FBI: Russia hacked DNC. US officials: Electing Trump, crushing Clinton was Putin's goal

That would be a prosecutor’s job, not Twitter’s. Why would Twitter be interested in proving that certain behavior is illegal (or legal, for that matter)?
I have no idea whether Milo’s behavior is illegal according to American law, but what has been described to me here would probably be illegal according to Austrian law (and my own imaginary ideal world, is, of course, colored by my own cultural background ;-)).

You’re basically both bringing good arguments why this kind of speech should be prevented, thus limiting Milo’s speech in order to protect other people’s life, freedom, safety, etc.

I have not heard an argument why this prevention of unwanted speech should not be made in the form of a democratically passed law.

Basically, if you can’t agree that something should be forbidden, or you can’t prove that somebody engages in forbidden acts, why do you want to punish them for those acts?

Are you saying that “free speech” is too deeply entrenched in the US constitution and that you’d like to limit it slightly more than the constitution allows, but as you won’t get the 1st amendment changed, you’ll settle for private enforcement of sane rules?

Or do you trust private companies like Twitter to be better administrators of necessary censorship than a democratically elected governments?

It probably isn’t. But that doesn’t matter the right to free speech here doesn’t compel or require anyone to to publish that free speech. Twitter is a private entity, they’re entirely entitled (by their legal rights) to disallow pretty much any sort of speech for any reason. And the courts largely can’t compel them to do so. This isn’t censorship in the classic sense. No one is preventing or banning Milo from saying what he’s says. He can go shout it on a damn street corner, move to another web site, print it on damn billboards. Now if every conceivable venue colluded to block Milo, that could amount to defacto censorship. And if the government forced them all to do that it certainly would be censorship. Dude can say/do what he wants, but he isn’t entitled to do it in my house, on NBC’s TV channel, or Twitters platform. That’s not a right anyone has been granted in this country.

Moving this discussion to one of free speech, or whether what he did broke the law is a pretty standard dodge assholes use to try and avoid the consequences for their speech. Guys a dick, he did wrong. Society is telling him to shut up as a result. You’ve got pretty expansive freedom of speech here, that doesn’t mean you have a right to have you’re speech accepted, acknowledged, or privileged. It doesn’t give you publication in the venue of your choice, and it doesn’t give you immunity to criticism or consequences.

6 Likes

Because once you give a government the power to decide what kind of speech is acceptable or unacceptable, it’s very easy for that government to decide that any speech critical of the government falls in the “unacceptable” category.

I trust Twitter to do what makes the most money for Twitter. If you create a space welcoming to hate speech, you’ll eventually only be left with the vilest people (who, while quite numerous, are only a small percentage of the customer base). If you stand up to the vile people, you get a much larger customer base, and make more money.

3 Likes

You say ‘hitting yourself with a 2x4’, I say ‘hitting them with a solid head butt’.

Yeah, it hurts but it can knock the other person out.

If I were sitting in a Starbucks sitting at a table having a chat with friends/family, and some loudmouthed assholes walked up and said things that are the equivalent of what the trollies on Twitter say in that space, the manager would punt them fast. I’d be fine with that, and I really wouldn’t want law enforcement showing up. Nobody would wring their hands over their freedom of speech.

Twitter’s a created space for people to get together chat. They barely deal with harassment in a space they made for people to get together to chat. It’s their job, but Twitter happens to have weak rules, minimal enforcement of the already weak rules, and a tolerant attitude towards harassment. They’re incredibly terrible at their job. Even reddit does better.

The forum here has mods. They do a great job and I can’t praise them enough. When creeps show up and start being belligerent they disappear and I’m not only not troubled by this, I am delighted to see them getting banned since it protects the atmosphere here to be one where all sorts of people can be open and interesting and not have to worry about abuse. Facebook/tumblr/everywhere else does things far, far better. Pretty much everywhere does better than Twitter in that domain.

First, on the internet you aren’t dealing with one country, but a vast number of them, so jurisdiction is a nightmare, and the idea of making laws to regulate harassment is effectively impossible.

Second, even if there were some universal jurisdiction, regulating it would be impossible since you’re need laws and law enforcement, and that enforcement would require agents with powers nobody would ever want to grant them.

Third, it’s sort of insane that because Twitter’s bad at their job that we would write laws to deal with Twitter being bad at their job. That’s, I just, no, I can’t even.

Between the two, I’d rather have the businesses at least try to do their job rather than throw their hands up after they create a giant mess. Somehow most online spaces with lots of users have sorted out how to manage what Twitter hasn’t.

The EU has tried some kinds of net regulations for some domains and the results have been a mess. Given their track record of writing bad laws about things they simply don’t understand I don’t trust them.

As an American, at this point in time I don’t trust our legislature(s) to write a law that wouldn’t be an absolute piece of garbage in this domain. The Congress has a tiny handful of people who even have a loose understanding of the technology they try to write laws about, and it shows. Some laws they’ve written have put kids in prison for trivial newly defined crimes, and others have been useless messes. I know a guy who went to prison as a felon for years for doing things related to his work since he did them the wrong way. My democratically elected government wrote a law that put a smart, productive citizen in prison and took away his voting rights because he broke a badly written law for what should be been a firing offense at most. Beyond the question of competence, while they may be democratically elected, the houses of Congress don’t represent their constituencies very well at all.

