Firearms forums being attacked

[dojiijii]

Yet "in good faith" has proven to be too open to interpretation. It's not an easy problem to solve but it doesn't seem insurmountable. Probably just tighten up the requirements that must be met before a site can claim section 230 protection. Perhaps require a clear and unambiguous set of community standards and also require transparency and uniformity in how they are applied. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

If this were the case, Twitter would lose their 230 protection immediately for not dropping things like calls for murder against Jews living on the West bank, while banning others for similar calls for violence. Facebook would be in similar straits for similar reasons. I suspect that media companies would secretly love to see such requirements because it would free them of the millstone of having to endlessly appease the woke. They would have the freedom to simply point at the law and say "this is clearly the law, we can't break it, sorry".

Sites aren't required to do anything to claim section 230 protection; if the posts in question are from a user and not someone representing the site then they're covered. Catching some calls for violence and missing others is a function of the algorithms they use to find posts inciting violence, not a matter of political perspective. Manually moderating every single tweet and post would be an impossible task and put an end to live content.

But you're correct in saying media companies want some sort of regulation; they don't want the headache of trying to decide which speech is OK and which is not.

 

[HaveGun]

Show me someone who is "middle" and I'll show you someone willing to give up some of our gun rights to further their own agenda! You go right ahead and wish for the middle man to protect yours, but I want someone conservative for mine!
And conservative doesn't mean they're shoving any gun rights down my throat. It means they aren't shoving liberal gun laws down my throat.

The main problem is that the leftist-controlled media has moved the goalposts in terms of political identity.

Political views that were considered moderate a few years ago are now labeled as "right-wing" or "extremist".

If you believe in borders, law and order, the sanctity of life, and freedom of speech, then you are a right-wing extremist. People that believe in government control of most aspects of your life, gun control, more taxes, more regulation, abortion rights, allowing more immigration, etc. are now called moderates. When I was a youngster, we called those people communists. Now they are considered main-stream Americans. It's sickening.

 

[dojiijii]

The main problem is that the leftist-controlled media has moved the goalposts in terms of political identity.

Political views that were considered moderate a few years ago are now labeled as "right-wing" or "extremist".

If you believe in borders, law and order, the sanctity of life, and freedom of speech, then you are a right-wing extremist. People that believe in government control of most aspects of your life, gun control, more taxes, more regulation, abortion rights, allowing more immigration, etc. are now called moderates. When I was a youngster, we called those people communists. Now they are considered main-stream Americans. It's sickening.

Extremists, whether on the left or on the right, always see themselves as moderates. It's the inevitable result of believing everyone else should think like them.

 

[HaveGun]

Extremists, whether on the left or on the right, always see themselves as moderates. It's the inevitable result of believing everyone else should think like them.

So, the beliefs I stated as once being considered "moderate", such as border control, law and order, sanctity of life, and freedom of speech that are now considered "extreme", I take it you are in agreement that these are now extreme views?

Not sure what you are trying to imply by saying that all "extremists" now consider themselves as "moderates".

What do you consider as "extremists" views? Left or right.

 

[dojiijii]

So, the beliefs I stated as once being considered "moderate", such as border control, law and order, sanctity of life, and freedom of speech that are now considered "extreme", I take it you are in agreement that these are now extreme views?

Not sure what you are trying to imply by saying that all "extremists" now consider themselves as "moderates".

What do you consider as "extremists" views? Left or right.

You'll need to be a lot more specific about your issues. When you refer to sanctity of life are you referring to the death penalty? What aspects of freedom of speech are you saying are considered extreme? Is it Trump's attacks on the free press? When you mention border control, do you mean separating children from their parents and putting them in cages? When it comes to law and order, how many unarmed innocent black people do police officers have to kill before that's considered extreme?

