EU warns Musk that Twitter faces ban over content moderation -FT
https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-w … 022-11-30/
/popcorn
https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-w … 022-11-30/
/popcorn
What if I told you - boomers created the internet.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Hang on a minute, I know boomers who pass time on reddit. I think its days of being a purely nerd platform are gone.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Ha ha, yes. Govt should take control of private property, well done.Larssen wrote:
It either needs to become a strongly regulated or nationalised industry. It won't surprise me if in the somewhat distant future much of the digital infrastructure will be reclaimed as public goods. In the current models it's as though the marketplace were in private ownership and you'd have mercenaries to police it.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
what if i told you - public fora were always spaces demarcated and protected by the state. you need to read your basic liberal theory 101.
yea but the people who created early net culture were a much wider mix than ‘boomers’ or squares. there was a lot of fizzling possibility in the early web, a much wider political horizon than the libertarian tech bros who run everything today and their flirtations with authoritarianism.Dilbert_X wrote:
What if I told you - boomers created the internet.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Hang on a minute, I know boomers who pass time on reddit. I think its days of being a purely nerd platform are gone.
But its a private space which people have decided to use as a public forum.uziq wrote:
what if i told you - public fora were always spaces demarcated and protected by the state. you need to read your basic liberal theory 101.
If people meet up for a debate in a pub should the govt determine who can be admitted and who can't, and what is and isn't allowed to be discussed there or is it up to the landlord?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2022-11-30 16:10:25)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
And the internet wasn't originally conceptualized for what it is today. Very much gen x nerds and later millennials steering net culture in the early years. Boomers swept in from out of their various environments after the foundations were set. People from this generation have been calling any console, or PC with a game running on it, even smartphones, "The Nintendo." Some of these people were in their 20s when they were buying Ataris for personal use, come on.uziq wrote:
yea but the people who created early net culture were a much wider mix than ‘boomers’ or squares. there was a lot of fizzling possibility in the early web, a much wider political horizon than the libertarian tech bros who run everything today and their flirtations with authoritarianism.Dilbert_X wrote:
What if I told you - boomers created the internet.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Hang on a minute, I know boomers who pass time on reddit. I think its days of being a purely nerd platform are gone.
Millennials were trying and failing to get their boomer parents familiarized with online stuff, but so many just didn't get it. And even now with so many of them on facebook or posting racist tweets, they still don't. Not really. I have had to provide so much context and fact checks and security lectures for stuff it makes my head spin.
I really don't need to get lectured on the brains behind ARPANET or whatever. Who, by the way dilbert, are pre-boomer.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2022-11-30 16:35:03)
ah, yes, pubs, spaces which aren't licensed or regulated in any way by the state. spaces where laws of the realm are suspended, and where you can engage in violence, intimidation and drug consumption to your heart's content. the state stays at the threshold.Dilbert_X wrote:
But its a private space which people have decided to use as a public forum.uziq wrote:
what if i told you - public fora were always spaces demarcated and protected by the state. you need to read your basic liberal theory 101.
If people meet up for a debate in a pub should the govt determine who can be admitted and who can't, and what is and isn't allowed to be discussed there or is it up to the landlord?
derp.
this is the usual self-pitying rhetoric that the right-wing specialise in. 'we are being victimised! we are being silenced! it's the left woke mob!'should the govt determine who can be admitted and who can't
if you look at any of the actual stats about musk's new 'free speech' platform and the account amnesties he's handing out, i think you'll be satisfied that the situation is very far from 'the state is coming in to silence my preferred brand of populist blowhard'.
Last edited by uziq (2022-11-30 16:36:09)
Erm, I've been using 'the net' since ~1988 in one form or another, would have been very hard for millenials to have created the culture.
Doesn't usenet look like the democratic twitter concept uziq is drooling over?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
Usenet is culturally and historically significant in the networked world, having given rise to, or popularized, many widely recognized concepts and terms such as "FAQ", "flame", sockpuppet, and "spam"
Clearly millenials created the internet culture.
Doesn't usenet look like the democratic twitter concept uziq is drooling over?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
Usenet is culturally and historically significant in the networked world, having given rise to, or popularized, many widely recognized concepts and terms such as "FAQ", "flame", sockpuppet, and "spam"
Clearly millenials created the internet culture.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
i don't think anyone has ever stated that millennials created internet culture. but the dot-com boom was a different generation and a different demographic to the fucking military-industrial-academic complex and telnet, or the earliest email list-servers. come on, now. the 1990s were clearly a gen-X thing.
i'm familiar with usenet as well as early IRC channels. i used them. i'm not that young. you seem really generationally confused, chap.
i'm familiar with usenet as well as early IRC channels. i used them. i'm not that young. you seem really generationally confused, chap.
