This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous entry in a long-running debate — I won’t provide all the context (you can check it out for yourself) because frankly the source of the debate is getting a bit tiresome and well-placed smackdowns like this shouldn’t even be necessary anymore, but apparently they are:
Yet neither has to do with this bill. While you’re here, answer this: why is your right to speech more important than my right not to associate with your speech?
In second place, it’s James Burkhardt in another branch of said debate, responding to the assertion that social media platforms could escape liability by just not moderating at all, and this would somehow be a good thing:
This is the end conclusion reached by the logic behind the ruling in Prodigy v Oakmont, the case whose ruling was so bad congress wrote a law to overturn it. Congratulations getting to that conclusion, 20 years later. Of course, to claim the logical decision would be to stop moderating assumes that a lack of moderation would have no effect on the business.
Evidence from Youtube’s various Adpocalypses and Techdirt’s own issues with advertisers speaks to the contrary. They wont want ads next to child porn. Pro-Terrorist content. A post with rampant racial slurs.
This ignores that just hosting, no matter how ignorant, pro-terrorist content, child porn, or instructions on how to get an abortion, is a legal liability until a court rules. Possession of Child Porn is a crime regardless of ignorance. You are still providing material support to terrorists. And its not clear that in the case of the abortion bill that courts would require red flag knowledge (as copyright law does), rather than just the knowledge that the tool is being used, somewhere, to violate the law (as regularly argued by copyright holders).
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from That One Guy about the Texas legislature saying what schools can’t teach, and what social media must host:
Now tell us what you REALLY think texas republicans…
‘Teaching that racism exists is terrible, divisive and makes the racists feel bad so that’s right out! Now about those ‘the jews had it coming, sometimes terrorists have a point and vaccines are the mark of the beast and cause autism’ posts that social media must host…’
Always nice when politicians slip up and tell everyone what they really think even if it’s all sorts of disturbing(if not in any way surprising at this point) that ‘pro-holocaust, pro-terrorism and anti-vaxx-in-the-middle-of-a-gorram-pandemic’ are apparently top priorities of things to not just protect but enshrine as untouchable positions for texas republicans.
Next, it’s Bruce E responding to a commenter who criticized our post about tech industry bias by asserting that they want (and believe they have personally achieved) a bias-free meritocracy:
If you believe you are free from bias you might be just fooling yourself. Even honourable people who think sexism, racism, anti-transism, etc. are wrong subject to bias.
The point is to constantly be on the lookout for your own bias first, then help others with theirs.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Thad with another comment on that post, this time responding to someone who went on a bizarre rant in a failed attempt at an analogy, while also saying they find the subject embarrassing:
I mean, if I’d just responded to an article about sexism by rambling about football jerseys for eight paragraphs, I’d be embarrassed too.
In second place, it’s David responding to our description of some comments from Marjorie Taylor Greene as “utterly nonsensical, zero calorie, idiot theater”:
Well, that’s how we know that Greene has not been misquoted.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from Samuel Abram responding to the observation that adult content bans so often have exceptions for Playboy:
It must be the articles.
Finally, it’s one more comment from That One Guy, this time in response to the question of what exactly the difference is between the GOP and the Mafia:
One of them is a criminal organization that is willing to protect their interests using any means available, are big fans of suits and grandiose statements and sees the legal system as a tool to be corrupted and used at their leisure.
The other is the mafia.
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon