clean up their act" so to speak. -Daniel
[2021-01-11 20:42:13] - but either the ratio of violent content to generic right-wing stuff on the network was way more dramatic than I'd realized, or there's something more actively illicit about parler's own operations that amazon couldn't ignore. - pierce
[2021-01-11 20:38:02] - a: yeah, I think I'm on your side too, but I think we're missing something. AWS hasn't made an official statement as far as I know, this article says the amazon's accusations are about an increasing amount of violent content on the network. - pierce
[2021-01-11 20:20:56] - daniel/etc: ok, i'll play the other side then. its good parler got deplatformed. if they are violating AWS's terms of service about violence, and are not able to stop violating their terms of service (as amazon has stated) then they've done the right thing (maybe devil's advocate here, i'm not sure). parler can and should sue amazon, to resolve the dispute. and they have. now we'll let the lawsuit finalize the matter. NN is unrelated. ~a
[2021-01-11 19:34:55] - daniel: yes. - mig
[2021-01-11 19:30:00] - I agree (with everyone? what?!) that Parler is more interesting / more concerning in its deplatforming. -Daniel
[2021-01-11 19:28:47] - mig: an interesting point, maybe! I think of net neutrality as ostensibly closer to the metal, about not throttling particular types of traffic. but more broadly it can be thought of as "equal access to internet infrastructure" and since the cloud is such an enormous part of that maybe it ought to be included. - pierce
[2021-01-11 19:26:15] - and I don't think internal pressure from employees alone would've changed that. it suggests to me that there was more going on than just parler being a neutral platform that attracted right-wing people who sometimes advocated violence. - pierce
[2021-01-11 19:25:03] - pierce: i have to think if network neutrality comes back there’ll definitely be a push to have it expanded to cloud computing infrastructure. The same gatekeeping concerns certainly apply. - mig
[2021-01-11 19:21:14] - I think we're going to hear more about the parler thing. apple, google, and amazon all had pretty plausible arguments that it didn't intrinsically violate their policies (its users may have, but not the app itself), and apple and google in particular are already under the microscope for abusing their monopoly powers, and probably wouldn't want to highlight how easy it is for them to wield that power. - pierce
[2021-01-11 19:20:02] - of all of the deplatforming aspects, I'm actually most intrigued by AWS shutting parler down. twitter or facebook have a more direct association with trump's content, qanon stuff, etc, since it's their branding on the page and they're profiting off ads on it. but to AWS, parler is presumably just another customer. it's not like people are going to start thinking "go to AWS for your right-wing opinions". - pierce
[2021-01-11 19:17:58] - definitely read that deep dive I linked below on trump's speech. you don't have to agree with every bit of the analysis, because there are so many bits and pieces that contribute to the "incitement" argument. - pierce
[2021-01-11 19:14:01] - paul: complicating your case further, as we saw with the mueller thing the DoJ has an active policy that the sitting president can't be charged. congress is going to be filing articles of impeachment (the next closest thing), but what if the mob had executed democratic leaders? or what if they do? (remember, twitter raised the concern about further upcoming attacks that were interpreting trump's tweets as encouragement) - pierce
[2021-01-11 19:09:04] - a mob boss telling armed goons "send that guy a message" is culpable for their actions even if he didn't explicitly say "break his legs" or "kill his brother". and "here's a baseball bat, I'm not saying do anything illegal but go send that guy a message" doesn't let him escape blame either, because it's implausible he didn't think they'd do something illegal with it. - pierce
[2021-01-11 19:08:53] - magnitude and intent matter and they complicate broad principles like "free speech". we're already being treated to a great deal of equivocation about whether trump technically meant people should break into the capitol or erect a gallows or plant pipe bombs. and maybe he didn't plan those precise actions, he could have just been assuming more radical supporters would do something he could take advantage of. - pierce
[2021-01-11 19:00:25] - (though that's probably glorifying violence. which i guess is against twitter's rules?) ~a
[2021-01-11 18:59:33] - paul: (obvious) satire is usually protected. ~a
[2021-01-11 18:58:40] - Sorry, one last one: https://twitter.com/NeighborRand -Paul
[2021-01-11 18:58:00] - paul: regarding the speed trap tweets: just to prevent people from getting speeding tickets? maybe that shouldn't be legal. but what if those cops are using the speed traps as a pretext to search people's cars, if they have a demonstrated history of planting evidence, or abusing civil forfeiture, or of racial bias in their enforcement? maybe the larger context that means it should be legal. - pierce
[2021-01-11 18:56:56] - paul: thanks for clarifying, but I think it undermines your point if you're saying it should be decided by the courts. twitter isn't a court. the courts don't try every case. there's an appeals process. by that standard, the uber driver shouldn't make a good-faith assessment of whether they're contributing to a crime in progress. no civilian should intervene in any crime unless they're intervening in every possible crime. - pierce
[2021-01-11 18:56:55] - Anyway, I gotta step away, sorry. Have to get some work done. -Paul
[2021-01-11 18:56:38] - https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/1348694943905308672 Partially related: Ron Paul's Facebook page has been suspended. -Paul