Last edited by uziq (2022-11-30 16:38:38)
You're being purposefully obtuse, we're not talking about allowing crime.uziq wrote:
ah, yes, pubs, spaces which aren't licensed or regulated in any way by the state. spaces where laws of the realm are suspended, and where you can engage in violence, intimidation and drug consumption to your heart's content. the state stays at the threshold.
Any private space can regulate who can enter and how they can behave, and throw them out on a whim with no explanation.
What you want is your world-view imposed on everyone everywhere, to be able to do and say what you want - never mind the legality or impact, but at the same time be able to cancel whoever you like.
I sincerely hope Musk has a lot of fun with twitter in its downhill slide.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
you're being purposefully obtuse. no government is trying to strangle free speech when they say 'regulate big tech'.
i've never once promoted imposing my worldview on everyone everywhere. yet again this is tabloid-level right-wing whinge. do better. the majority of content i see on twitter doesn't reflect my worldview. it is stereotypically used by centrist-liberal media insider types. that's not my worldview, that's not my politics.
i've never once promoted imposing my worldview on everyone everywhere. yet again this is tabloid-level right-wing whinge. do better. the majority of content i see on twitter doesn't reflect my worldview. it is stereotypically used by centrist-liberal media insider types. that's not my worldview, that's not my politics.
But it is, you want free speech - but not for people who don't hold the same opinions.
If you don't like how big tech behaves don't use it. No-one is forcing you to use twitter.
If you don't like how big tech behaves don't use it. No-one is forcing you to use twitter.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
By all means link me to wikipedia. It's not like I went to college for networking or anything. Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn (edit for spelling) are like ~80yos now, by the by, while you're giving boomers all the credit for stuff.Dilbert_X wrote:
Erm, I've been using 'the net' since ~1988 in one form or another, would have been very hard for millenials to have created the culture.
Doesn't usenet look like the democratic twitter concept uziq is drooling over?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
Usenet is culturally and historically significant in the networked world, having given rise to, or popularized, many widely recognized concepts and terms such as "FAQ", "flame", sockpuppet, and "spam"
Clearly millenials created the internet culture.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2022-11-30 16:47:27)
where have i ever tried to silence someone else's opinions? you're making noises, dilbert, but it's a load of sound and fury. you're just assembling bits of speech from things you've read in the tabloids, aren't you? hurr durr silencing speech opinions wokism. i bet you can't find a single instance of me saying someone should have their opinion muzzled because i don't like it.
you're the one complaining repeatedly, like an injured fawn, that someone said nasty words to you once on the internet. i thought you were keen on free speech? you cuck. that one was free, there, you can take it from me.
big tech is no different from any other industry in the history of modern capitalism that wants to achieve effective monopolies. monopolies are generally a bad thing. big tech already submits to all sorts of consumer and trade regulations for its products. if they want to move into providing 'services', which crossover with media or communications platforms, especially if they want to become go-to 'news sources', then they have to play ball with the norms and regulations in those industries, too. i have no problem with the idea that some spoilt billionaire narcissist like zuckerberg or musk should have to conform to the same rules of communication and news media as the old broadsheets do. people get persecuted and murdered over stuff that happens on these platforms. running a communications platform is not selling a gadget or sedan.
you pretend to care deeply about 'public fora' and 'free speech' but you have no historical or legal-institutional understanding of what makes these 'healthy and constructive' spaces possible. there are de jure and de facto exclusions and limitations all the time. only in america is the ideal of 'free speech' pursued as an end-in-itself. every other place you've ever expressed yourself 'freely' has had the state at the root or gateway of it, somewhere.
you're the one complaining repeatedly, like an injured fawn, that someone said nasty words to you once on the internet. i thought you were keen on free speech? you cuck. that one was free, there, you can take it from me.
big tech is no different from any other industry in the history of modern capitalism that wants to achieve effective monopolies. monopolies are generally a bad thing. big tech already submits to all sorts of consumer and trade regulations for its products. if they want to move into providing 'services', which crossover with media or communications platforms, especially if they want to become go-to 'news sources', then they have to play ball with the norms and regulations in those industries, too. i have no problem with the idea that some spoilt billionaire narcissist like zuckerberg or musk should have to conform to the same rules of communication and news media as the old broadsheets do. people get persecuted and murdered over stuff that happens on these platforms. running a communications platform is not selling a gadget or sedan.
you pretend to care deeply about 'public fora' and 'free speech' but you have no historical or legal-institutional understanding of what makes these 'healthy and constructive' spaces possible. there are de jure and de facto exclusions and limitations all the time. only in america is the ideal of 'free speech' pursued as an end-in-itself. every other place you've ever expressed yourself 'freely' has had the state at the root or gateway of it, somewhere.
