Right Wing Grifters

KyussB

Can you stop replying to a moral argument about changing the status quo, with a restatement of the status quo? It makes no sense and drives things in circles.

Governments are already interfering with these private companies platforms and rules - by making them censor more things.

If they can do that - they can do the opposite and enforce legal rules to protect political discussion from censorship.

Tony EH

KyussB wrote: »

Can you stop replying to a moral argument about changing the status quo, with a restatement of the status quo? It makes no sense and drives things in circles.

Governments are already interfering with these private companies platforms and rules - by making them censor more things.

If they can do that - they can do the opposite and enforce legal rules to protect political discussion from censorship.

You argument is based on a fantasy KyussB. A fantasy that, as it currently stands, fails when it meets the reality of the situation. This is obviously very perturbing for you.

However, what you're asking for, is that governments and lawmakers do...something...that makes things more agreeable to you personally regarding the likes of Twitter, YouTube and whatever.

I can tell you now that you are going to be waiting a VERY long time for such a thing to happen and, in all likelihood, end up disappointed as it will require measures that will have huge knock on effects outside of the online realm that it won't ever be implemented in the fashion you seem to be seeking.

Personally, I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's tenet that one is either for free speech or they're not. However, I am also realistic enough to understand that, in practical terms, I shouldn't expect that tenet to be exercised everywhere I go and that includes private discussion platforms online.

Even here on Boards.ie

KyussB

The law does not define reality. The law is shaped by moral frameworks and principles, written down into legislation - which changes all the time - that is the reality.

The law is never a 'reality' that causes a moral argument to 'fail'. That is a retarded concept.

Instead of just mindlessly reciting the "laws trump morals" argument again and again - can you please acknowledge and reply to the above?

Tony EH

KyussB wrote: »

The law does not define reality. The law is shaped by moral frameworks and principles, written down into legislation - which changes all the time - that is the reality.

The law is never a 'reality' that causes a moral argument to 'fail'. That is a retarded concept.

Instead of just mindlessly reciting the "laws trump morals" argument again and again - can you please acknowledge and reply to the above?

You answer my questions hat I asked you earlier first.

What laws, exactly, are you looking to have changed? And how, exactly, are they to be implemented across the web?

KyussB

You want me to debate how to put the moral framework into law - when you've already decided the moral framework itself is invalid, because of the law...

That doesn't make any sense. Unless you clear up that the law is shaped by morals, and the law does not trump morals - then you're actually blocking us from even discussing that.

Dyr

Tony EH wrote: »

The issue is that your application of the "Town Square" concept falls down the moment it touches the real world situation.

You do realise that Twitter referred to themselves as the Global Town Square, yeah?:o


Twitter and Facebook spend a fortune on lobbying to keep themselves from being broken up under Anti Trust laws

Tony EH

KyussB wrote: »

You want me to debate how to put the moral framework into law - when you've already decided the moral framework itself is invalid, because of the law...

That doesn't make any sense. Unless you clear up that the law is shaped by morals, and the law does not trump morals - then you're actually blocking us from even discussing that.

You're the one driving this bus. You've stated that you want the laws changed. What laws do you want changed ane how do you see that happening?

KyussB

You spent the last couple of pages arguing that the law as it stands, trumps the moral concept I put forward (regarding the digital 'town square') - and when you're nailed down on that, you suddenly try to move the topic past it - to a topic which actually depends on us resolving that prior discussion first...

No - finish what you started. Follow through on that and explain to me, whether you agree or disagree with this - and if the latter, why:

The law does not define reality. The law is shaped by moral frameworks and principles, written down into legislation - which changes all the time - that is the reality.

The law is never a 'reality' that causes a moral argument to 'fail'.

Tony EH

KyussB wrote: »

You spent the last couple of pages arguing that the law as it stands, trumps the moral concept I put forward (regarding the digital 'town square') - and when you're nailed down on that, you suddenly try to move the topic past it - to a topic which actually depends on us resolving that prior discussion first...

No - finish what you started. Follow through on that and explain to me, whether you agree or disagree with this - and if the latter, why:

The law does not define reality. The law is shaped by moral frameworks and principles, written down into legislation - which changes all the time - that is the reality.

The law is never a 'reality' that causes a moral argument to 'fail'.

