I mean we are headed to that anyway

it is an orthogonal problem

being together won't solve it

(one side would just get censored out whenver the two sides cross paths)

I disagree. That affords itself no meaningful counter-argument, I reckon.

here is the two things to weigh:

OTOH

A. you are basically donating money to the DNC by being on such a platform, and basically giving free ad time to the DNC


OTOH

B. you are together with the other side and mitigate some of the false caricaturing

I choose not to donate and give free ad space

it isn't worth whatever social gain there is by staying unified

Do you think I'm a CCP operative? Some people literally think that. (I'm not) That's what tribalism does.

:squinty eyes:

Lol

look, let me reframe this

I don't really care for a bifurcation of a censored left and a censored right

ideally the bifurcation for social media would be a censored left, and an uncensored apartisan (basically something equivalent to a "public square" minus pornography)

however, I doubt that the left would find it socially acceptable to visit the "nazi servers" to talk

so it would essentially be bifurcated anyway

1. I see the censorship by big tech as the fault of one side of the partisan divide,

2. I [now] see the big tech corps as political organizations,

3. I refuse to participate in contributing politically to them, tribalism or not. If this results in tribalism, that is Not My Problem; it is the fault of the big tech corps, and modernity (social media, the internet, large scale human networking capabilities, etc. naturally results in tribalism)

4. I don't think being on a single platform reduces tribalism; already on twitter there are people who never speak to the "other side" except in angry 200 character spats that does nothing to help the caricatures.

*pops in to check what's happening on new favourite chat site*

Check out Viva Frei amd Robert Barnes discussing applying the first ammendment to social media monopolies vs other forms of section 230 reform

Considering recent judgement by Thomas

I don't want 230 reform for censorship

I do want 230 reform for the blanket immunity that Barnes talks about

but not for censorship

@realz Like I said, In have no counter-argument but intuitively disagree. I use none of those platforms. I got Discord specifically for this channel.

I don't think 230 is even needed to protect websites, it is unconstitutional IMO to hold websites liable for their user-contributed content

And with that, I take my leave.

Benjamin Franklin didn't analyze every ad that was in his newspaper to see if might be defamation

@Zuluzeit later

and 230 reform, if done dumbly, can destroy the internet

Yeah the 230 reform would reduce censorship, not increase it.

Defamation is relevant when it affects the individual defamed... ie Rittenhouse when Biden suggested he was a white supremacist, potentially polluting the jury pool

Haha most laws if done dumbly destroy stuff

basically the "public square" version of 230 reform ... what does this mean for you and your blog?


You have two choices.

1. You can either leave up all comments unmolested.

2. If you delete a single comment, you now must analyze EVERY OTHER COMMENT for legality. Which is actually IMPOSSIBLE to do, because - for example, defamation might require knowledge of facts (i.e if something said is TRUE or FALSE), and this is impossible for a site owner. Furthermore, it would basically require you to hire a lawyer and check every comment for all the laws in all the US.

say helloooo to spam

or pornography

all over your beautiful blog or forum

public square, right?

Not at all. Unless your blog has 70% of all blog traffic lol

OK so that is Barnes' fix to this

most people don't event hink about this

they just talk

Standard definition of monopoly

Yeah nah

but the 70% fix isn't a good one either

if you have a FB page

you are a moderator

on a website

that is a 70% company

your page is a public square

hello spam

hello porn

also I detest treating differently sized companies differently

and I already made the constitutional argument

it is illegal to force companies to do this

just like it would be illegal to restrict a newspaper from deliverying you ads that might be illegal speech

or charging Fedex for delivering blackmail

Multiple arguments there, fave topic of mine, maybe we need a new chat lol

Can we have a Free Speech / Section 230 chat Mr Gruler plis? 😁

@realz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBy9L0gcqGY

@Doc pretty sure I've seen that

I didn't say anything (never helping out the) cops

I said I wouldn't speak to the FBI, even to help them without my lawyer

as for the cops, yes, follow his advice

(tldr; if you kill someone in self defense you want to point out all the evidence so the cops mark it down, and you don't want to come off as a jerk either)

ASP is great

I have Ayoob's books I think

ASP did a great analysis of the Atlanta story with Brooks

(I would speak to the cops if I thought I could help them catch a bad person)

(but I wouldn't do it for the FBI, except via a lawyer)

btw many lawyers disagree with Ayoob (IIRC he mentions that)

because people can't be trusted to say the right thing

that is why people like Ayoob basically tell people to "train" for the situation

i.e make believe shoot someone in self defense and imagine being in front of a cop, and rehearse things to say

I've read Branca's book on self defense (it's about legalities of self defense), and he says something similar IIRC

don't quote me here, but he basically tells people to train themselves to say rehearsed lines

read the book its pretty good (but IANAL)

I wonder if Robert has read it and what he thinks of it

Anyone else watch the video of his last hearing? I was confused as to why Huber's father and Grosskreutz were even there and their statements solicited by the court commissioner

A Kenosha reporter answered my question on Twitter - this year, the state of Wisconsin passed a constitutional amendment by ballot initiative called Marcy's Law which added a host of "victims rights" during court process

which seems...kinda odd to me, since a trial is about the State vs the Defendant, but, ok. One of those rights is that victims can speak at any and every hearing.

Of course, the logic is somewhat flawed because this law stacks the deck against the defendant by insisting that there are "Victims" and, therefore, a crime must have occurred against them because they are "Victims"

all of this before the defendant has had a chance to even make a statement about their innocence

@Neph (Nec) / Krystaps (War) If you are referring to the Rittenhouse case that change in Michigan law has no bearing on a Wisconsin state court.

oh woops i wrote Michigan, haha

I meant Wisconsin. 🙂

thanks for picking that up

as a New Yorker, I get those two states confused all the time. I'll edit my post

Just making sure

This Marcy's Law has, apparently, been pushed across the country to other states by a billionaire in California

as in, it's not a homegrown initiative to amend the Constitution, just cookie-cutter text adopted by the states

However I think that Marcy’s law might be improperly being applied. Victim impact statements are generally applied to the sentencing stage. Anything before that would be unduly prejudice to the defense. Here in Washington state we have something call a Lacy’s law if memory serves that impact DUI incidents that add a provision to take the offenders car in an asset forfeiture kind of process and a case actually tested and the court ruled in favor of the defense that the entire law was unconstitutional. So we might see a legality challenge.

oh I agree. Victim Impact Statements are pretty standard at the sentencing stage.

Marcy's Law, specifically, gives "victims" the right to speak at ANY hearing....even, apparently, a pre-trial hearing like this to set bail

Hence i think that while some parts of the law are practical and easy to implement, parts of the law like this are wholly unnecessary and, perhaps, even unconstitutional with respect to he 6th Amendment

the*

I place "victims" in quotes because, well, it treats these parties as victims before it has been established that there are victims. The idea that there can be a victim before the defense has had a chance to make a case seems ethically questionable to me, but, hey.

I get the families of the people being heard but not on bail or in any proceeding other than sentencing. For instance a motion to suppress evidence a "victim" statement should bare no weight unless they actually witnessed the crime and not the videos online.

If 'Marcy's Law' as you describe is accurate, that is totally insane!

Watching Huber's interview on CNN weeks ago made me sick.

https://www.marsyslaw.us/what_is_marsys_law

"To be notified of specific public proceedings throughout the criminal justice process** and to be present and heard during those proceedings"**