[2021-01-11 18:55:48] - "“I’m glad this happened”, “This person is my hero”, “I wish more people did things like this”, or “I hope this inspires others to act”. " As an aside, and I know I mentioned this before, but there have been so many tweets to this point about Rand Paul's neighbor but I guess a U.S. Senator isn't a protected group either. -paul
[2021-01-11 18:54:23] - i dunno. ~a
[2021-01-11 18:54:07] - a: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification-of-violence The specific policy twitter seems to be referencing for banning Trump is this one. I guess Kaepernick's tweet doesn't run afoul of this because he was celebrating violence against police and they are a non-protected group? Is that the rationale? -Paul
[2021-01-11 18:51:06] - paul: i'm not daniel, so i'll say it is advocating violence. and that twitter should consider if it falls in their policy. i'll also say, though, that it's nonspecific, nondirect, and nonimmediate. ~a
[2021-01-11 18:50:15] - a: "he's being literal here" We assume that now, but what if nothing happened? I don't want to at all get dragged into a defense of Trump's words, though, because they're horrible even if they are legal. My point is more that I don't see how anybody could possibly argue that Kaepernick's tweet isn't also advocating for violence. -Paul
[2021-01-11 18:46:49] - am i not being well served? ~a
[2021-01-11 18:46:20] - paul: if you wanted to have a call to violence here, i'd ask you to stop. ~a
[2021-01-11 18:45:18] - Pierce: I think Twitter would be best served by removing illegal speech only and not trying to police what it considers acceptable speech in terms of misgendering or misinformation or calls to violence. -Paul
[2021-01-11 18:44:58] - "you have to get your people to fight" he's being literal here. ~a
[2021-01-11 18:44:35] - Pierce: "determined by whom and to what degree of certainty?" Determined by the courts? My point is that there is a pretty large amount of thought that has been put into exactly what kind of speech is legal and which isn't. Why not leverage that and use the definition of legal vs illegal instead of coming up with your own definition (in the case of Twitter). -Paul
[2021-01-11 18:44:29] - paul: "I didn't see any specific mention of violence in the comments you relayed" they said they wanted to go down pennsylvania avenue, NOW, with weapons (in the context), and have trial by combat. and you're saying there isn't a specific mention of violence in these comments unless you missed it. ~a
[2021-01-11 18:43:07] - a: "trump and giuliani are specifically advocating violence. are you saying otherwise?" No, but I am saying I didn't see any specific mention of violence in the comments you relayed (could've missed it). Kaepernick's tweet specifically drew the line between peaceful and violent and came down on violence. But as Pierce said, maybe I need to stop responding to this.
-Paul[2021-01-11 18:41:37] -
as someone on the street, not inside a car, nearby these speeding cars i wish the cars could be caught more easily. legality of the tweet aside. (let's make this a debate about cars, haha) ~a[2021-01-11 18:41:12] - Pierce: Ah, yes, sorry. I was responding to Daniel but maybe I should've just let it drop. I just couldn't believe he didn't see it as a call to violence.
-paul[2021-01-11 18:39:40] - Pierce: Your Uber analogy about helping with a crime in progress is an interesting one because it is happening during/after instead of some nebulous "pre-crime" thing. I need to think on it more. Let me ask you this: Should it be illegal for people to tweet out about speed traps to help prevent drivers from getting tickets from cops? -Paul
[2021-01-11 18:37:46] - paul: "if it was determined he was inciting immediate and specific violence, then that is illegal and Twitter should take it down" can you clarify exactly what you mean by this? determined by whom and to what degree of certainty? - pierce
[2021-01-11 18:36:38] - paul: "But it was also specifically advocating violence, unlike the advocating of cheering?" trump and giuliani are specifically advocating violence. are you saying otherwise? ~a
[2021-01-11 18:35:53] - daniel: according to the blog post, the later tweets were evaluated in the context of his behavior over the last few weeks and the incidents on the 6th. the ban wasn't about those later tweets taken in isolation. - pierce
[2021-01-11 18:31:57] - paul: that's fine, it's just you said before you were going to focus on things that are more clearly legal like misgendering and misinfo. since you're saying the kaepernick tweet may have incited violence it didn't fit that description, so I thought you'd moved on. - pierce
[2021-01-11 18:30:09] - a: And, Twitter's rationale had nothing to do with specific and immediate incitement. -Paul
[2021-01-11 18:29:47] - a: I guess? But it was also specifically advocating violence, unlike the advocating of cheering? I don't know, I didn't quite get your analogy there. Again, though, if it was determined he was inciting immediate and specific violence, then that is illegal and Twitter should take it down. So I agree with you there. I just don't know if his speech was considered illegal. -Paul
[2021-01-11 18:29:20] - a: Also non of the stuff on the day of the insurrection was specifically why he was banned. It was the last two (that Friday after) according to the statement where he was continuing on the path after all the preceding events from the insurrection. -Daniel
[2021-01-11 18:28:08] - Pierce: "including being back to legal/illegal lines since paul brought up the kaepernick tweet" I'm confused, how did I bring us back to legal/illegal lines by bringing up Kaepernick's tweet. My point is that both tweets seem to be advocating violence which, by Twitter's explanation (not the law) should be banned. -Paul
[2021-01-11 18:26:50] - paul: oh so he wasn't specific or direct. it wasn't an immediate call to arms like we saw with trump and giuliani. ~a
[2021-01-11 18:25:12] - a: "we probably need more context" The context is he tweeted it out to his ~2 million (at least now) followers in the midst of some violent protests in Minnesota, including some attacks on government buildings. I don't think the context is lacking here. -Paul
