1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

#230- An Insurrection of Lies

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6777
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
11 January 2021 13:53
 

In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris discusses two dangerous misconceptions about the siege of the Capitol. 41 mins

#230- An Insurrection of Lies


This thread is for listeners’ comments

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3238
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
11 January 2021 23:04
 

WTF Sam?

I only just started listening and 3:20 minutes into the podcast you start wailing on ‘Social Justice Hysteria” ?
you completely misunderstood the point of the discrepancies being highlighted between Jan 6 and BLM.


Seriously, your bothsidetism at this point is pathological.


Please check your priorities!

[ Edited: 11 January 2021 23:28 by Twissel]
 
 
pluka
 
Avatar
 
 
pluka
Total Posts:  188
Joined  15-01-2020
 
 
 
12 January 2021 05:45
 
Twissel - 11 January 2021 11:04 PM

WTF Sam?

I only just started listening and 3:20 minutes into the podcast you start wailing on ‘Social Justice Hysteria” ?

You seem a bit hysterical yourself.

I was disappointed that there was no mention of section 230 (in podcast #230 at that). His defense of social media companies as being private companies who are free to ban whomever they want seems like a straw man with that omission. The argument generally is not that they are not allowed to do that under current law/interpretation of it, but that they perhaps shouldn’t be allowed to as a tradeoff for their privileged legal status.

[ Edited: 12 January 2021 06:10 by pluka]
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3238
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
12 January 2021 06:40
 

what ‘privileged status’?
Trump agreed to the Terms and Conditions and then violated them over and over.

What is questionable about Twitter holding users to their user agreements?

 
 
pluka
 
Avatar
 
 
pluka
Total Posts:  188
Joined  15-01-2020
 
 
 
12 January 2021 06:51
 
Twissel - 12 January 2021 06:40 AM

what ‘privileged status’?
Trump agreed to the Terms and Conditions and then violated them over and over.

What is questionable about Twitter holding users to their user agreements?

The privileged status of not being liable for the content they host: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
So they’re already not just like any private companies. They get a privileged legal status without which they wouldn’t be able to operate at all, because it is considered to be in the public interest that they can provide their service.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3238
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
12 January 2021 07:00
 

If Section 230 didn’t exist, Twitter would have kicked Trump off the platform when he talked about Birtherism and he would never have become President.


If Twitter operated under different rules, it would have a different User Agreement, obviously. And it would be far more careful about who would even get to post at all.
So the talk about Section 230 is nothing but a distraction if you are concerned about Free Speech.

 
 
pluka
 
Avatar
 
 
pluka
Total Posts:  188
Joined  15-01-2020
 
 
 
12 January 2021 07:19
 
Twissel - 12 January 2021 07:00 AM

If Section 230 didn’t exist, Twitter would have kicked Trump off the platform when he talked about Birtherism and he would never have become President.


If Twitter operated under different rules, it would have a different User Agreement, obviously. And it would be far more careful about who would even get to post at all.
So the talk about Section 230 is nothing but a distraction if you are concerned about Free Speech.

The point is that if those companies get special concessions from the government that allow them to operate in a way/at a scale that they otherwise couldn’t, arguably, it makes sense/is fair to in turn require them to provide their platform neutrally to all citizens in a similar way to e.g. telecom companies.
No one wants to just terminate section 230 without replacement, except maybe a few radicals who don’t want social media to exist at all.

At least that would make sense if the government supported free speech. Of course, since Trump has basically taken down the gop the democrat party or I guess we can just call them “the party” now can do whatever they want now and clearly they like that the places where a large part of people’s interactions happen are being politically censored on their behalf, so rather than them pushing the government’s current standard of free speech in the public square onto social media we’ll more likely see the opposite.

[ Edited: 12 January 2021 07:35 by pluka]
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3238
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
12 January 2021 07:38
 

I’m not sure what problem you are trying to solve with a reform: if Twitter had to monitor its member’s posts the way a newspaper monitors its opinion section, social media as we know it would cease to exist. Hardly anyone would get to post any opinion that isn’t completely uncontroversial. 

