The culture wars have stepped up a notch.

I have been enjoying watching Donald Trump tell the world on Twitter that Twitter itself is stifling free speech. The irony is delicious. Twitter struck back by ‘fact-checking’ some of Trump’s tweets. Now we all know that ‘fact-checking’ is a left-ideological tactic to discredit opponents.

Here is David Harsanyi:

I will always prefer open debate to the policing of speech. But if you’re going start engaging in targeted “factchecks,” the people targeted are inclined to push back.

Trump pushed back hard. Very hard.

US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order challenging the protection that stops social media companies from being held liable for content posted on their platforms.

Mr Trump made the move after Twitter applied fact check-links to two of his tweets earlier in the week.

Mr Trump said the fact checks were “editorial decisions” made by Twitter and amounted to political activism. Such actions should cost social media companies protection from liability for what is posted on their platforms.

Well – you poke a bear with a stick, you can expect to get mauled.

To be clear – I think this is bad policy. Facebook and Twitter are not publishers and should not be considered to be publishers. But conservatives have long argued that they are, and should be regulated as such. From Trump’s perspective, however, this is very good politics.

What should be surprising, however, is that Twitter didn’t expect something like this to happen. It seems to me that they have not read where politics has been going over the past few years. It has been getting feral. Over the last while the principles that underpin liberal democracy have either been quietly strangled (sometimes not so quietly) or weaponised. This is a game everyone has been playing – although until Trump came along, a game the left have played better. The conservative right has been itching for an excuse to unleash the powers of the state against their enemies. Yes – people in politics no longer have opponents, they have enemies.

But maybe it isn’t surprising:

The “head of site integrity” at Twitter is a man named Yoel Roth. The Ivy League-educated Mr Roth has a PhD in communications so he must know his stuff. Not long ago he was quite an eager tweeter himself. Here’s the kind of stuff he used to write: “We fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason”, ” ‘Today on Meet The Press we’re speaking with Joseph Goebbels about the first 100 days’. Whatever I hear when Kellyanne [Conway, President Trump’s strategist] is on a news show”. There are many in similar vein.

More revealing than Mr Roth’s thoughts about politics is the way his team now “fact check” statements by the president. Among their primary sources for setting the record straight are news organisations such as CNN. You might not be familiar with the recent performance of CNN but it has become a standard bearer for the “resistance” to President Trump.

The culture war has now stepped up a notch. Several notches. What has been happening in Australia between the media (mostly News) and the platforms involving the ACCC is not culture war. That is just fighting over rents. What is happening in the US is culture war. It is going to be a bare knuckle fight between the US president – who rightly or wrongly feels unconstrained by liberal democratic norms of behaviour – and, at least, one social media platform.

Watching Trump pulverise lefties is very enjoyable, but there is going to be a lot of collateral damage – mostly to free speech and innovation in digital space.  Last word to David Harsanyi:

Stripping Twitter and other social media of liability protections is likely to make them more inclined to censor speech, not permit it. Either these companies will have to pass a “neutrality” test imposed by the government, or they’ll simply take down as much controversial content as possible.

Trump, Biden, and Hawley all have varying reasons for wanting to compel social media to regulate speech. But whoever ends up obtaining and using the power, it’s the users who will ultimately lose.

This entry was posted in Culture Wars, Freedom of speech, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

160 Responses to The culture wars have stepped up a notch.

  1. To be clear – I think this is bad policy. Facebook and Twitter are not publishers and should not be considered to be publishers. But conservatives have long argued that they are, and should be regulated as such. From Trump’s perspective, however, this is very good politics.

    If they are simply carriers, and not publishers, then they should refrain from any editorial comment or censorship, other than for what is unlawful. You can’t be half pregnant. It’s as simple as that.

    What is irony, is that Facebook commented against Twitter, ostensibly acknowledging Trump’s point of view.

  2. I might also point out that removing carrier protections from Twitter etc, if they continue to behave as they do, won’t necessarily be an issue. It will finally allow competition, that sticks to a carrier policy, to enter the field. The unintended consequences in this case could be good.

  3. Sinclair Davidson

    they should refrain from any editorial comment or censorship

    Yep – Twitter stuffed up big time.

  4. Rex Anger

    Watching Trump pulverise lefties is very enjoyable, but there is going to be a lot of collateral damage – mostly to free speech and innovation in digital space.

    Perhaps lament isn’t necessarily what is needed here? Perhaps we should celebrate the fact that polarising and one-eyed legacy solid-state and electronic media is often the very stimulus needed to broaden the market. Both of platforms and ideas. Creative Destruction and disruption, I believe the buzzwords are.

    We know that speech and content has been weaponised aggressively by all sides since.the invention of writing, and came.even harder with the printing press. Nothing new here, as far as I can see. The solution is, as always, more and cleverer speech rather than less.

    Now, one could choose to vacate the field entirely out of liberal or libertarian principle. But given that in our modern Culture War, where everyone to the right of Stalin and Mao (no matter how slightly) is treated as a de facto conservative and pursued mercilessly, doing so cedes them the very victory they want.

  5. NoFixedAddress

    Trump would ‘issue the final death blow’ to Twitter by deleting his account

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/28/laura-loomer-right-wing-activist-says-trump-should/

    Far-Right Social Network Gab Has a Verified Account Waiting For Trump With 27,000 Followers

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3exw4/far-right-social-network-gab-has-a-verified-account-waiting-for-trump-with-27000-followers

  6. OldOzzie

    Twitter wants to target conservatives — with none of a publisher’s responsibilities

    If Twitter is going to “fact check” the leader of the Free World, with a hard leftist as part of the team doing so, then it should be treated as the publisher that it is — with all the liabilities that entails.

    On Tuesday, Twitter appended a fact-check label to a presidential tweet about the fraud risk associated with mail-in voting. The exclamation urged users to “get the facts about mail-in ballots.”

    The link took users to a CNN story with the headline: “Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.” It was the kind of opinion-masquerading-as-reportage that CNN, and too many other mainstream outlets, specialize in. “Experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud,” the story tsk-tsk’d — the experts apparently having forgotten the debacle of thousands of lost, missing and uncounted mail-in ballots reported by The New York Times last month.

    Just in case CNN’s “experts-say” pabulum wasn’t enough to convince you that Orange Man Bad, Twitter also curated a number of tweets from the blue-check Twitterati slamming the president, with one even hysterically accusing Trump of planning “voter suppression.”

    None of this comes as a surprise to conservatives on Twitter. For years, Twitter has censored conservative voices, increasingly without even bothering with the pretense of platform neutrality. This is the same firm that suspended actor and right-wing firebrand James Woods for tweeting a blurred, and publicly available, photo of Andrew Gillum, the failed Florida gubernatorial candidate, appearing to be high. Meanwhile, Twitter has consistently refused to suspend Nation of Isl*m leader Louis Farrakhan — even after the left-wing darling compared J*ws to termites.

    And now we know why: A key actor in Twitter’s censorship operation turns out to be Yoel Roth, a fellow with an ideology so hard left it would scare Nation magazine’s editorial board — and blessed with a Silicon Valley sinecure (“head of site integrity”) that allows him to decisively slant the national conversation on the Web.

  7. OldOzzie

    Twitter wants to target conservatives — with none of a publisher’s responsibilities

    If Twitter is going to “fact check” the leader of the Free World, with a hard leftist as part of the team doing so, then it should be treated as the publisher that it is — with all the liabilities that entails.

    On Tuesday, Twitter appended a fact-check label to a presidential tweet about the fraud risk associated with mail-in voting. The exclamation urged users to “get the facts about mail-in ballots.”

    The link took users to a CNN story with the headline: “Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.” It was the kind of opinion-masquerading-as-reportage that CNN, and too many other mainstream outlets, specialize in. “Experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud,” the story tsk-tsk’d — the experts apparently having forgotten the debacle of thousands of lost, missing and uncounted mail-in ballots reported by The New York Times last month.

    Just in case CNN’s “experts-say” pabulum wasn’t enough to convince you that Orange Man Bad, Twitter also curated a number of tweets from the blue-check Twitterati slamming the president, with one even hysterically accusing Trump of planning “voter suppression.”

    None of this comes as a surprise to conservatives on Twitter. For years, Twitter has censored conservative voices, increasingly without even bothering with the pretense of platform neutrality. This is the same firm that suspended actor and right-wing firebrand James Woods for tweeting a blurred, and publicly available, photo of Andrew Gillum, the failed Florida gubernatorial candidate, appearing to be high. Meanwhile, Twitter has consistently refused to suspend Nation of Isl** leader Louis Farrakhan — even after the left-wing darling compared Joos to termites.

    And now we know why: A key actor in Twitter’s censorship operation turns out to be Yoel Roth, a fellow with an ideology so hard left it would scare Nation magazine’s editorial board — and blessed with a Silicon Valley sinecure (“head of site integrity”) that allows him to decisively slant the national conversation on the Web.

  8. Leo G

    What has been happening in Australia between the media (mostly News) and the platforms involving the ACCC is not culture war. That is just fighting over rents. What is happening in the US is culture war.

    The culture war in Australia hasn’t been between the media and media platforms. It has been a war waged by a factional coalition of government, corporate cronies, media and media platforms against pockets of rationalism, capitalism, and economic conservatism in Australian society. A war mostly won by “the Left” using principles and methods of fascism, and now more of a “mop-up” police and newspeak operation.

  9. John A

    To be clear – I think this is bad policy. Facebook and Twitter are not publishers and should not be considered to be publishers. But conservatives have long argued that they are, and should be regulated as such. From Trump’s perspective, however, this is very good politics.

    Dear me, Doomlord, you seem to require repeated reminders that the gatekeepers cannot have their cake and eat it too.

    As Bemused said, the media outlets can be either common carriers (and thus CANNOT do anything to the content) or they can be publishers (and hold a viewpoint, fiddle with content and do stuff to posts, with the protection of the law) BUT they can’t be both as it suits their whim.

    And users of their platforms need to enjoy ready, rapid and low-cost means to enforce whichever choice they have made.

  10. Morsie

    Can’t have it both ways.You can’t claim immunity for defamation then censor what you don’t like.

  11. Roger

    Facebook and Twitter are not publishers and should not be considered to be publishers.

    Not publishers…but they appear to have editors who can order subordinates to carry out “fact checks” and Twitter itself once said it would not ban Trump because his tweets were “newsworthy”.

    Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.

  12. Scott Osmond

    Silicon valley has been acting like a law unto itself for a while. It’s only surprising that it has taken this long for pushback. As for Twitter banning harder, let them. Another company will appear and use the protection of a carrier as a recruiting tool for more users while Twitter circles the lefty aproved purity drain. Roll left and die.