[2021-01-11 18:24:36] - paul: there's also the "let's have trial by combat" comment (not trump, but same speech). ~a
[2021-01-11 18:24:32] - paul: he also had this metaphor where he was using the word "cheer" to mean something, i'm not sure: "we're going to walk down to the capitol and we're going to *cheer* on our brave senators, and congressmen and women, and we're proabably not going to be *cheering* so much for some of them (laughter) because you'll never take back our contry with weakness. you have to show strength and you have to be strong" ~a
[2021-01-11 18:24:31] - paul: "I still have no idea what Trump said". he said "we're going to walk down pennsylvania avenue... we're going to the capitol... we will never give up we will never concede... you have to get your people to fight" (i probably don't have the order of these quotes correct, but they were in his 1 hour speech about how everybody in the congress building were criminals that needed to be stopped) ~a
[2021-01-11 18:18:11] - a: feels like we're talking about a lot of different things, including being back to legal/illegal lines since paul brought up the kaepernick tweet. being okay with twitter making rules but not liking this use of them? what don't you like? what should they do instead, and why should they do that? and meanwhile, others might say ways that we do agree with this use and/or don't agree with the suggested alternative. - pierce
[2021-01-11 18:06:53] - going back to the uber analogy, if you pick up people running out of a liquor store with guns and totebags, you don't think "well, they haven't been charged with anything so I don't know they did anything illegal, I guess I'm obligated to drive them to another liquor store". no, you can make a good-faith assessment that something specific and bad is happening, and either disengage or take active steps to prevent it. - pierce
[2021-01-11 18:06:13] - pierce: paul is complaining about twitters rules, not that they're allowed to make rules. ~a
[2021-01-11 18:06:07] - the chaos of the national guard deployment, combined with trump's follow-up tweets mostly reiterating the core grievance from his speech (his claims that the election was stolen) make a strong case that he had not only instigated specific violent action, but that he was supporting it as it was still going on. - pierce
[2021-01-11 18:05:12] - paul: if we're talking about the letter of the law, then since it's legal for twitter to take down whatever they want it shouldn't matter if trump's speech was technically legal or illegal. if we're talking about the spirit of the law, trump's speech was a clear precursor to violent events. here is a thread with a deep dive on the speech. - pierce
[2021-01-11 18:03:28] - paul: (you're also missing the part where he tells them where to go and when) ~a
[2021-01-11 17:58:02] - paul: we probably need more context. afaik, illegal speech requires a lot of context and critical consideration. was that said, in person, to a large group of armed people that had already advertised that they were walking to storm the capitol? was it said after an hour (AN HOUR) of calling the would-be-victims "criminals"? ~a
[2021-01-11 17:52:45] - Daniel: "When democracy leads to stolen elections, 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! MAGA" Would that be inciting violence? -Paul
[2021-01-11 17:51:23] - Daniel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Minneapolis%E2%80%93Saint_Paul_racial_unrest#George_Floyd_protests,_May_26,_2020 Not sure if it is relevant, but I looked at the date of the Kaepernick tweet (May 28, 2020) and checked for protests, and that is the same day that protesters set a police station on fire. -Paul
[2021-01-11 17:47:36] - I think if Kaep tweeted that out after BLM was storming buildings and trying to assassinate politicians it would probably be read differently as well. Context matters for how words are interpretted (which I think makes you sad
). -Daniel[2021-01-11 17:46:41] - Paul: I disagree that Kaep is inciting violence? I'm not sure how you get to that is the only way you can read it? Cause it has the word revolt? Cause it says we will fight back? I think "We have the right to fight back" is close but also seems much more vague and less specific in terms of protests? -Daniel
[2021-01-11 17:44:39] - https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html This is twitter's statement. So they thought his last two tweets were "highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021" -Daniel
[2021-01-11 17:44:18] - a: If Trump said, "Now let's go to the Capitol right now and burn it down" then sure, that would absolutely be illegal and directly and specifically inciteful and should be taken down. -Paul
[2021-01-11 17:43:15] - a: "do you disagree?" I don't agree or disagree because I still have no idea what Trump said. I do find it suspicious that in Twitter's whole justification that they didn't mention anything about it being illegal or direct or specific (at least as far as I can find). They only mentioned inciting violence, which is what I think that Kaepernick tweet (and dozens of others I could mention) also does. -Paul
[2021-01-11 17:36:53] - paul: "Isn't that exactly what Trump did?" trump was specific and kaepernick was nonspecific. do you disagree? ~a
[2021-01-11 17:36:07] - paul: definitive? nope. but we have data points: 1. twitter says he was banned due to inciting violence. they didn't specifically say "illegal" but they did mention inciting violence. which is usually illegal. it needs to immediate and direct to be illegal, but twitter did say he was banned for inciting violence. 2. his speech (the one at the white-house) which was added to twitter, was immediate and direct. do you disagree? ~a
[2021-01-11 17:32:17] - Daniel: And if that is the answer, did Trump? Would sure be nice if we could go back and see what he tweeted.