Last edited by uziq (2022-11-30 16:52:37)
Didn't you crow about Trump and various others being banned from twitter?uziq wrote:
where have i ever tried to silence someone else's opinions?
Oh look, your long stream of 'KYS' posts will soon be a criminal offence.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63768496
How does any company on the internet have a 'monopoly'?big tech is no different from any other industry in the history of modern capitalism that wants to achieve effective monopolies.
Critical mass =/= a monopoly
If anyone could be bothered they could set up a web forum in an afternoon.
Host it themselves and they can have all the free speech they like.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
trump was banned from twitter following an insurrection at the capitol. events highly influenced by his incitements on twitter. he wasn't banned for expressing a political worldview with which i disagree. now who the fuck is being obtuse, you moron? lol. even the 'left twitter woke mob' didn't want to ban trump because of his opinions. do you know how many meme accounts there are on twitter that screenshot and repost his most funny and quotable tweets? get a grip.
'long stream of KYS posts'. yeah, again, i never encouraged anyone to kill themselves. nothing i said on bf2s in this context would be brought to court as evidence of that. you are REALLY reaching. those bills and laws are aimed at people who are targeting individuals on a personal basis, and those who are clearly at-risk or going through a crisis. if you're really claiming that you feel victimised from bf2s, then you need to toughen the fuck up. whatever happened to the paras, eh?
why are you always shilling for groups to which you don't belong? it's funny, this little 'dilbert identifies with techbros' parade. you're a sub-managerial CAD technician. these people do not have you in their class interests.
'long stream of KYS posts'. yeah, again, i never encouraged anyone to kill themselves. nothing i said on bf2s in this context would be brought to court as evidence of that. you are REALLY reaching. those bills and laws are aimed at people who are targeting individuals on a personal basis, and those who are clearly at-risk or going through a crisis. if you're really claiming that you feel victimised from bf2s, then you need to toughen the fuck up. whatever happened to the paras, eh?
facebook/meta have spent the last 10 years buying out or extinguishing every competing app in the social media ecosystem. you really are incredibly naive and obtuse on this topic. 'anyone can start a forum or photo app'. yeah, good luck growing that or attracting people with actors like facebook in that space. do you know anything about their acquisitions history with instagram and co? read a fucking book.How does any company on the internet have a 'monopoly'?
why are you always shilling for groups to which you don't belong? it's funny, this little 'dilbert identifies with techbros' parade. you're a sub-managerial CAD technician. these people do not have you in their class interests.
Was Trump convicted of any crime?uziq wrote:
trump was banned from twitter following an insurrection at the capitol. events highly influenced by his incitements on twitter.
So why was his right to free speech curtailed?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
he broke the terms of conditions of twitter, what’s the problem?
he even started his own social media app. just like you proposed as an optimum solution. his free speech isn’t being curtailed at all. “just start your own forum!”
was i convicted of a crime to justify my ban from bf2s? and yet you evidently think i should remain banned on my various accounts. but muh free speech!
once again, i didn’t encourage trump’s ban because his politics or views didn’t align with my own. i am fine with the ban he did receive though, and the reasons given for it. he incited a riot. people died. you’ve kept a red smarting face and perma butthurt over internet posts i made 15 years ago for fuck’s sake. a little perspective and consistency, please? is it so much to ask?
he even started his own social media app. just like you proposed as an optimum solution. his free speech isn’t being curtailed at all. “just start your own forum!”
was i convicted of a crime to justify my ban from bf2s? and yet you evidently think i should remain banned on my various accounts. but muh free speech!
once again, i didn’t encourage trump’s ban because his politics or views didn’t align with my own. i am fine with the ban he did receive though, and the reasons given for it. he incited a riot. people died. you’ve kept a red smarting face and perma butthurt over internet posts i made 15 years ago for fuck’s sake. a little perspective and consistency, please? is it so much to ask?
Last edited by uziq (2022-11-30 18:34:46)
No, the issue is you're saying free speech and hate speech in places like twitter should be regulated by the govt - in which case people like you would come a cropper and you'd have to hear things you don't want to hear.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
let me know when i've been involved in any hate speech on a public platform. telling you that you're a stupid cucked little manbaby is not a hatespeech. posting 'kys' on a gaming forum in the context of a debate about karkand camping or music is not 'encouraging someone to self-harm'. really, don't quit your day job at the lathe. the Bar association will not be returning your calls any time soon.