  13. Rex Anger

    And users of their platforms need to enjoy ready, rapid and low-cost means to enforce whichever choice they have made.

    A degree of corporate bravery (or bloody-mindedness?) hitherto unseen…

  14. Cassie of Sydney

    “Roger
    #3467136, posted on May 29, 2020 at 11:49 am
    Facebook and Twitter are not publishers and should not be considered to be publishers.

    Not publishers…but they appear to have editors who can order subordinates to carry out “fact checks” and Twitter itself once said it would not ban Trump because his tweets were “newsworthy”.

    Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.”

    Well said.

  15. Sean

    We can’t expect every fact checker to have no political views contrary to the people they check on otherwise we only end up with sycophants.

  16. Leo G

    Facebook and Twitter are not publishers and should not be considered to be publishers.

    Except perhaps to the extent they modify publications on their platforms- for instance by publishing fact-checking judgments, or censoring publications.

  17. cuckoo

    who rightly or wrongly feels unconstrained by liberal democratic norms of behaviour

    Those norms are great if both sides abide by them but the Left incinerated them years ago. Let them live with the consequences. My exhibit A will be the 2012 Presidential debate when Obama flat out lied to Mitt Romney’s face, (and was backed up in the lie by the ‘moderator’). Nice Guy Mitt was so floored by this he was powerless to call out the lie for what it was. Heaven forbid he should call the President a liar, even when that President is actually lying. That’s where liberal democratic norms will get you today.

  18. Cynic of Ayr

    Well, without going through all the pros and cons of The Donald’s response to Twitter, one thing is clear.
    Twitter never imagined he would push back!
    Can anyone believe that this character, Yoel Roth, with his allowance to say whatever he liked go completely unchallenged from the mob he works for, ever imagined he might be challenged outside the organisation?
    Twitter, facebook and all the other cretins have, for years, manipulated a compliant conservative side (Australian version of conservative), without a fight. They have always had the Dems onside, or were obeying the Dems.
    Roth is aghast! He does not know what to do! None of them do! It was not supposed to happen.
    Like the election, Clinton was supposed to win. Twitter, Facebook, CNN et al, instructed the voters to elect Clinton. Those who disobeyed, are now subject to the same abuse as Trump is. (See Roths’s twit on “flyover country.)
    Unfortunately, some people will never apply reason to any subject, and just have to be put down.

  19. Bruce of Newcastle

    But if you’re going start engaging in targeted “factchecks,” the people targeted are inclined to push back.

    Facechook was caught doing a fake factcheck of a righty news site, and has just had a court judgement go against them.

    Judge finds fact-faking Facebook “fact-check” false (28 May)

    Now a judge has found Facebook’s fact-faking “fact-check” false and has ordered it to be taken down, on pain of a fine of up to 250,000-euro fine or up to two years’ imprisonment in default.

    We’ll see if they learn to behave. If not massive fines and imprisonment would be delicious. I don’t suppose we could do that to ABC’s fake factcheckers too? That would be even more deliciouser.

  20. thefrollickingmole

    Stripping Twitter and other social media of liability protections is likely to make them more inclined to censor speech, not permit it. Either these companies will have to pass a “neutrality” test imposed by the government, or they’ll simply take down as much controversial content as possible.

    Or they can go the other way and let rip anything, their role being to provide just platforms for speech (right or wrong) and only illegal content moderated.

    I have 0 sympathy for the platforms who have blatantly and at times openly celebrating deplatforming ideas they disagree with.
    I can sympathize with Sincs position but the ball is firmly ibn the tech boys court, they can double down and be treated like a newspaper, or step back and be just carriers of peoples opinions.

  21. Behind Enemy Lines

    The culture wars have stepped up a notch.
    Posted on 10:57 am, May 29, 2020 by Sinclair Davidson
    . . . Facebook and Twitter are not publishers and should not be considered to be publishers. But conservatives have long argued that they are, and should be regulated as such. . . .

    What they are is best defined by how they behave. For several years now, they’ve been behaving as publishers. I wish they still behaved like platforms. But they don’t. And now that they’ve had a taste of using near-monopoly positions to attack and defund their political opponents, I don’t see them ever going back to behaving as platforms.

    Quibbling over the semantics is ridiculous at this point. They’ve been caught trousers-down and red-handed. It’s beyond deniability.

    We need to deal with the social media publishers now and set a precedent, or else it’s only a matter of time before phone companies and ISPs are allowed to unperson and cancel conservative hate-targets. The banks and payment processors have already begun.

  22. Trax

    I for one welcome removing regulation protection from these manipulative and deceptive companies that don’t have a clear contractual relationship with their users but still claim to reserve the right to decide what content they allow without consistency.

  23. steve

    Nope, do not agree. If they start getting even more onerous in their taking down content then they will lose users and so lose income. I think they will fold until the next Democratic President and then we start the bracket creep back the other way.

  24. Tom

    To be clear – I think this is bad policy. Facebook and Twitter are not publishers and should not be considered to be publishers.

    Bullshit. They are publishers. That Silicon Valley convinced the US Congress that its social media platforms were not publishers like everyone else in he media business is one of the greatest corporate con tricks in history, greased by billions of dollars in (corrupt) lobbying dollars and other quid pro quos.