-Paul[2021-01-11 17:31:46] - Daniel: Okay, so I guess I don't get how Kaepernick's is any different. His tweets were pretty clearly after some violence at BLM protests had already happened, and I don't know how to read it as anything other than advocating more violence. Isn't that exactly what Trump did? Is it because he didn't name a time and place? -Paul
[2021-01-11 17:27:02] - a: Can we get some definitive answer one way or the other that his speech was illegal? I'm perfectly willing to believe it was (in which case I am in complete agreement that Twitter has to take it down), but I also see no evidence it was illegal right now. You keep saying it is, but the only justification I have seen is that Twitter took his tweets down. -Paul
[2021-01-11 17:21:22] - Just suspended pending deletion for a couple of tweets during the insurrection. -Daniel
[2021-01-11 17:20:52] - misinformation isn't always legal. so misgendering might be an easier sell. so, twitter has rules on misgendering that you don't like? i guess i'm half of on your side on this one. but i see twitters side too. a rule against misgendering is probably to avoid personal attacks. also obviously if i don't like twitters rules i'm allowed to use their competitors (i know this argument is made a lot. but it explains why i don't care). ~a
[2021-01-11 17:20:49] - a: I think I posted Twitters justification for the ban earlier - it says in light of the first attack it felt Trump's last two tweets could be read as incitement to violence during / at the inauguration. So then the ban. So he wasn't banned for tweets the day of the insurrection. -Daniel
[2021-01-11 17:14:49] - paul: "we can just focus on things that are more clearly legal" sure, that's fine. ~a
[2021-01-11 17:13:12] - paul: "What illegal speech am I talking about" trump. we all (you included) have been talking about trump's permanent ban since it happened. i heard from some guy at work that his ban was related to future planning of a second attack. i haven't tried to find evidence of this yet. ~a
[2021-01-11 17:09:24] - a: If you want to make it less dancing between illegal and legal speech, then we can just focus on things that are more clearly legal, like misgendering and misinformation, which are also things Twitter bans people for. -Paul
[2021-01-11 17:08:16] - a: "the government isn't shutting parlor down" I know, we haven't been talking about government shutting things down at all. "you're combining illegal and legal speech" I am? What illegal speech am I talking about? -Paul
[2021-01-11 17:07:00] - Daniel: Maybe you got banned from Twitter.
-Paul[2021-01-11 17:06:56] - you're combining illegal and legal speech. can we discuss one thing at a time? ~a
[2021-01-11 17:05:51] - paul: the government isn't shutting parlor down. ~a
[2021-01-11 17:05:28] - a: I haven't seen any media outlets actually report on specific violent messages from Parler and even if so, why does the entire platform get shut down and Twitter remain up? -Paul
[2021-01-11 17:04:42] - a: "nah. disagree. its why moderators are a thing and its what the report button is for." You really don't think this is all tough to adjudicate? What's the clear line between official Chinese twitter accounts praising eugenics programs and Trump's tweets? Between Kaepernick advocating violence and some random MAGA person? Between "don't wear a mask" misinformation and Fauci saying not to wear masks? -Paul
[2021-01-11 17:03:04] - "vague mentions of violent posts" you lost me at "vague". ~a
[2021-01-11 17:02:12] - " -Paul
[2021-01-11 17:02:07] - a: I don't have time to look for evidence right now, sorry. I can try later. I will only say that considering the current moment is seeing tweets taken down solely for "misinformation" in terms of referring to stolen elections and that entire platforms are getting banned from cloud providers because of vague mentions of violent posts, I find it hard to believe Twitter would tolerate a tweet advocating violence on behalf of a "stolen election
[2021-01-11 16:49:39] - third reason why it's complicated: some are saying that his tweet isn't illegal, but instead that it is a confession.