If you want a mostly free social media platform, only the State could set up something like this without fear of litigation or damage to the Brand.

 
 
pluka
 
Avatar
 
 
pluka
Total Posts:  188
Joined  15-01-2020
 
 
 
12 January 2021 07:40
 
Twissel - 12 January 2021 07:38 AM

I’m not sure what problem you are trying to solve with a reform: if Twitter had to monitor its member’s posts the way a newspaper monitors its opinion section, social media as we know it would cease to exist

That’s what I just said multiple times. But a reform doesn’t have to mean to remove section 230 without replacement.

Twissel - 12 January 2021 07:38 AM

If you want a mostly free social media platform, only the State could set up something like this without fear of litigation or damage to the Brand.

That’s exactly what section 230 was about. What’s the argument for the telecom model not working for social media?

[ Edited: 12 January 2021 07:46 by pluka]
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3238
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
12 January 2021 08:59
 

No, Section 230 was not about a State-Run Social Media platform.

 
 
pluka
 
Avatar
 
 
pluka
Total Posts:  188
Joined  15-01-2020
 
 
 
12 January 2021 09:23
 
Twissel - 12 January 2021 08:59 AM

No, Section 230 was not about a State-Run Social Media platform.

Why are you trying to be obnoxious on purpose? You said “only the State could set up something like this without fear of litigation”
That is exactly why they made section 230, to make it so that this is not the case anymore.
Also you didn’t reply to my question, probably because there is no good response to it. There is no reason why the same rules of fairness used for telecom companies could not also be used for social media.

Look, maybe you don’t agree with free speech, maybe you want it neither on social media nor on the public square, fine, fair enough, but if you agree with free speech as in the US constitution I’ve never seen a good argument why that shouldn’t also apply to social media then. It seems everyone who’s against it is just in favor of critical theorists censoring other opinions in general. Fine if that’s the case (that’s a different discussion and I grant there are some good arguments on both sides), but at least be honest about it.

[ Edited: 12 January 2021 09:25 by pluka]
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3751
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
12 January 2021 09:36
 

If the events of last week isn’t worthy of outrage I just don’t know what is.  Political parties aside.  Anyone who appreciates how far we’ve come in human civilization understands the tragedy of taking democracy for granted.  Mister Harris, in this podcast, meets the moment.

The noticeable difference between Democrats and Republicans has always been that liberals fight for the rights of the many while conservatives restrict them only to the few.  Which is why the demonstrators last summer were a diverse group of people determined to continue the fight for an equal society, and for the most part remained peaceful, while the goons at the Capitol were fighting against everyone’s best interest.  Republicans who voted in favour of the objection, after the attack, shirked their responsibility to uphold the Constitution.  They are the battered wives of the Make America Like the Fifties Again President. 

I’ve heard Republicans for four years now insist that Democrats need to understand the Trump supporters.  I never once heard anyone say the same about Secretary Clinton’s.  Everything is an unnecessary dichotomy.  Why not both/and instead of either/or?  The so-called “Squad” saw the need for change in their districts so they ran for office and were duly elected to become lawmakers.  The mob that formed the insurrection stormed the barricades as though they could change the rules by force.  Like a bunch of animals leaving their feces and urine behind.  And those congresswomen still take more guff than they do.  I just don’t get it. 

The longer this fascist remains in office the more it threatens democracy itself.  If America is anything close to the leader in the world it claims to be then it should be concerned with all the other democracies falling like dominos.

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3238
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
12 January 2021 09:48
 
pluka - 12 January 2021 09:23 AM
Twissel - 12 January 2021 08:59 AM

No, Section 230 was not about a State-Run Social Media platform.

Why are you trying to be obnoxious on purpose? You said “only the State could set up something like this without fear of litigation”
That is exactly why they made section 230, to make it so that this is not the case anymore.
Also you didn’t reply to my question, probably because there is no good response to it. There is no reason why the same rules of fairness used for telecom companies could not also be used for social media.