    The idea that social media platforms are apolitical digital utilities like electricity or water is an autistic fantasy that pre-supposes everyone in Silicon Valley is an altruist who wants nothing but peace and love on earth.

    The reality is that Silicon Valley is a honey pot for misfits and misanthropes brought together by their love of computer code, which they can exploit in a darkened room without interaction with another living soul — for them, one of its primary attractions.

    It goes without saying that the vast majority of Silicon Valley geeks loathe the human race and, like the Greens, think the fewer humans there are on earth the better. Their ideal is a primitive pre-historic wilderness inhabited only by wild animals and birds of prey without a single human campfire.

    Needless to say, Silicon Valley geeks hate America whose human ingenuity made their techno-heaven of smart gadgets possible. They see no connection between Silicon Valley and the free thought that produced capitalism and instead gravitate to the forces of darkness like the Democratic Party and the Chinese Communist Party which — to achieve the social control essential to its project — is hellbent on snuffing out the free thought that spawned Silicon Valley and its gadgets.

    What else would you expect from misanthropes — even if they don’t realise they’re cutting their own throats?

    Meantime, spare us from the fantasy that Silicon Valley social media companies aren’t publishers like everyone else in the media business.

  25. Bruce of Newcastle

    or else it’s only a matter of time before phone companies and ISPs are allowed to unperson and cancel conservative hate-targets.

    They’re doing that already. My ISP blocks conservative sites. I’m now using a VPN.

  26. Just Passing By

    Trump did nothing for 3 years while the media ghosted, deplatformed and silenced his most ardent supporters. The_Donald had something like 800,000 members who played a big part in his 2016 win yet when reddit effectively deleted it he did nothing. The Republicans had both Houses for the first two years of his term and they did nothing. Now they finally sensored one of his tweets, he decides to act. It’s all just too late. He doesn’t really deserve to win. While a Democrat win will be catastrophic, they will soon have a permanent majority. Even Texas is now a swing state.

  27. Infidel Tiger King

    Google is about to have an anti trust case served too!

    Break them up!

  28. C.L.

    Trump did nothing for 3 years while the media ghosted, deplatformed and silenced his most ardent supporters. The_Donald had something like 800,000 members who played a big part in his 2016 win yet when reddit effectively deleted it he did nothing. The Republicans had both Houses for the first two years of his term and they did nothing. Now they finally sensored one of his tweets, he decides to act. It’s all just too late.

    Good point.

  29. OldOzzie

    Trump Signs Executive Order Stripping Social Media Companies Of “Liability Shield”

    Update (2045ET): The full text of the executive order has been published (the final order is essentially identical to a ‘draft’ copy leaked to the press last night):

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1.

    Policy.

    During a press conference where President Trump signed an executive order pressuring social media companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter to stop showing political bias. The order is meant to chip away at the “liability shield” these platforms enjoy thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

    The EO also requires the DoJ to work with state AGs to make sure they enforce laws on “deceptive” business practices. He added that social media companies are “tantamount to a monopoly” and have had unlimited power to shape and alter the national conversation.

    When Twitter tags tweets as “misinformation”, they cease being a platform and effectively become “an editor with a viewpoint”. “What they chose to promote or ignore is nothing short of political activism,” Trump said. “This censorship is a threat to freedom itself – imagine if your phone company edited your text messages or blocked your phone calls.”

    AG Barr, who was also in attendance, said Section 230 “was stretched way beyond its original intention…its purpose was to allow websites that were acting virtually as bulletin boards were not responsible for third-party information…”. When they “curate” their collection and start “censoring” particular content, they become publishers, and they shouldn’t be entitled to the same kind of shield that was set up earlier. He also explained how the executive order sets up a “rule making procedure for the FCC” to try and “get back to the original interpretation” of Section 230.

    It also encourages state attorneys general to come up with “model” legislation addressing this at the state level.

    “Currently social media platforms like twitter enjoy a liability shield because they are a ‘neutral platform’ – which they are not…social media companies who engage in editing or censorship will be stripped of this shield, while companies will be punished should they engage in any “deceptive” acts. Federal agencies will also be barred from buying advertising on these platforms – a direct attack on their bottom line.

    Trump said he expects legal challenges to the order, but believes the White House will “do well” with them.

    These companies grew because they held themselves out as a public forum…but now that they have become these very powerful networks, they’ve now switched, and they are using that market power to enforce particular view points,” he said. This should be addressed not only via the order, but in court challenges and legislation on Capitol Hill.

    Conservatives believe these platforms shouldn’t be allowed to show as much bias in favor of liberals and progressive political views.

    During the Q&A, Trump bashed Twitter’s head of site integrity, Yoel Roth, who has made hysterical statements on his own twitter account, like insisting that there are “actual Nazis” in the White House. “If you’re going to have a guy like this make those decisions…I think we should just shut it down, as far as I’m concerned,” Trump said, adding that he would need to look into the legality of trying to close down Twitter (maybe he can convince Elon Musk to buy it, then delete it?).

  30. OldOzzie

    President Trump Signs Executive Order – Directing Efforts to Prevent On-Line Censorship – Video and XO
    Posted on May 28, 2020 by sundance

    This afternoon President Trump held a press availability in the oval office answering questions from the media as he signed an executive order [Available Here] directing the prevention of on-line censorship in social media platforms.