I’m not a libertarian. I’m all for regulating industry in all kinds of domains (ideally by regulatory bodies paneled by experts, rather than through the Congress). But no, I don’t want to see laws regulating online harassment, since I do not trust them to be written well, be enforceable, or make things better.

6 Likes

Seen online, bears reposting.

13 Likes

The “private companies administrating censorship” bit gets back to what I was going on about with the deliberate distraction by reframing things away from “that guys a dick/wrong” to “laws and rights and things, bro!”

And censorship can technically exist without direct government administration, or a legal frame work requiring or justifying it (see the Hays and Comic Book Codes, Hollywood Black lists). Though seldom without Government pressure (in this country). That’s what I was talking about with “defacto”, IIRC the courts have generally not bought this “that’s not censorship because the government didn’t do it” part. Source doesn’t matter, its the effect and intent. Though Government is almost always practically necessary for the intended effect to come about.

Twitter, or any company doing this is not administering censorship. They are not assuming a government role of policing speech. They are as you Nemomen said, doing their jobs. Making simple decisions about what sort of speech, media, and behavior they opt to support and publish.

Now if Twitter were somehow empowered by the government to police speech in all venues. Then they would be administering censorship. If Twitter were leading a collusion of other companies, media outlets, etc to prevent certain kinds of speech, or speech by certain people. Making the decisions and dictating what happens then twitter would be administering censorship. If Twitter were lobbying the government or attempting to force their hand to ban certain speech, forms of speech, or speech by certain people. Then Twitter would be administering censorship.

But that’s not the case. They’ve simply removed the opportunity to publish from a certain person who has a habit of using all his wonderful free speech rights to cause a god damn problem on and for twitter and their other users. Milo can still go put his bullshit on Reddit, Twitters not gonna go sue Reddit to prevent that. Milo can go hold court in a bar, Twitter isn’t going to try and get the liquor license pulled and the bar shutdown. If Milo formed his own website, or say worked at a major online publication, Twitter isn’t going to march its troops (not that they have any) through the door and force them to fire the guy.

Because they aren’t censoring anyone. The key difference being between kicking a guy out of your space, and trying to formally block a guy from all spaces everywhere. A company that fires an employee is not forevery baring them from the work force, they are saying “you can’t work here no more”. The here being the key difference every damn time.

4 Likes

Clinton wants to be president, but she doesn’t need to be president. It would have been a nice capstone to her career, but she’ll be fine without it. We, on the other hand, need someone other than Trump to be president, and like it or not Clinton is the only option. Your headbutt will either do nothing or hurt you and me, but it won’t hurt Clinton at all.

Xeni, can I try and sum up the story?

The DNC and Hillary are angry with Russia for trying to manipulate American elections by publishing documents which show the DNC trying to manipulate elections.

Have I got that about right??

3 Likes

Oxymoron alert.

Here’s another good one:

3 Likes

Do you really think that Putin would allow himself to be the second name on the ticket?

3 Likes

Yeah it should be Putin, then Trump, then Putin again in a slightly different shade.

1 Like

The Daily Beast, how quaint. Lots of holes in their mainstream media reportage, which is being repeated uncritically here by Xeni and many others with an axe to grind (unconsciously or not). I prefer more expert analysis from experts like Marcy Wheeler:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/07/25/the-two-intelligence-agency-theory-of-handing-trump-the-election/

and William Binney:

It’s far from a closed case, which one would never guess reading headlines like Xeni’s.

I don’t recall saying Clinton is the problem, or at least the only problem. The protest would be against the DNC and the system in general. Either elect Clinton to get more of the same last thirty years or elect Trump, and hope that real reform will follow after him.

One has to be willfully blind to ignore just how pro-war, pro-Wall-st., and ANTI PUBLIC WISHES (how many times do I have to repeat that?) the system is. Both the RNC and the DNC. Jeepers, this isn’t about Clinton.

It’s about her and what she represents; the system she works in; the DNC - generally making it difficult for the popular crowd-funded Sanders to run; the Senate, Congress, and the White House pandering to Wall Street and completely ignoring the citizens; the anti-democratic TPP (if she’s elected, when she does pass the TPP, you can send me a PM to apologize, eh); and just how interesting it is that all those financial ‘experts’ lied, cheated, broke the law, and managed to NOT go to jail.

The system is corrupt. That may be fine for, say, Belgium or Ireland. It’s not when that country has its finger on a lot of triggers that can ruin the planet or result in a lot of death.

Jeebus frak! THAT is what this is about. It’s not about Clinton. Jeez!

1 Like

But it feels so good once you stop hitting yourself in the head with a 2x4…

1 Like

If you don’t see a substantial difference between the last 8 years and the 8 that preceded, likewise the two administrations before that, then I don’t think we have any basis for discussion, we are living on different planes of perception.

elect Trump, and hope that real reform will follow after him.

What is your historical model for that being a successful strategy? Besides Weimar or the Biblical flood?

5 Likes

Shhh! They might hear!

3 Likes

If the alternative to hitting myself in the head with a 2x4 was letting someone else wind up and take a swing at me with an aluminium baseball bat, I’d probably keep hitting myself until I could find out a way to deal with the guy holding the bat.

3 Likes