quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
I see your point of: "If the owner of a diary queen franchise, in a free market, says they wont sell ice cream to someone because theyre black, for example, then that guy would be seen as a racist jerk and his dq would collapse."


I both agree and disagree. I like that idea that these people should be exposed, but we've seen where these bigots end up profiting because other like minded bigots flock to give them patronage and it would suck for those hypothetical Black people to lose out on Dairy Cream because of bigots if there's not another DQ within driving distance.

So let's stick to the existing laws on discrimination.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by wxyz
We shouldn't have laws on discrimination for private entities.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
Nah, let's just stick to the existing laws on discrimination.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by ilikecomics
You don't see any potential way the laws could be detrimental to the people they claim to protect?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by ilikecomics
https://mises.org/wire/discriminati...rimination-laws

This article talks about it more in depth than i can.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
Depends, as the larger whole, no. On as case-by-case basis I am sure exceptions to the rule could be found, as with most things in life.




(please log in to view the image)


I don't listen to and I discriminate against people who wear silly bowties.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by ilikecomics
You're absolutely right. I just looked it up.

Wow, i didnt know the civil rights act forced inclusion.
Do you like that the state forces association that way?

Edit: thank you for correcting me and providing information. I misunderstood it at first. Your patience is appreciated.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by ilikecomics
That's fine, in this case that makes my point.
Your poor choice of criteria for discrimination in terms of knowledge acquisition only hinders you, in the same way a racist dq franchise owner who hires people because theyre white instead of skilled, reliable, and passionate, will fail.

Be better than a racist, rob.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by wxyz
Religion is an ideology, so is political opinion.

So it's wrong to allow discrimination against one but not the other.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
The bowtie thing was an obvious joke...

quote: (post)

Originally posted by wxyz
Religion is an ideology, so is political opinion.

So it's wrong to allow discrimination against one but not the other.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by wxyz
Freedom of association is a natural right and the Government has no right to infringe upon it.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by ilikecomics
So, why would i argue in bad faith and deny science when im seemingly being so reasonable in my stance toward hate speech/ cancel culture?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by ilikecomics Also, i never disagreed with your numbers, i was imploring to use a different approach, the different approach being that of a priorism.
The same way you would approach logic and math is the same way you approach praxeology.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by ilikecomics (your post made me lol so youre at least consistently funny if nothing else.)

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
would KMC then a publisher then?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Section 230 of the Communications Act proffers tech companies immunity for content posted on their sites.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Section 230: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".

Why do we need Section 230 immunity for content hosters like Facebook or Twitter? Because it would be too expensive and costly for those providers to constantly curate their content to ensure all content published on their platforms does not result in tort such as libel.

But...

Here's the problem:

If a platform actually DOES actively censor their content under the guise of litigious protections for both the participants on their platform and the potential targets of the content (that could result in litigation), then they open up the door to being a publisher and the immunity is unnecessary. They are actively demonstrating that they want to act as a publisher and that brings them under the umbrella of "Publisher" actions where they can or cannot take certain action. And this is where the crux of the argument is.

If they demonstrate that they have taken a "due care" action to the content, then they must equally and fairly apply on their platform. The point of Section 230 is to save them the hassle of having to take these due care steps so companies are not sued for user content that is not illegal but does contain copyright infringement or defamation. In tort law, this is a set of evidence that destroys a defense against the lawsuit. If they have taken actions that shows they do not need Section 230 protections because they are taking actions that Section 230 was created specifically so they did not have to, then they open themselves up to lawsuits related to their censorship activities.

So people are pushing (content hosters are also pushing for this because it would save them money and litigation) for a modification to Section 230 that would clarify that only the removal of illegal (crime) content is required. This is actually moving the regulation to a less restrictive state and clarifies what "due care" activities an organization must take place: removing illegal content, only.



There is a difference between the concept of Free Speech and the First Amendment, which has a free speech clause.


The First Amendment is targeted to the government. Free Speech, as a concept, is the unfettered right of speech in all situations. Some people think that the First Amendment should be amended to fit more in line with Free Speech and not simply applicable to government.


I think the reinterpretation of Section 230 to only require companies to censor illegal content is the best approach. It will save the most money for companies, long term.

There are other nuances to this topic such as monopolies on some of these platforms making censorship of any non-illegal content a true First Amendment violation (the complexity of this particular argument is pretty ridiculous and it would take an hour or three just to explain...I do not like this argument but I understand why some make it) and the inappropriate use of "hate speech" as an extremely broad category that is clearly hotly debated.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
No. Just regulate them. If they want to engage in content editing of any kind, then they must face the financial consequences of unfair practices.