    The president was joined by Attorney General Bill Barr, and both leaders delivered remarks and answered questions from the media. [Video Below, Transcript to Follow]

  31. Kneel

    “…an executive order challenging the protection that stops social media companies from being held liable…”

    Perhaps even more interesting than “platform” vs “publisher” is political donations – if Twitter doesn’t “fact check” Sleepy Joe’s tweets too, then Twitter are potentially at risk of a Federal Elections Commission investigation into an undeclared “donation in kind”. Both Trump and Biden are currently running for president for different parties, so if Twitter “fact checks” one but not the other, that may be seen as assisting one side, therefor a “donation in kind” (ie. not cash, but supplying a “service” at no charge).

    Also, will Twitter start fact checking other politicians tweets? Will Nunes get fact checked? What about Cuomo? Schiff? If not…

  32. bobby b

    When was the last time you used your telephone and feared that speaking certain words (“Trump”?) would get your call terminated and your account cancelled?

    Does the telephone company worry about being sued because a caller said something libelous over their line?

    That’s what a common carrier is. That’s not what Twitter has become.

    When they go back to that model, then we should extend those common-carrier protections to them. Not until. The phone carriers have managed to survive under those rules.

  33. Cassie of Sydney

    “Cynic of Ayr
    #3467163, posted on May 29, 2020 at 12:28 pm”

    Good comment CoA…..these platforms have had this coming.

  34. miltonf

    Trump should do this, Trump should have done that. What he has done, in the face of the most vile, despicable attacks, has been brilliant.

  35. JohnJJJ

    What should be surprising, however, is that Twitter didn’t expect something like this to happen.
    You need to have more concerned friends. Then this would come as no surprise. All the Left i.e. city baby boomers have tunnel vision. They never read, discuss, hear or see a contrary opinion. Their complacency is great, I’ve used it for years to make money. The ABC/SBS for me is a goldmine!

  36. miltonf

    Better than Reagan by a long shot.

  37. thefrollickingmole

    They never read, discuss, hear or see a contrary opinion.
    They are awfully good at creating little walled gardens for themselves.
    The gruinaid newspaper is a prime example, even quite mild reasoning against the “consensus” will see you banned. These are the same people to whom any push back is obvious evidence of a dark nefarious Russian/Bannonn/something plot because they havent heard anyone outside the bubble challenge it.


    Their complacency is great, I’ve used it for years to make money.

    I would like to know more…

  38. thefrollickingmole

    Heres a good article on the immunity.

    liberal Democratic congressman Ted Lieu transformed into a hardcore libertarian. “This is a stupid and ridiculous hearing,” he said, because “the First Amendment applies to the government, not private companies.” He added that just as the government cannot tell Fox News what content to air, “we can’t tell Facebook what content to filter,” because that would be unconstitutional.

    ..
    But as Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.

  39. Arky

    To be clear – I think this is bad policy. Facebook and Twitter are not publishers

    ..
    Yes they bloody are, as long as they “shadow ban” or promote content.
    That is not a carrier service, that is a media conglomerate.

  40. stackja

    Quill and parchment were publishing so are keyboard and Internet pages.

    United States Constitution … abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press…

  41. stackja

    EXECUTIVE ORDERS
    Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
    INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY
    May 28, 2020

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

  42. Mother Lode

    The danger for the right is that the powers and precedents established by Trump and wielded however adroitly, when he leaves office there is no one on the right to take his place.

    The left will have free rein to persecute the right with more weapons than they had before.

  43. Tony Tea

    The Twitter “Head of Integrity” exists to make sure no one commits any integrity.

  44. Gyro Cadiz

    Facebook and Twitter are not publishers and should not be considered to be publishers.

    You are wrong.

    If they are carriers then they have no interest in the data carried across their platform except as a revenue earner. Just like an undersea cable company has no interest in what data moves on their platform.

    But unlike an undersea cable company there was more money to be made by packaging up that data and and selling to other users. This made them a publisher. They are selling other people’s content. That’s what publishers DO. Those people who publish on Facebook effectively using it as a vanity press, but that still makes them a publisher.

    The meant that Facebook and Twitter developed an interest in the data on their platforms to the point of having an editorial say, so they are again a publisher. A vanity press, to be sure, but that still makes them a publisher.

    Neither now permits or even says that they are merely a carrier like an undersea cable company because they no longer act that way. They deny being publishers, a very different thing. Yet they act editorially, which is a publisher function.

    Therefore they are publishers and should be treated as such.

    Gab is not a publisher, but a carrier, as they have no interest in the form of the data on their platform and prove it by permitting unfettered free speech.

    facebook and Twitter do not permit unfettered free speech. Again, this makes them publishers.

  45. Iampeter

    I will always prefer open debate to the policing of speech. But if you’re going start engaging in targeted “factchecks,” the people targeted are inclined to push back.

    The head of state doesn’t get to “push back” as that would be an actual assault on free speech, property rights, etc.

    Well – you poke a bear with a stick, you can expect to get mauled.

    Probably shouldn’t have a bear in the White House.

    From Trump’s perspective, however, this is very good politics.

    Which means his base are very bad leftists and authoritarians.

    Facebook and Twitter are not publishers and should not be considered to be publishers.

    Even publishers can’t be sued if they aren’t liable. The whole “they are publishers” misnomer was created by Ben Shapiro to avoid having to face the fact that he is actually advocating for censorship while pretending to support free speech. This issue is a test of principles and basic understanding of basic political issues, and conservatives have failed on ALL counts.