You haven't nailed anything down at all. This is a pure fantasy that exists in your head, so go with it. You're not interested in reality.

You are, literally, expecting governments and lawmakers to enact a situation that is entirely favourable to YOU. But you cannot explain to people how this comes about or what laws you wish to see "changed", even though this is your very own fantasy "moral" argument.

BTW, you started this fantasy talk, not me. I can recognise that private companies can and do institute their own rules, regulations, codes of conduct and whatnot, and also understand that the imaginative scenario you have in your head isn't going to come about any time soon.

KyussB

Tony EH wrote: »

You haven't nailed anything down at all. This is a pure fantasy that exists in your head, so go with it. You're not interested in reality.

You are, literally, expecting governments and lawmakers to enact a situation that is entirely favourable to YOU. But you cannot explain to people how this comes about or what laws you wish to see "changed", even though this is your very own fantasy "moral" argument.

BTW, you started this fantasy talk, not me. I can recognise that private companies can and do institute their own rules, regulations, codes of conduct and whatnot, and also understand that the imaginative scenario you have in your head isn't going to come about any time soon.

You are arguing that because the law conflicts with a moral principle - that it renders that moral principle invalid.

This would mean that e.g. 2 years ago, people in favour of allowing abortion would be, in your mind, pursuing "a fantasy" - something which "fails when it meets the reality of the situation" - simply because the moral principle they were pursuing, conflicted with the law at the time.

Now that you're nailed down on this, and refuse the acknowledge that the whole "laws trump morals" argument is bullshit, you're trying to skip past all that on to something else.

What you're doing now is the equivalant to, 2 years ago, saying to people in favour of abortion: "Well, how would you put that into law then? Tell me exactly how that would happen?"

So that you could, very predictibly, start pissing condescension at it:
"Hah, yea...never happen! Nobody will ever vote for that!", "Show me the exact laws you'll change? I won't be convinced until I see every line of proposed legislation", "You forgot to cross a t and dot an i there - that's a load of bollocks, hah!", "If someone does *insert easily closed loophole* it won't work, therefore it's all impractical/impossible" etc. etc. etc..

I mean, it's very predictable and transparent - who do you think you're convincing?

Any person in the thread here, who is reasonable and isn't just interested in jumping in with condescension and pissery, is able to understand that if you can e.g. write laws compelling social media to not allow piracy and punish them if they do, to not allow defamatory statements and be able to pursue posters for it etc. - that it's pretty straight forward to write laws targetting ones large enough to be an antittrust concern, to stop them censoring people for political reasons, and to punish them if they do.

Igotadose

KyussB wrote: »

Any person in the thread here, who is reasonable and isn't just interested in jumping in with condescension and pissery, is able to understand that if you can e.g. write laws compelling social media to not allow piracy and punish them if they do, to not allow defamatory statements and be able to pursue posters for it etc. - that it's pretty straight forward to write laws targetting ones large enough to be an antittrust concern, to stop them censoring people for political reasons, and to punish them if they do.

You can try anyway, but these are privately held US corporations. Good luck.

Tony EH

KyussB wrote: »

You are arguing that because the law conflicts with a moral principle - that it renders that moral principle invalid.

No I'm not.

You haven't been following this exchange at all have you.

I'm saying that private companies, like Twitter or YouTube, can implement their own terms and conditions, rules and regulations OF THEIR SERVICE and that they can ask users of that service to abide by them and if you run afoul of those rules, you can be sanctioned.

YOU appear to be pursuing a fantasy that governments or lawmakers can "change" laws (what laws you won't say) so that online discussion fora can be shaped more to your liking because they will be forced to do something you find favourable.

I think your fantasy falls over, because in reality, I don't think this is going to come to pass and that's what is "invalid".

It's quite simple, but because you haven't been following the exchange and going all round houses trying to shift points all over the place, you haven't understood what I am saying.

You're welcome to your "moral argument" fantasy, knock yourself out.

But I live in the real world.

OMM 0000

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm saying that private companies, like Twitter or YouTube, can implement their own terms and conditions, rules and regulations OF THEIR SERVICE and that they can ask users of that service to abide by them and if you run afoul of those rules, you can be sanctioned.