~a[2021-01-11 16:44:55] - paul: so this one is complicated for two reasons: 1. HE deleted his own tweet (afaik). twitter did NOT remove his account. 2. it has some specifics, but its definitely not immediate or direct. link to screen image of deleted tweet ~a
[2021-01-11 16:36:29] - paul: "If a tweet was removed, we wouldn't see it" this is fair . . . media can report on deleted tweets, but i agree it's hard: i'll try to find some links on my side. "how hard it is going to be to adjudicate this" nah. disagree. its why moderators are a thing and its what the report button is for. ~a
[2021-01-11 16:34:50] - daniel: works for me (desktop). bring up the developer console (f12 on chrome/chromium) and see any errors? you can ignore the warnings, and you can ignore this error: "the source list for content security policy..." ~a
[2021-01-11 16:33:37] - a: The tough thing is, how would we provide evidence? If a tweet was removed, we wouldn't see it. I believe you when you say there is still stuff up on Twitter, which goes back to my original point about how hard it is going to be to adjudicate this. -Paul
[2021-01-11 16:30:47] - mig: Yeah usually refreshing works but today its been a no go - can't see any tweets (desktop). Bleh. -Daniel
[2021-01-11 16:29:10] - happens when im on a mobile browser. - mig
[2021-01-11 16:29:09] - happens when im on a mobile browser. - mig
[2021-01-11 16:28:41] - daniel: i’ve seen that happen on viewing some accounts. refreshing usually works but sometimes it takes several tries. - mig
[2021-01-11 16:23:30] - Anyone else have an issue with twitter where you go to the twitter site and twitter loads but instead of the tweet content it just says there was an error please retry? I can't see any tweets today and not sure whats up with that. -Daniel
[2021-01-11 16:19:24] - a: I'm basing this on my own reading of spurious twitter bans in the past, but not anything recent, so sure I very well could be wrong. - mig
[2021-01-11 16:14:47] - paul: "that would lead to a ban. Right?" you and miguel keep stating this and i strongly disagree until you can point at some evidence. i'll provide links to tweets that haven't been removed if you'd prefer to reverse the burden of proof, but i think the burden of proof is on you and miguel. ~a
[2021-01-11 16:13:23] - paul: they're working on it. for some crazy reason i don't understand, you can't indict a sitting president, so they're going this route instead. ~a
[2021-01-11 16:13:07] - mig: Yeah, I feel pretty confident that if somebody tweeted out that the capitol attack was necessary because of the stolen election and they have the right to fight back.... that would lead to a ban. Right? Replace a few choice terms with others? -Paul
[2021-01-11 16:12:38] - mig: i disagree. tons of trump people said nonspecific stuff on january 5th-6thish. they are not banned. i know because i can still see their crazy tweets. ~a
[2021-01-11 16:11:23] - a: Okay, so Trump's speech was clearly illegal, then? Then why hasn't he been charged with anything? -Paul
[2021-01-11 16:10:49] - a I'm pretty sure a pro-trump tweeting person something similar to Kapernick about the capitol hill riot would be banned. - mig
[2021-01-11 16:06:21] - paul: "it's hard to justify NOT banning Kaepernick for those tweets" it's not at all hard. kaepernick wasn't specific about what people should do. there was nothing immediate about his tweet. there was nothing direct. there were no specifics. if he was like, here's what we're going to do and here's how we're going to do it. these are things trump and countless trump cult members did. ~a
[2021-01-11 16:05:43] - yah. its that parentheses are commonly *in* urls that's the big problem. i can't even count opening and closing parentheses because that doesn't need to be respected either by a url. ~a
[2021-01-11 16:04:46] - a: Sorry, am I breaking something? Ah, is that ending parens being included? Sorry.
-Paul[2021-01-11 16:04:20] - a: Also, you don't have to apologize at all (in my opinion). Not offended by you calling it stupid (again, I said it first) and you can self censor yourself fine. I just found it amusing the comment disappeared.