    This is a game everyone has been playing – although until Trump came along, a game the left have played better.

    Trump’s position on this is a left wing position, as is anyone supporting him on this.
    Those who are right wing support the right of Twitter to use their property as they see fit.

  46. Iampeter

    Yep – Twitter stuffed up big time.

    Yea, how dare the private business talk back to government, right?
    Come on.

    The only stuff up here is those claiming to be right wing and standing for free speech supporting Trump.

  47. areff

    Facebook and Twitter are not publishers and should not be considered to be publishers.

    Make editorial decisions, you’re a publisher

  48. John Brumble

    Oi! Troll!

    Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act provides government-mandated protection for platforms from the sort of suits that could be field against a publisher. It is exactly a government regulation that restricts the natural rights of citizens to seek remedy as a result of libel or slander (depending on the platform). Publishers can be and have been sued for what they have published, while, in the US platforms cannot.

    But you already know this, because you’re a dishonest f’wit who peddles the standard leftist pablum in an “oh so unique” game of being a cartoon version of a Randist. And you’re not even very good at it. Heck, you can’t even keep up your ridiculous pretense that only the government can sensor – here you are claiming that an individual seeking natural justice through a properly constituted court is “censorship”.

  49. areff

    Iamdribbledick, wanking again

  50. Natural Instinct

    H/T to cohenite #3467033, posted on May 29, 2020 at 9:19 am on the open thread
    .
    Kayleigh gives example of Twitter bias and fact checking at 10:00 minutes, and then Q&A

  51. OldOzzie

    Rita Panahi: Twitter needs to be treated like a real publisher

    Rita Panahi, Herald Sun
    May 28, 2020 9:51pm
    Subscriber only

    If Twitter wants to behave like a publisher then it should be treated like one. It can’t pretend to be a neutral platform when it exerts editorial control including selective “fact checking”, shadow-banning and other underhanded forms of censorship that are almost always targeted at conservatives.

    This week Twitter unwisely picked a fight with its most powerful account holder, US President Donald Trump.

    For reasons that defy logic they picked Trump’s tweets about mail-in ballots and voter fraud to label with a “fact-check” linking to a highly partisan CNN piece.

    As Sohrab Ahmari noted in the New York Post the dubious fact-check Twitter directed users to was “the kind of opinion-masquerading-as-reportage that CNN, and too many other mainstream outlets, specialise in.

    “Experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud,” the story tsk-tsk’d — the experts apparently having forgotten the debacle of thousands of lost, missing and uncounted mail-in ballots reported by The New York Times last month.

    Trump then tweeted a number of times about the platform “stifling free speech” and the need for big tech to clean up its act.

    “Twitter has now shown that everything we have been saying about them (and their other compatriots) is correct. Big action to follow!” Trump posted.

    “Big Tech is doing everything in their very considerable power to CENSOR in advance of the 2020 Election. If that happens, we no longer have our freedom. I will never let it happen! They tried hard in 2016, and lost. Now they are going absolutely CRAZY. Stay Tuned!!!”

    On Thursday we learned the action will come in the form of an executive order.

    We’ll know on Friday the details and whether it’s bluster to appease some of the Republican base or something more substantive.

    The early speculation is the order will target Google and social media platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from being held accountable for the content their users post.

    As it stands a handful of social media giants have a virtual monopoly on the flow of information and speech in the public square.

    Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google and Silicon Valley’s Left-leaning ways have been well documented and the subject of senate hearings.

    Take Twitter’s head of site integrity Yoel Roth, who is in charge of developing and enforcing Twitter’s rules and was a key part of the site’s “fact-checking” policies. Here is a man who posts deranged diatribes against Trump and Republicans being tasked with determining what is truthful.

    Who is going to fact check some of Roth’s tweets including his claims that there are “actual Nazis in the White House” and likening Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway to Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s minister of propaganda.

    To label Roth anti-Trump doesn’t do his deep loathing justice. This is a young man so overcome with hatred for conservatives he maligns anyone who votes differently to him.

    After the last election he posted: “I’m just saying, we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason.”

    Yes, I’m sure we can trust Roth and his like-minded colleagues to treat conservatives who they slander as racists and Nazis fairly.

    Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Thursday posted a series of self-serving, contradictory tweets where he claimed the site wasn’t “an arbiter of truth” but would “continue to point out incorrect or disputed information”.

    Conservatives and libertarians have become accustomed to having their content demonetised on YouTube, ranked low on Google searches and suppressed or censored on Twitter and Facebook.

    The double standards in policing speech on Twitter is evident in the way conservatives are banned for “infractions” that don’t seem to apply to Leftist account holders who can spew all sorts of defamatory abuse and threats. “Misgendering” a dude with a full beard who identifies as a pixie will see you suspended but any abuse of conservatives is considered fair game.

    And, in the parallel universe Twitter often inhabits if you are not proudly Left then you are considered “alt-Right” or “virtually a Nazi”.

    While Twitter targets Trump it allows the Iranian regime to spew its lies on the platform even though Twitter is banned in the Isl*mic Republic. Twitter has also failed to fact check Chinese government propagandists including deputy director of the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs information department, Lijian Zhao, who tweeted that COVID-19 originated in the US and plenty of other batshit-crazy conspiracy theories.

    You don’t need to be on Twitter to be subjected to the platform’s enormous influence. Just about every media player, commentator and journalist is on Twitter and what happens on the site has an enormous influence on what you see highlighted on the mainstream and new media.