There are two problems with this though:

The people enforcing the rules are incredibly biased ("orange man bad").

The "it's a private company, they can do what they want" argument doesn't really work when it comes to massive, powerful, important platforms like Twitter. Like it or not, Twitter can influence the world, so kicking off people because orange man bad is a problem and needs to be solved.

If they were silencing left leaning people, you'd be complaining.

KyussB

Tony EH wrote: »

No I'm not.

You haven't been following this exchange at all have you.

I'm saying that private companies, like Twitter or YouTube, can implement their own terms and conditions, rules and regulations OF THEIR SERVICE and that they can ask users of that service to abide by them and if you run afoul of those rules, you can be sanctioned.

YOU appear to be pursuing a fantasy that governments or lawmakers can "change" laws (what laws you won't say) so that online discussion fora can be shaped more to your liking because they will be forced to do something you find favourable.

I think your fantasy falls over, because in reality, I don't think this is going to come to pass and that's what is "invalid".

It's quite simple, but because you haven't been following the exchange and going all round houses trying to shift points all over the place, you haven't understood what I am saying.

You're welcome to your "moral argument" fantasy, knock yourself out.

But I live in the real world.

I'm arguing in the context of platforms where there is an antitrust concern - where they've grown big enough to be considered one of the dominant parts of the digital 'town hall'.

We already have laws dictating aspects of their rules and regulations - including very intrusive and expensive ones for them like GDPR - to protect citizens rights.

We can use existing antitrust laws to establish which of the platforms are a problem - and we can expand antitrust regulation to impose new obligations on these companies - that they are not allowed to exclude people in our jurisdiction from their platform, for their political views.

That's just one way of doing it. The only practical problem you seem to be able to express about it, is that you simply think people/politicians wouldn't vote to implement it. I disagree - I think if enough people understand the problem and the threat well enough, that there'd be a very good chance of getting implemented.

KyussB

OMM 0000 wrote: »

There are two problems with this though:

The people enforcing the rules are incredibly biased ("orange man bad").

The "it's a private company, they can do what they want" argument doesn't really work when it comes to massive, powerful, important platforms like Twitter. Like it or not, Twitter can influence the world, so kicking off people because orange man bad is a problem and needs to be solved.

If they were silencing left leaning people, you'd be complaining.

Exactly - and it's simply not true that private platforms can do what they want - they have to obey the law, and they would have to obey laws like the one I describe above, if implemented.

As it happens, they are silencing left-leaning people, too - but it's not grown enough for the people clamoring for increasing censorship, to take issue with it yet.

ohnonotgmail

KyussB wrote: »

I'm arguing in the context of platforms where there is an antitrust concern - where they've grown big enough to be considered one of the dominant parts of the digital 'town hall'.

We already have laws dictating aspects of their rules and regulations - including very intrusive and expensive ones for them like GDPR - to protect citizens rights.

We can use existing antitrust laws to establish which of the platforms are a problem - and we can expand antitrust regulation to impose new obligations on these companies - that they are not allowed to exclude people in our jurisdiction from their platform, for their political views.

That's just one way of doing it. The only practical problem you seem to be able to express about it, is that you simply think people/politicians wouldn't vote to implement it. I disagree - I think if enough people understand the problem and the threat well enough, that there'd be a very good chance of getting implemented.

so you think that all online platforms are acting in unison to silence the right-wing freaks? there is no single dominant online platform so you must be assuming they are acting in concert. do you have evidence that they are acting in concert? or that they all apply the same standards?

Tony EH

OMM 0000 wrote: »

There are two problems with this though:

The people enforcing the rules are incredibly biased ("orange man bad").

They can still implement whatever rules they wish. They are privately owned companies and can ask the users of their service to abide by them. The biases of a private company doesn't matter.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The "it's a private company, they can do what they want" argument doesn't really work when it comes to massive, powerful, important platforms like Twitter. Like it or not, Twitter can influence the world, so kicking off people because orange man bad is a problem and needs to be solved.

Of course it works. That's how things work right now. You may not like it. But that's neither here nor there.

Personally speaking I'd nuke Twitter from existence if I had my way. But that's a fantasy also.

OMM 0000

Tony EH wrote: »

That's how things work right now. You may not like it. But that's neither here nor there.

You don't understand the problem.