Look, maybe you don’t agree with free speech, maybe you want it neither on social media nor on the public square, fine, fair enough, but if you agree with free speech as in the US constitution I’ve never seen a good argument why that shouldn’t also apply to social media then. It seems everyone who’s against it is just in favor of critical theorists censoring other opinions in general. Fine if that’s the case (that’s a different discussion and I grant there are some good arguments on both sides), but at least be honest about it.

no, I’m not trying to be obnoxious, I’m trying to make you see that you are asking two contradictory things of private companies: they can either be responsible for their content and thus become strict moderators, or they have legal leeway, which cuts both ways: do or do not moderate as they see fit.

The ONLY way to have little moderation AND safety from litigation is if the provider is a State Company itself.

You can’t have it both ways, and 230 did the best it could.

What protects Free Speech in a media landscape as we have is Competition: Trump and other unbearable posters can start their own platform or find one not hosted in the US.
It’s not like Free Speech didn’t exist before Twitter.

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5796
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
12 January 2021 09:50
 
pluka - 12 January 2021 07:19 AM

At least that would make sense if the government supported free speech. Of course, since Trump has basically taken down the gop the democrat party or I guess we can just call them “the party” now can do whatever they want now and clearly they like that the places where a large part of people’s interactions happen are being politically censored on their behalf, so rather than them pushing the government’s current standard of free speech in the public square onto social media we’ll more likely see the opposite.

You’re not making yourself clear. Are you worried that censorship just got a big boost? If that’s the case, what on earth is it that you think you’d like to say that you might suggest is threatened now that we think it’s OK that Trump got banned from Twitter? Nitpicking details like the liability protections granted to media conglomerates can either be a resentment or fear of how much influence they control (through what you call “the party”) or…  oh never mind the rest. You sort of give the game away, there.

My guess is that there is a paranoid style on the left that fears erosion of free expression. You have to have an inflated opinion of your expressiveness to go very far down that road. That it’s inflated is borne out by the way you express yourself on the issues in this thread.

 
 
pluka
 
Avatar
 
 
pluka
Total Posts:  188
Joined  15-01-2020
 
 
 
12 January 2021 09:54
 
Twissel - 12 January 2021 09:48 AM
pluka - 12 January 2021 09:23 AM
Twissel - 12 January 2021 08:59 AM

No, Section 230 was not about a State-Run Social Media platform.

Why are you trying to be obnoxious on purpose? You said “only the State could set up something like this without fear of litigation”
That is exactly why they made section 230, to make it so that this is not the case anymore.
Also you didn’t reply to my question, probably because there is no good response to it. There is no reason why the same rules of fairness used for telecom companies could not also be used for social media.

Look, maybe you don’t agree with free speech, maybe you want it neither on social media nor on the public square, fine, fair enough, but if you agree with free speech as in the US constitution I’ve never seen a good argument why that shouldn’t also apply to social media then. It seems everyone who’s against it is just in favor of critical theorists censoring other opinions in general. Fine if that’s the case (that’s a different discussion and I grant there are some good arguments on both sides), but at least be honest about it.

no, I’m not trying to be obnoxious, I’m trying to make you see that you are asking two contradictory things of private companies: they can either be responsible for their content and thus become strict moderators, or they have legal leeway, which cuts both ways: do or do not moderate as they see fit.

The ONLY way to have little moderation AND safety from litigation is if the provider is a State Company itself.

You can’t have it both ways, and 230 did the best it could.

What protects Free Speech in a media landscape as we have is Competition: Trump and other unbearable posters can start their own platform or find one not hosted in the US.
It’s not like Free Speech didn’t exist before Twitter.

You’re not making any sense. I guess telecom companies don’t exist then? It’s very simple. Make an addition to section 230 that they only get the benefits of it if they allow all constitutionally protected speech. Problem solved. What’s so difficult?

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  815
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
12 January 2021 10:03
 

Inciting insurrection and sedition are not constitutionally protected forms of speech.

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›