  52. Iampeter

    Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act provides government-mandated protection for platforms from the sort of suits that could be field against a publisher.

    I agree Section 230 should be repealed.
    It won’t change anything since it’s pointless to begin with. You still won’t be able to sue tech companies for things they aren’t liable for, like what people post on Twitter or Facebook, for example.
    Whether a business is a publisher or not doesn’t have anything to do with it.

  53. Tim Neilson

    I agree Section 230 should be repealed.
    It won’t change anything since it’s pointless to begin with
    .You still won’t be able to sue tech companies for things they aren’t liable for, like what people post on Twitter or Facebook, for example.
    Whether a business is a publisher or not doesn’t have anything to do with it.

    I’m not aware of any decision expressly about Facebook or Twitter, but there are at least two Australian cases (citations below) where it has been held that:
    (a) Google is a “publisher” within the meaning of defamation law, and thus prima facie subject to liability for defamation for what it hosts;
    (b) however, Google is prima facie entitled to statutory exemption from defamation under the “subordinate distributor” exemption in the uniform defamation law – i.e. our counterpart to s.230 in the USA.

    So to suggest that the repeal of s.230 “won’t change anything” is simply untrue.

    In each of the cases cited below Google lost, but only because on the facts it was found that, after being notified of the defamatory nature of the relevant material it was hosting, it had made a conscious decision to keep hosting that particular material – and that meant that it had ceased to be acting merely as a subordinate distributor.
    The Courts’ reasoning clearly contemplates that the subordinate distributor exemptions do protect Google from liability which it would otherwise face.

    Google Inc v Duffy [2017] SASCFC 130
    Defteros v Google LLC [2020] VSC 219

  54. candy

    If Trump stopped tweeting there would be nothing on Twitter. Who would they abuse daily?

    Boris J doesn’t have the draw power and neither does any other leader really that charisma that attracts people to comment.

    The whole Twitter thing might collapse. I suppose he feels he can’t do without it, to reach people, but I’m not sure if the people who support him need to be reached by Twitter anymore. He’s in a situation where I think people have made their minds up about who they will vote for, and needs to get on the road to see folk.

  55. Boris J doesn’t have the draw power and neither does any other leader really that charisma that attracts people to comment.

    I’m quite certain Malcontent Turdball would make a valiant effort to take up the slack.

  56. Pyrmonter

    Socialists to the left of them, socialists to the right, onto the high ground rode the sensible liberals.

  57. Hay Stockard

    I agree with Rita, the post several above.

  58. Pyrmonter

    @ Tim N

    Google aren’t bad at scrubbing out nasty insinuations. Try ‘googling’ the names of those (falsely) denounced by ‘Nick Beach’ with the allegations he made about them.

  59. herodotus

    Making decisions about content: publisher!
    Case closed.

  60. Mother Lode

    On the other hand, maybe Trump is waiting for Twatter and Flakebook to come to him contrite and ready to make concessions – since there is no way they can police every bit of what is posted from every loony, fanatic, and Gargoloorgy out there.

    They can get out of politics or find themselves in the sights of everyone with a grudge.

  61. herodotus

    People can log in to the White House website if Twitter falls off the perch.
    It has done its job of making Trump’s every utterance newsworthy, goodbye and good luck.

  62. Tim Neilson

    Pyrmonter
    #3467329, posted on May 29, 2020 at 4:49 pm

    No doubt. It goes to show that they can do it when they want to. Their problem in the Duffy and Defteros cases was their considered refusal to do so.

    There actually is a serious policy issue involved. Presumably no-one would want a situation where non-stop ambit claims about “defamation” could be used to effectively blackmail Google et. al. into taking down anything that offended the “progressives”. On the other hand they’re clearly actively managing their content in much the same manner as a newspaper or television station, so it’s not clear why they get to hide behind a statutory exemption for the floods of “progressive” and lsIamic sewerage that they choose to host, while piously proclaiming that their frenetic scrubbing of conservatives is all about opposing “hate speech”, “fake news”, etc.

  63. Chris M

    Sinclair didn’t mention that the twitter ‘fact-check’ itself turned out to be fake news and had to be altered. That was the icing on this delicious cake! Implying that there isn’t already heavy censorship is odd. Like Red China I hope they go broke in the process of employing millions of censors.

  64. Frank

    Mother Lode
    #3467219, posted on May 29, 2020 at 2:26 pm

    I think the left have already jumped the shark in terms of what they are prepared to get up to, Obamagate being the prime example. We are probably approaching the total war phase of things.

  65. Squirrel

    “I have been enjoying watching Donald Trump tell the world on Twitter that Twitter itself is stifling free speech. The irony is delicious. ”

    Even more ironic when we remember that all this social media stuff is only possible because Al Gore invented the Interweb…….

    Slightly more seriously, most of what masquerades under the title of “Fact Checking” should simply be presented as “On the other hand” – and leave it to readers to reflect, and decide, if they’re interested enough in the details, rather than the vibe.

    The fact that Our ABC has a Fact Checking Unit, and basically introduced the concept to middle(ish) Straya, says it all.

  66. Frank

    The fact that Our ABC has a Fact Checking Unit, and basically introduced the concept to middle(ish) Straya, says it all.

    What it says to me is that they are quite content to publish any old crap as a matter of course, journalism is supposed to be fact checked already. Then again, they don’t really fact check themselves.