-Paul[2021-01-11 16:04:10] - if you do, please use spaces. ~a
[2021-01-11 16:03:52] - dude, stop putting your urls in parentheses. ~a
[2021-01-11 16:03:29] - a: Then we have Twitter making its own rules and that feels dangerous to me. -Paul
[2021-01-11 16:03:12] - a: "immediate and direct" is the legal term, right? That doesn't appear to have shown up in Twitter's rationale (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html), which is my point. If the speech is illegal incitement, then I think we all agree it has to be taken down. But if it isn't... -Paul
[2021-01-11 16:01:22] - Daniel: And, to be clear, I don't want Kaepernick banned for that. That's kind of the point. We can all get behind hating the stuff that spews out of Trump's mouth, but if we start banning him for that, it's hard to justify NOT banning Kaepernick for those tweets. I worry about where the censorship will be pointed next. -Paul
[2021-01-11 16:01:08] - paul: "immediate and direct" did you forget these words? there are no specifics in kaepernick's tweet. ~a
[2021-01-11 15:59:46] - Daniel: https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/1266046129906552832?s=19)? I was referring to this tweet in terms of Kaepernick inciting violence. This sounds like it goes beyond protesting police brutality... -Paul
[2021-01-11 15:57:17] - paul: yeah, sorry again. i kinda figured nobody would notice . . . self censorship is generally considered acceptable, right? (even) people with extreme views, say, a current kkk member, or a literal neonazi, etc, will self censor and we don't usually consider this a bad thing. ~a
[2021-01-11 15:56:15] - paul: yes, it is. i'm honestly saying. if wikipedia is to be believed/trusted: they're (only) responsible if they refuse to act on illegal content. ~a
[2021-01-11 15:54:51] - a: If they are responsible for trying to predict what might be illegal.... I feel like that would require lots of these platforms being a lot more censorious than they currently are. -Paul
[2021-01-11 15:54:07] - a: "its still twitter's job to remove stuff that they consider illegal" Hmmm, is it? I'm honestly asking, I don't know. I thought the way it worked was that platforms aren't responsible for what people post to them unless/until the illegality of the speech is brought to their attention. -Paul
[2021-01-11 15:51:48] - a: "that seemed needlessly aggressive" Hah! I don't mind at all. After all, I called it stupid first. I just thought it was ironic that you went back and changed your post (censored yourself?) in a discussion about censorship on platforms.
-Paul[2021-01-11 15:40:53] - Maybe I missed something specific he said but my general understanding was protesting police brutality? Did he say something more specifically violent at some point? I tried searching and it was a ton of stuff just about his protests in general. -Daniel
[2021-01-11 15:38:41] - daniel: i dunno about incitement. Certainly advocating it though. - mig
[2021-01-11 15:37:53] - Paul: Did you say Kaep was inciting violence? -Daniel
[2021-01-11 15:37:18] - a: again, sounds reasonable. I was surprised they could still pursue this after Trump leaves office. And they probably should. - mig
[2021-01-11 15:10:30] - mig: they drafted a . . . draft. the draft has been drafted. its a draft draft. ~a
[2021-01-11 15:03:16] - paul: right. trump's speech was clearly illegal. but even if it's not "clear" its still twitter's job to remove stuff that they consider illegal. if they don't then section 230 does not protect them. ~a
[2021-01-11 15:01:50] - paul: yeah, sorry. that seemed needlessly aggressive. ~a
[2021-01-11 14:48:20] - Daniel: "legal sanctioned violence" Which is why I think Twitter would be best served to just sticking to removing illegal speech instead of deciding what speech it finds acceptable and which it doesn't. The more serious argument on this is the Kaepernick example. It seems like pretty direct incitement of violence to me. Why wasn't he banned? -Paul
[2021-01-11 14:45:31] - a: What happened to you agreeing my point was stupid!?