When I say extremists consider themselves moderates (not just now, they always have), I'm referring to the tendency to see one's own point of view, and nobody else's. If you have a very limited point of view, and surround yourselves only with people who share that same point of view, it gets reinforced. The longer you do this, and the more you reject other points of view, the more it will get reinforced. The more it gets reinforced, the more extreme any differing points of view will seem. You yourself referred to the "leftist-controlled media". Assuming you're referring to mainstream fact-checked news, this is the same media that leftists lament doesn't show the injustices of society or the danger of right-wing militia groups. You consider it too far to the left, they consider it too far to the right. I'm not implying you're an extremist, I'm just pointing out that anyone who only considers their own point of view will consider themselves a moderate.

What I would consider an extremist is a long conversation, but an extremely abbreviated definition might be along the lines of someone with a narrow point of view; who refuses to consider the validity of other points of view; who when given information that supports their point of view accepts it without question; who when given information that contradicts their point of view dismisses it as propaganda or derogatorily ("un-American" is a frequent one) without considering that that information may be valid; who allows their emotion (or beliefs) to cloud their reasoning; who stirs up others using emotional propaganda (fear or hate based); and who uses seemingly common-sense ends to justify violent means.

 

[dojiijii]

Regarding "moderate," here's a simple test: go to a right-wing political forum, and argue fact-based left-wing points. Then, go to a left-wing political forum, and argue fact-based right-wing points. If you can't do both while still being honest to yourself, you're probably not a moderate.

 

[EHJ]

Moo.

 

[Dinglenutz]

Sites aren't required to do anything to claim section 230 protection; if the posts in question are from a user and not someone representing the site then they're covered.

They are supposed to be required to act "in good faith", but that is unfortunately so vague as to be unenforceable. Having a precise code of conduct and being required to provide complete transparency when it was applied would be a lot less vague, and still allow the Satanists forum to kick out anyone who insisted on doing their Catholic proselytization or whatever, if that was in the code of conduct. Any failure to act on a reported violation of the code (much like a failure to act on reported copyright infringement) could result in loss of protection.

The good faith requirement to treat everyone equally under the code of conduct would potentially have teeth.

Regarding "moderate," here's a simple test: go to a right-wing political forum, and argue fact-based left-wing points. Then, go to a left-wing political forum, and argue fact-based right-wing points. If you can't do both while still being honest to yourself, you're probably not a moderate.

I used to do this as a sort of a way to pass time. Finding a fact based left wing point being argued has become extremely difficult the last few years.

 

[bbbass]

On the original topic, considering how indispensable to modern life digital communications are, it's past time to consider them a utility.

I'd go along with that... when I post my internet payment to Quickbooks, I categorize it as "utility".

Either way, this a PICK ONE situation, not a have your cake and eat it too screw job situation.

You sure about that???

Turtles move faster than legislation.

And I am fine with that. The best situation for the people is when Congress is in stalemate and nothing gets done. Or recess. The days when they met for a short period and then rode their horses/buggies back to their ranches/farms/biz/homested were good days.

Nothing moves faster than a 2nd impeachment apparently.

 

[DWaterhouse]

So why aren't gun owners on godaddy (aside from the obvious reasons of course) and "reporting" all the communist, leftists, anti-American sites and getting them removed?

I suppose gun owners have better things to do with their time.

 

[Dinglenutz]

I'd go along with that... when I post my internet payment to Quickbooks, I categorize it as "utility".

Internet access, the 21st equivalent of a dial tone, is a utility and there are real monopolistic antitrust concerns around how that works in most of the country. Hopefully Starlink will break that stranglehold. Access to social media isn't, IMO a utility.

Most places that are not social media moderate their content as a matter of course; post a review on Amazon. It is not visible until a mod reviews and approves it. That's editorial control and should be treated as such. Post a similar review on Twitface. It goes live immediately. As long as it doesn't violate any woke staffer's sense of justice, it will stay up.

 

[GrayGoose]

I suppose gun owners have better things to do with their time.

Yep, like working and paying their own way.

 

[bbbass]

Internet access, the 21st equivalent of a dial tone, is a utility and there are real monopolistic antitrust concerns around how that works in most of the country.

^^^ This.

Access should be universal and Amazon needs to be careful about how it enforces it Web Server contracts... they should be fair, aboveboard, non-political.

Most places that are not social media moderate their content as a matter of course; post a review on Amazon. It is not visible until a mod reviews and approves it (believable). That's editorial control and should be treated as such. Post a similar review on Twitface. It goes live immediately. As long as it doesn't violate any woke staffer's sense of justice, it will stay up.

FIFY

That's editorial control. As any publisher would do... Therefore, social media are publishers, not platforms.

 

[Dinglenutz]

Access should be universal and Amazon needs to be careful about how it enforces it Web Server contracts... they should be fair, aboveboard, non-political.

Internet access and hosting are completely different things.

 

[bbbass]

Internet access and hosting are completely different things.

True. But "hosting" contracts should be enforced fairly and legally.

 

[Dinglenutz]

But "hosting" contracts should be enforced fairly and legally.

Yes, however since we have contract laws and no one should agree to a hosting contract they're not happy with, I don't see a big need for change as of now.

The root of all this problem is social media sites not acting in good faith. Once that's sorted everything else will mostly fall in line I believe.

 

[bbbass]

Yes, however since we have contract laws and no one should agree to a hosting contract they're not happy with, I don't see a big need for change as of now.

I''m not arguing to change any laws regarding contracts. Two parties can pretty much agree to whatever they want. Cases will be decided in court.

Just saying that when AWS shuts one company down for supposed contract violations and doesn't shut down others that have even worse violations, they are engaging in anti-competitive and possibly anti-trust activity for political reasons. I hope it comes back to bite them in the azz!!!

 

[Dinglenutz]

Keep in mind, that even with the uneven playing field we have now Gab and MeWe are online and Parler is likely to get things sorted out eventually. AR15 is alive. China has learned how hard it is to control the flow of information already.

 

[bbbass]

Keep in mind, that even with the uneven playing field we have now Gab and MeWe are online and Parler is likely to get things sorted out eventually. AR15 is alive. China has learned how hard it is to control the flow of information already.

Parler is getting going... they have a message for users and their site is no longer 404.

I wish I could get Gab on my Roku.

MeWe is a good choice. Problem is, I only got 5 FB friends to join me there. The activity so far is far far far less than what I had on FB. However, I refuse to go back to FB. Just like I refuse to watch sports, with the exception of MMA.

 

[dojiijii]

They are supposed to be required to act "in good faith", but that is unfortunately so vague as to be unenforceable. Having a precise code of conduct and being required to provide complete transparency when it was applied would be a lot less vague, and still allow the Satanists forum to kick out anyone who insisted on doing their Catholic proselytization or whatever, if that was in the code of conduct. Any failure to act on a reported violation of the code (much like a failure to act on reported copyright infringement) could result in loss of protection.

The good faith requirement to treat everyone equally under the code of conduct would potentially have teeth.

The good faith clause also says it's the providers opinion that matters.

We're going back and forth on this, but I think we're in agreement that the law that stands lets the platforms do pretty much anything. But using a code of conduct as a basis for the good faith requirement wouldn't fix the essential problem: they would need either a perfect algorithm to find posts violating the code, or manually moderate every single post.

Facebook has over 2.5 billion users who average ~40 minutes per day on the platform, averaging ~10 posts/comments per month. That's 125 billion posts per month. Facebook has ~50,000 employees; if they added another 50,000 employees to moderate posts each those moderators would need to look at 50,000 posts per month, more than one every minute, analyzing every single post for code of conduct violations - probably not a simple task, given how lawyerly it would be written if it were the thing that determined whether or not they lost their section 230 protections. So they'd probably have to hire far more people. Perhaps Facebook could survive that; they certainly have a lot of money. But probably not; they'd most likely put more work into refining they're algorithm.

But what about smaller sites, like this one? Who's going to pay for NWFA to hire moderators for every single post? Or write a custom algorithm that fits their code of conduct, an algorithm that their existence depends on? It's just not practical, or even possible.

Finding a fact based left wing point being argued has become extremely difficult the last few years.

Just have to do a bit of research. Starting with the assumption that your own facts may be wrong is a good place to start.