If they stop censoring and curating content, then they no longer have to abide by publisher rules.

It's a catch-22 situation.


Stop editing content, don't lose the lawsuits and then don't get regulated.

Since they cannot stop, they will get the regulation, lose the cases, and go bankrupt.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Paragraphs 1-3, multiple parts. Let's start with just the first sentence of Paragraph 1:

Paragraph 1
Sentence 1, part 1:

"Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users..."

The concept of “information society service provider” is too broad and would cover an almost unlimited number of online services. The Commission appears to have chosen this complicated wording as a way of not saying “hosting provider,” an activity protected by the E-Commerce Directive. “Hosting” covers any service (“cloud” storage, hosting a website, hosting a blog, etc).

The wording “store and provide to the public access” implies that the intermediary is a publisher (a very important label when it comes to litigation) and would therefore be liable for all infringements of all laws that may be committed by their users. This is confirmed by recital 38. This would overturn the approach taken in EU for the entire history of the internet and abandon international best practice. The impact of making internet hosting providers liable for activities about which they have no knowledge would be huge. It would, in application, require both extensive monitoring of everything uploaded to the internet and deletion of any communications that generated a legal risk for the provider (with copyright signatures used to identity intellectual property that is protected including a robust system of updating these signatures when items fall in and out of protection statues). This would result in a huge “chilling effect” on freedom of expression, and massive private censorship, undermining innovation, and competition. No one wants the fines and the end users/creators of such content do not want to be prosecuted.

Web hosting is the storage of content with the purpose of this being available to the public. It is clear from CJEU case law that this is the settled legal understanding of “hosting” in the e-Commerce Directive (C-360/10, for example). The attempted redefinition of this activity in this Directive (most notably in recital 38) seeks to overturn or ignore such case law.




Paragraph 1
Sentence 1, part 2:

...shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers.



The Commission does not mention what types of agreements it is referring to, nor is it clear which type(s) of provider are covered by this notion The Commission proposal completely overturns the copyright enforcement system. Instead of respecting the clarifications and and requirements of Court rulings, the proposal rejects them completely. The requirements set by the CJEU are specifically designed to end and prevent infringements in a way which respects all rights – fundamental human rights, commercial rights and protection of intellectual property (IP) rights – to an appropriate degree. This proposal would turn the established approach on its head.

More problematic still, the wording appears to be little more than a description of Google’s ContentID filtering system, moving it from an expost to an exante approach and broadening its scope both in terms of type of breach being addressed and the nature of the files (photo, text, video). In this system, legality – in the context of legitimate parody, education or quotation – is irrelevant. Worse still, the measure could be understood as skirting around the edges of the CJEU ruling by legitimising and mandating the use of the AudibleMagic filtering software, which the Court of Justice explicitly said could not be mandated by law.

The problems with ContentID (although the same analysis would apply to similar use of
similar technologies) has been extensively researched by EDRi member Electronic Frontier Foundation:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/...sorship-problem




https://edri.org/files/copyright/co...l_article13.pdf

quote: (post)

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Or, it would be like chik fil a and the gays thing.
They took a anti homosexual stance, still made a bunch of money, and gay rights are still increasing.
Chik fil a saying that stuff didnt affect the overal sociopolitical atmosphere, however protection of religious based hatred disguised as freedom is also something i see the state being the progenitor of.

quote:

On June 16, 2012, while on the syndicated radio talk show, The Ken Coleman Show, Chick-fil-A president and chief operating officer (COO) Dan Cathy stated:
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.[19][20][21]

The following month, on July 2, Biblical Recorder published an interview with Dan Cathy, who was asked about opposition to his company's "support of the traditional family." He replied: "Well, guilty as charged."[22][23] Cathy continued:

"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. ... We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized. "We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."[22]

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that about you. You can pat yourself on the back, more, if you'd like. Just don't drag me into it and pretend I said that. Understand why I've written you off as too stupid to have genuine conversation with?



There is not even a tiny bit of an attempt to hide that you're trying to bait me into the same discussion which resulted in me realizing you're too stupid to have a conversation with regarding this topic.



Thanks for complimenting me in an attempt to repair what you view as a broken relationship.

But you underestimate my arrogance and my view of you.