-Paul[2021-01-11 14:44:55] - Also Biden sending the military somewhere is legal sanctioned violence. Which I guess could be argued is immoral in a different way maybe but not illegal. -Daniel
[2021-01-11 14:44:49] - a: "wrong again" Then I don't get your point. Are you saying Trump's speech is clearly illegal? -Paul
[2021-01-11 14:44:29] - paul: if biden's announcement is illegal, then the major news agencies won't be allowed to broadcast it: forget twitter. ~a
[2021-01-11 14:39:20] - paul: "protects companies like Twitter which is primarily user generated content from being held accountable" wrong again. here's from wikipedia: "Section 230 removes the liability for these tech companies to moderate such content as long as it is not illegal" ~a
[2021-01-11 14:34:31] - mig: Yeah, I'm concerned about the swift action with regards to Parler and the lack of clarity around why. All I've heard is "violent messages", which, if that's the case, then Twitter and Facebook should definitely be banned from cloud services as well. -Paul
[2021-01-11 14:31:53] - a: https://reason.com/2019/07/29/section-230-is-the-internets-first-amendment-now-both-republicans-and-democrats-want-to-take-it-away/ "Section 230 stipulates, in essence, that digital services or platforms and their users are not one and the same and thus shouldn't automatically be held legally liable for each other's speech and conduct." -Paul
[2021-01-11 14:28:10] - I had an admittedly stupid and incredibly unlikely thought about this whole thing: What if, in a few months, President Biden announces over Twitter that he intends to send American troops into Syria (or really any country) to help stabilize the country? Wouldn't that be clearly an immediate and direct call for violent action? -Paul
[2021-01-11 14:25:51] - a: "because that's not how the law works" Is that true? I thought section 230 protects companies like Twitter which is primarily user generated content from being held accountable for the stuff published on it as long as they remove things when it is brought to their attention that it is illegal. -Paul
[2021-01-11 13:29:32] - paul: not really concerned about the Trump banning, honestly. More concerned about Apple/Amazon/Google shutting off Parler. - mig
[2021-01-11 03:59:24] - paul: "The laws of the State of California ... will govern these Terms and any dispute that arises between you and Twitter" ~a
[2021-01-11 03:57:09] - paul: no, because that's not how the law works. twitter has to confirm that every part of its company is compliant with the law. that's what they've done because that is what they're required by law to do. ~a
[2021-01-11 03:14:18] - a: "we are, and we have. and that's why his twitter/facebook/instagram/snapchat/reddit/etc account has been removed." I'm not sure I follow. Did I miss something? Has his speech been deemed illegal and that's why Twitter removed it? Because I haven't seen that. -Paul
[2021-01-11 03:13:28] - a: "can you explain the logic there?" Well, considering all the furor over impeachment and the 25th amendment and how many people hate Donald Trump, I have to imagine that if his speech was illegal than somebody would've pressed charges over it? As far as I know, that hasn't happened. If/when it does, then it certainly seems reasonable for Twitter to remove said speech. -Paul
[2021-01-11 03:10:16] - a: https://anchor.fm/dashboard/episode/eoq77c Re: Shopify. I had heard before we recorded our podcast last night.
-Paul[2021-01-11 02:51:42] - paul: shopify closes trump stores on its platform. ~a
[2021-01-11 02:40:52] - paul: "Trump's apparently didn't qualify for because I don't recall him being charged for anything" because he wasn't charged, it isn't illegal? can you explain the logic there? "Why not just stuck to that and not get involved in the messy business of deciding what speech is 'dangerous' and which isn't?" we are, and we have. and that's why his twitter/facebook/instagram/snapchat/reddit/etc account has been removed. ~a
[2021-01-11 00:57:15] - Pierce: It seems a little bit of a stretch to make the claim that just because a majority of justices were appointed by Trump or Bush it means they would incorrectly rule for Trump here. I kind of agree with Roberts that we shouldn't be defining judges by who appointed them (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46294734). -Paul
[2021-01-11 00:53:07] - Pierce: Lastly (and I can hear the sighs of relief from everybody), I'm with Miguel that I find it hard to believe that there was some huge danger that the SCOTUS would overturn the election. If I recall, they basically unanimously rejected the case. -Paul
[2021-01-11 00:47:54] - Pierce: I worry that what it will come down to is that "facts" are whatever the people in power say and that anything that disagrees with those statements will be labeled as "misinformation" that needs to be suppressed. Considering how often our government is wrong, that seems very dangerous to me. -Paul
[2021-01-11 00:44:55] - Pierce: But I also really dislike this idea that these tech giants need to be arbiters of truth (ie, that they need to stop allowing misinformation). Who gets to decide what is misinformation? Twitter was banning tweets questioning the efficacy of masks... which was precisely the position of the CDC early in the pandemic. -Paul
[2021-01-11 00:40:52] - Pierce: but also going a step further and blaming the platforms merely for allowing said (apparently completely legal) speech. What's next? Holding Verizon responsible for allowing him to have phone service and use Twitter? -Paul
[2021-01-11 00:39:29] - Pierce: "the networks have been complicit in getting us to this point by knowingly enabling misinformation. if they don't act now, they're more culpable for extreme actions they may not have originally intended" I think it's really dangerous not only with how strongly we're blaming one person's speech for other people's actions... -Paul
[2021-01-11 00:35:55] - Daniel: As much as we say there's plenty of other platforms and ways to communicate, Twitter has a much larger share of the social media market than any bakery has of the bakery market (and Facebook and Twitter have tended to move in unison a lot lately). -Paul