You're saying people like Trump should be banned from twitter for hate speech, and want places like twitter controlled by the govt.
But if twitter were controlled by the govt they'd be obliged to allow hate speech thanks to the right to free speech.
The only reason twitter could ban Trump was because they're a private entity which can set its own rules.
I mean, the govt hasn't and can't actually muzzle people like Trump can they?
Only private companies can do that on their own platform, because they can set rules which conflict with constitutional rights.
You're a very confused fellow and I don't think you know what you want or how to achieve it.
But if twitter were controlled by the govt they'd be obliged to allow hate speech thanks to the right to free speech.
The only reason twitter could ban Trump was because they're a private entity which can set its own rules.
I mean, the govt hasn't and can't actually muzzle people like Trump can they?
Only private companies can do that on their own platform, because they can set rules which conflict with constitutional rights.
You're a very confused fellow and I don't think you know what you want or how to achieve it.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
the right to free speech doesn't cover things like sedition or incitement to riot/violence. that's why several people involved with the events of that day, which led to trump's twitter ban, have, you know, been convicted. i don't think a person needs necessarily to be convicted in a court of law in order to be banned from a private space or platform: the bad publicity and toxicity is evidently enough reason for them. they don't want to be implicated in facilitating or hosting any criminal activity, after all, so there's something inevitably 'pre-emptive' in those bans.
the line between forms of free speech and offences codified as hate speech are open to interpretation, not only by laypeople in common discussion but in a court of law and formal judicial interpretation.
i think you are very confused. you seem to be confusing people flaming on internet forums with national leaders inciting deadly riots. nothing i have ever said on here has ever been with the aim of creating a real-world consequence or harm. it is a fucking gaming forum. i never identified someone who was vulnerable or suicidal and targeted them and egged them on. trump did egg on a violent and deadly crowd. i suggest you pay more attention to the findings of the january 6th committee. if you think my posts here a decade ago are even in the same ballpark, you are being very precious and very silly.
the line between forms of free speech and offences codified as hate speech are open to interpretation, not only by laypeople in common discussion but in a court of law and formal judicial interpretation.
i think you are very confused. you seem to be confusing people flaming on internet forums with national leaders inciting deadly riots. nothing i have ever said on here has ever been with the aim of creating a real-world consequence or harm. it is a fucking gaming forum. i never identified someone who was vulnerable or suicidal and targeted them and egged them on. trump did egg on a violent and deadly crowd. i suggest you pay more attention to the findings of the january 6th committee. if you think my posts here a decade ago are even in the same ballpark, you are being very precious and very silly.
Have they, you know, been banned from speaking in public?uziq wrote:
the right to free speech doesn't cover things like sedition or incitement to riot/violence. that's why several people involved with the events of that day, which led to trump's twitter ban, have, you know, been convicted.
So do you want twitter to be a private space or a public space controlled by the govt?i don't think a person needs necessarily to be convicted in a court of law in order to be banned from a private space or platform:
But you did tell people to kill themselves, multiple times, you had no idea what their mental state was.i never identified someone who was vulnerable or suicidal and targeted them and egged them on
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2022-11-30 21:32:00)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
erm, presumably the person who has been convicted of sedition will be 'banned from speaking in public' when he's in a federal prison. so, yes?
dilbert why are you struggling with this concept of a 'private space subject to government regulations'? this applies to, erm, almost all the examples you have listed in your counter-argument. like pubs. the greek public forum, the liberal public space, is not a free-for-all arena. there are rules, regulations, and norms that govern public discourse. i don't know what to say to you on this? read a book? read kant, rawls, habermas? go figure it out.
again, the laws you are linking to have nothing at all to do with strangers flaming one another behind pseudonyms on gaming forums. it's about online bullying and harassment. targeting hate speech. personally directed attacks. telling a stranger, about whom you know nothing, to 'kys' in response to a discussion on a gaming forum is not the fucking thing, my guy. again, READ A BOOK.
dilbert why are you struggling with this concept of a 'private space subject to government regulations'? this applies to, erm, almost all the examples you have listed in your counter-argument. like pubs. the greek public forum, the liberal public space, is not a free-for-all arena. there are rules, regulations, and norms that govern public discourse. i don't know what to say to you on this? read a book? read kant, rawls, habermas? go figure it out.
again, the laws you are linking to have nothing at all to do with strangers flaming one another behind pseudonyms on gaming forums. it's about online bullying and harassment. targeting hate speech. personally directed attacks. telling a stranger, about whom you know nothing, to 'kys' in response to a discussion on a gaming forum is not the fucking thing, my guy. again, READ A BOOK.