Message from @>Cytos, de lieve goede synth

Discord ID: 436570569681666048


2018-04-19 16:12:33 UTC  

It would appear that patreon has now changed their guidelines and is policing speech of comedians not even on their platform, why anyone would continue to build a business on this is beyond me
https://youtu.be/ROAPJJejXPE

2018-04-19 16:16:09 UTC  

* I mean what they complained about wasn't on their platform, it was on twitter / Facebook

2018-04-19 16:16:27 UTC  

That seems to be the new trend: platforms policing their user's actions even on other platforms that are not their own.

2018-04-19 16:19:21 UTC  

It's getting crazy, haven't liked patreon since that rubin report interview, he just didn't seem trustworthy there...

2018-04-19 16:19:45 UTC  

It's just going to create an ecosystem where if you do anything wrong anywhere, you'll get banned everywhere.

2018-04-19 16:20:02 UTC  

And in this case, 'doing anything wrong' is going to include wrongthink.

2018-04-19 16:23:02 UTC  

Yeah, seems even banks are starting to do that

2018-04-19 16:23:29 UTC  

Which is real dangerous.

2018-04-19 16:26:27 UTC  

Yeah I've only heard them doing it for companies because of something the founder allegedly did but still a bad trend

2018-04-19 16:26:58 UTC  

Can Andrew Anglin still own a bank account?

2018-04-19 16:27:11 UTC  

I know he's essentially banned from the internet, but what about the real world?

2018-04-19 16:29:04 UTC  

Yeah no idea, they might claim its because of "security" problems rather than his politics

2018-04-19 16:30:05 UTC  

Yeah.

2018-04-19 16:32:47 UTC  

tfw multi billion dollar companies don't know how to properly moderate

2018-04-19 16:32:57 UTC  

pre-emptive banning is how you lose users

2018-04-19 16:33:03 UTC  

lose trust

2018-04-19 16:33:20 UTC  

and cause constant drama shitstorms

2018-04-19 16:34:04 UTC  

i think what you wanted to say is "go bankrupt"

2018-04-19 16:52:03 UTC  

I'm trying to figure out if you make a forum in which you do not moderate any content anymore. I don't think there is any legal protection. that stupid sex works/sex trafficking law makes that impossible. At least without a very good lawyer that could try to weasel out of any charges by making it the responsibility of 3rd parties to notify them, with proof, of legit cases of sex trafficking/sex worker. I don't know if there is a bit of subjective wiggle room to make it the states responsibility to notify the content provider of illegal content on a case by case basis.

2018-04-19 16:55:07 UTC  

its impossible to comply

2018-04-19 16:55:34 UTC  

well known example to illustrate my case

2018-04-19 16:56:08 UTC  

"hello im starting a pizza resaurant, anyone want to buy my Cheese Pizza?"

2018-04-19 16:56:15 UTC  

impossible to comply? or not comply?

2018-04-19 16:56:53 UTC  

the gist is that you can use code words that can mean the illigal activities you want to sell

2018-04-19 16:57:02 UTC  

in other words, even if youd moderate every single post

2018-04-19 16:57:09 UTC  

it still would not be enough

2018-04-19 16:59:07 UTC  

i'm more curious about a way so that even if someone said "hey, want to by a kid sex slave from me?" (sorry discord, guess you gotta shut this down) with legit intent to sell a kid sex slave, the feds couldn't do anything without proof that user is an actual trafficker, which would require knowing who the guy is, and basically having enough of a case against the user that it would have been able to make the content hoster remove the stuff anyway for that user

2018-04-19 16:59:43 UTC  

well, you are looking at it wrong i think

2018-04-19 17:00:04 UTC  

by making the site liable, the site will do whatever it takes to protect itself

2018-04-19 17:00:08 UTC  

regardless of guilt

2018-04-19 17:00:30 UTC  

no, you are missing my point.

2018-04-19 17:00:39 UTC  

i'm not talking about current existing sites

2018-04-19 17:01:07 UTC  

one of the problems, which i think tim discussed before, about that one law protecting providers, was based entirely on the fact they moderated posts.

2018-04-19 17:01:29 UTC  

this made them publishers, which opened them up for legal action that the law was than made to prevent

2018-04-19 17:02:49 UTC  

which means, in theory, that law is still hanging around somewhere protecting people who host things published by other people from being liable for that content, so long as you do not touch it.

2018-04-19 17:03:16 UTC  

oh you mean like how twitter badge is now not only proof that the person is who he says he is, but also that his opinions are twitter aproved, on account of peoples whos opinions twitter doesnt aprove of lose there verification and maybe evem get banned?

2018-04-19 17:04:16 UTC  

no no no. So there is, or at least was, a law that protected sites like twitter, from being held responsible for shit that happened on their site.

2018-04-19 17:04:44 UTC  

this is how craiglist could have personals where there was clearly prostitution going on.

2018-04-19 17:05:08 UTC  

craiglist could not get charged with the crimes of its users, basically

2018-04-19 17:06:32 UTC  

however, the law that grants that protection, was only added in the context that the sites themselves are publishers of these posts. At the time, that would make them liable hence the need for the new law to protect them. However, the only reason, if i remember how it was explained to me, that they are considered "publishers" is because sites would moderate their users content.

2018-04-19 17:07:58 UTC  

if they didn't touch that content, they wouldn't justifiably be called publishers because they don't control the content in any way.