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