Let me give an analogy.

RTE gets a new CEO. He's a radical right winger. He bans any coverage of Sinn Fein and the Green Party.

This would be very troubling as the viewers would now only get a biased view on things. It would influence elections, and more.

That's basically what's happening with Twitter.

The fact you are only able to process this as "who cares, rules are rules" is a problem, for you. It just tells us you aren't able to think things through.

I already know your response is going to be "but RTE isn't a private company". Again, that just tells me you can't think things through.

KyussB

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you think that all online platforms are acting in unison to silence the right-wing freaks? there is no single dominant online platform so you must be assuming they are acting in concert. do you have evidence that they are acting in concert? or that they all apply the same standards?

There's a limited number of dominant platforms, and they are not targetting people on the right for censorship - there is an increasing trend of censoring people on both the left and right - and it's a creeping censorship, not a fixed standard.

KyussB

Tony EH wrote: »

They can still implement whatever rules they wish. They are privately owned companies and can ask the users of their service to abide by them. The biases of a private company doesn't matter.



Of course it works. That's how things work right now. You may not like it. But that's neither here nor there.

Personally speaking I'd nuke Twitter from existence if I had my way. But that's a fantasy also.

No they can't implement whatever rules they wish - they have to abide by the law.

Tony EH

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You don't understand the problem.

Oh I understand the "problem" very well.

There's disagreement with how Twitter is run currently and there are hopes and wishes for someone to come along and reform it into a platform that suits.

sk8erboii

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You don't understand the problem.

Let me give an analogy.

RTE gets a new CEO. He's a radical right winger. He bans any coverage of Sinn Fein and the Green Party.

This would be very troubling as the viewers would now only get a biased view on things. It would influence elections, and more.

That's basically what's happening with Twitter.

The fact you are only able to process this as "who cares, rules are rules" is a problem, for you. It just tells us you aren't able to think things through.

I already know your response is going to be "but RTE isn't a private company". Again, that just tells me you can't think things through.

Lol what a load of sh*t.

Dont break site rules and you wont get banned.

Simple as.

ohnonotgmail

KyussB wrote: »

There's a limited number of dominant platforms, and they are not targetting people on the right for censorship - there is an increasing trend of censoring people on both the left and right - and it's a creeping censorship, not a fixed standard.

are they "censoring" what they say or how they say it?

OMM 0000

sk8erboii wrote: »

Lol what a load of sh*t.

Dont break site rules and you wont get banned.

Simple as.

But that's demonstrably not true.

Don't believe me?

Make two accounts.

On one write "**** black people".

On the other write "**** white people".

Watch how you won't get banned for hating white people.

The reason for this is ideology. The people working for twitter are biased.

KyussB

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are they "censoring" what they say or how they say it?

The T&C's of these sites are arbitrary, so they can ding someone and deactivate them - without ever explaining their logic.

ohnonotgmail

KyussB wrote: »

The T&C's of these sites are arbitrary, so they can ding someone and deactivate them - without ever explaining their logic.

Getting banned from the likes of twitter is a very long process. It takes a long time and with many warnings along the way. They have only now got around to banning Hopkins despite years of her spreading hate. why would any site want users who spread hate? what do they gain from that?

KyussB

That's not true. In certain cases, if a post of yours gets dinged your whole account can get deactivated, and you get the option to remove the post and restore your account - without any explanation of why you were deactivated, or why the post was dinged.

The system is arbitrary.

Tony EH

KyussB wrote: »

No they can't implement whatever rules they wish - they have to abide by the law.

And, legally, they are entitled to write up a list of terms and conditions that they can ask the users OF THEIR SERVICE to abide by.

ohnonotgmail

KyussB wrote: »

That's not true. In certain cases, if a post of yours gets dinged your whole account can get deactivated, and you get the option to remove the post and restore your account - without any explanation of why you were deactivated, or why the post was dinged.

The system is arbitrary.

doesn't sound very arbitrary to me. you break one of the rules you agreed to when you sign up and they ding you for it.

KyussB

Tony EH wrote: »

And, legally, they are entitled to write up a list of terms and conditions that they can ask the users OF THEIR SERVICE to abide by.

And their T&C's have to abide by the law as well, yes...what is your point, exactly?