[2021-01-11 00:31:44] - Daniel: I like to think I am consistent on the gay wedding cake point: Twitter and the bakery are allowed to do what they want. I wish Twitter wouldn't ban people and I wish bakeries wouldn't discriminate. The reason why I might seem more upset over this is because there's a ton of bakeries, but really only one Twitter. -Paul
[2021-01-11 00:28:24] - Pierce: And, again, this has nothing to do with any desire to defend Trump of what he said. It's more about how it could be used in the future. Why wouldn't this same rationale be used against somebody like Kaepernick (https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/1266046129906552832?s=19)? -Paul
[2021-01-11 00:24:56] - Pierce: I don't agree with all of it, and clearly there is a difference between state run media and something like twitter, but I think the reasons to be wary of it still stand. -Paul
[2021-01-11 00:24:12] - Pierce: https://twitter.com/navalny/status/1347969772177264644?s=19 This is a twitter thread that I thought was pretty good at explaining the dangers of censoring political speech. It's from a Russian opposition leader. -Paul
[2021-01-11 00:19:35] - Pierce: It seems like we have a pretty good dividing line already set up in terms of legal vs illegal speech. Why not just stuck to that and not get involved in the messy business of deciding what speech is "dangerous" and which isn't? -Paul
[2021-01-11 00:10:10] - Pierce: Being a willing getaway driver for a robbery is illegal and we arrest people for that. I believe there are some pretty specific rules for what counts as speech which illegal ("speech that incites imminent lawless action") which Trump's apparently didn't qualify for because I don't recall him being charged for anything. -Paul
[2021-01-11 00:07:41] - Pierce: For one thing, there doesn't seem to be anything temporary about Trump's ban. Secondly, and more importantly, we tend to treat speech with a lot more reverence and are a lot more careful about protecting it. -Paul
[2021-01-11 00:04:24] - Pierce: Sure, in your rental car / ride hailing analogy, it seems like it could be reasonable for those companies to suspend service for a short period of time. I can see the similarities, but I think there's a lot of key differences too. -Paul
[2021-01-10 04:12:01] - or described below, rather. - pierce
[2021-01-10 04:11:33] - kavanaugh used that same stupid principle for this election, by the way, saying that votes received in wisconsin after election day (even if they were provably mailed before election day!) would undermine confidence if they "flipped" the day-of winner. kagan dissented that "there are no results to 'flip' until all valid votes are counted", but she was in the minority against all five justices I described above. - pierce
[2021-01-10 04:03:46] - of the other seven now on the court, three (including the chief justice) were literally on bush's side in the legal proceedings for that case. two others were appointed by either bush or trump. in other words, five out of the nine either supported a decision that may have reversed an election, or were appointed by someone who would benefit from such a decision. - pierce
[2021-01-10 04:03:28] - the delay caused by that injunction may easily have changed the legitimate outcome of that election. the basis for it was so bad that the official decision explicitly said it shouldn't be used as precedent for future cases. of the nine justices in that case, thomas (who supported it) and breyer (who opposed it) are the only ones still on the court. - pierce
[2021-01-10 04:03:20] - in 2000 the SCOTUS issued an injunction to pause the florida recount, on the basis that it would make people feel bad if the recount declared a different victor but the court later decided the recount was invalid. then they later ruled with new guidelines for the recount, but said there wasn't enough time to enact them, so the pre-recount outcome had to stand. - pierce
[2021-01-10 04:03:10] - mig: a quick side response... "Thinking SCOTUS would actually entertain anything that might reverse the election results is pretty wild, man." I don't think it's wild. several of Trump's challenges were incredibly shoddy, screwing up simple court procedures or the basics of standing.if something got to SCOTUS with even a thin veneer of viability I absolutely think we could see them support an obviously ridiculous outcome. - pierce
[2021-01-10 03:24:02] - all this is to say two things: (1) under neutral circumstances the social networks have the right and arguably the obligation to take action to prevent an imminent or ongoing violent coup, and (2) these aren't neutral circumstances, the networks have been complicit in getting us to this point by knowingly enabling misinformation. if they don't act now, they're more culpable for extreme actions they may not have originally intended. - pierce
[2021-01-10 03:17:17] - but our justice system may (rightly) accept "I tackled my fellow robber to try to prevent the murder" as mitigating your responsibility for the clerk's death. you're still on the hook for the robbery but at least you showed your line in the sand. - pierce
[2021-01-10 03:10:58] - (I'm not pretending there aren't problems with the balance of our justice system in that regard, but morally I think it's sound... you can't plead ignorance of violent outcomes if they were obvious and probable when you joined in) - pierce
[2021-01-10 03:03:31] - if multiple people try an armed robbery and one of them shoots a clerk, we try them all as accomplices to murder even if they didn't individually plan to kill anyone. knowingly contributing to a collective action with a likelihood of violence carries some complicity. - pierce
[2021-01-10 02:51:55] - if you even somewhat agree with me in that thought experiment, remember that in this real situation the tech companies are, arguably, conscious conspirators. they've known about the radicalizing effects of their algorithms for years. Facebook's VP of global public policy intervened to protect right-wing publications from policies that would prevent the spread of misinformation. - pierce
[2021-01-10 02:45:12] - but I would say it's a reasonable stopgap to address an ongoing threat. at a large enough scale of the crime, I'd also say they'd be irresponsible not to do whatever they can to mitigate it.- pierce
prev <-> next