  67. Bruce of Newcastle

    Dorsey doubles down.

    In a first, Twitter has placed a warning notice on President Trump’s tweet about the Minneapolis riots, alleging it “violates our policies regarding the glorification of violence.”

    The president’s tweet reads: “These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”

    Axios reports: “The decision to label Trump’s tweet was made by teams within Twitter and CEO Jack Dorsey was informed of the plan before the tweet was labeled, Twitter told Axios.”

    So “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” is glorification of violence? Weird people, Twits.

    If I were Mr Dorsey I’d be worried that my business will metaphorically resemble that Minneapolis Target store after the dust settles. Taking on Donald J. Trump in a grudge match is not usually a good idea.

  68. Kneel

    “Those who are right wing support the right of Twitter to use their property as they see fit.”

    They can do that – nobody is stopping them from doing whatever they like with their own infrastructure.

    This is not, and never was, a free speech issue – it’s a free enterprise issue.

    Enterprises should be able to expect that, providing they meet the rules specific to their activities, they will be treated the same as others who also do the same. So, it doesn’t matter if it’s Telstra or Optus or Vodafone, if they aren’t cutting your calls off because they don’t like what you say, they are protected from liability. Likewise, it doesn’t matter of you the SMH, the ABC or the Cat, if you decide what is acceptable and what is disseminated, you are editorialising, therefor a publisher, therefor liable for the content.

    How should we decide who is a carrier and who is a publisher? The simplest way, of course, is to observe the actions taken by the entity, and compare to the rules – if the shoe fits, wear it!

    Under this system, Twitter, Facebook et al, by banning, shadow banning, fact checking etc, are taking control of the content and its dissemination, not just blindly passing it on. That makes them publishers, not carriers, therefor liable.

    Now you, Peter, may argue that publishers should not be liable either, but that is another discussion – what Trump has said is essentially “Act like a dog, you’ll be treated like a dog. Act like a cat, you’ll be treated like a cat.”
    What’s wrong with that?
    Is that not fair to all?
    Can Twitter et al not make their own choice about which “slot” they want to be in?
    And once they do, should they not be treated the very same way as others who act the same way?
    Can not the Gov question the declarations these companies make about which slot they are in?
    They should, otherwise, eg, the Cat could simply declare itself a platform and dodge legal action, while little old me, being honest about what I am doing won’t make such a claim, and will be liable. That would be bad, right? To have 2 entities doing the same thing, but being treated differently. After all, one of the basic concepts of western culture is that justice is blind – it matters not if you are the King or the night-soil man, you are judged on what you do, not who you are.

    So Trump is right, and you are wrong.

  69. John Bayley

    Far-Right Social Network Gab Has a Verified Account Waiting For Trump With 27,000 Followers

    Gab is not ‘far right’ – they are ‘free speech’.
    There is no shortage of Commies there, but also some actual Nazis.
    And anyone can ‘mute’ those who they don’t like, rather than have Zuck or Dorsey decide on their behalf.

    Mr Roth has a PhD in communications so he must know his stuff.

    LOL.
    No doubt.

  70. Rayvic

    “More revealing than Mr Roth’s thoughts about politics is the way his team now “fact check” statements by the president. Among their primary sources for setting the record straight are news organisations such as CNN. You might not be familiar with the recent performance of CNN but it has become a standard bearer for the “resistance” to President Trump.”

    How dare anyone question Twitter’s fact checking when it uses anti-Trump MSM, such as CNN, as a primary source for setting the record straight?

  71. Cassie of Sydney

    “John Bayley
    #3467404, posted on May 29, 2020 at 6:14 pm
    Far-Right Social Network Gab Has a Verified Account Waiting For Trump With 27,000 Followers

    Gab is not ‘far right’ – they are ‘free speech’.”

    That’s right. Since its inception Gab has struggled primarily because it has endured ferocious attacks from progressives and the left. Why? Because Gab is an unapologetic free speech platform and Gab promotes free speech. The left have been utterly ruthless with their attacks on Gab…smearing it incessantly as a far-right neo- Nazi platform. Thankfully Gab is growing…albeit slowly.

    And yes…there are unsavoury characters on Gab however there are many unsavoury characters on Twitter…….characters that Twitter conveniently chooses to ignore, characters that Twitter doesn’t shadow ban, characters that Twitter doesn’t permanently ban. Twitter allows Antifa…just for a starters….the list of what Twitter likes and has no problems with is long. So Twitter is very selective about “free speech”. Say on Twitter, as Meghan Murphy did last year, that you believe that “men aren’t women”..then Twitter will ban you……permanently.

  72. Davey Boy

    Google was also thought to be “not a publisher” but a Vic court found otherwise. Maybe that “vibe” might seep its way elsewhere.
    Court finds that Google is a publisher not a platform

    Google has been ordered to pay $40,000 in damages to a Melbourne lawyer after a Supreme Court of Victoria ruling found the internet giant was a publisher, and had defamed the man.

    George Defteros has successfully sued Google over web searches that brought up his name in relation to associations with Victoria’s gangland figures.
    In today’s ruling, Justice Melinda Richards has determined that Google was a publisher, despite denials by the company.

    During a trial last year, Google’s lawyers had argued it was not the publisher of the material and it had not defamed Mr Defteros.

    It submitted that the automation of its search engines meant it was not an intentional communicator of words or images, particularly if a user clicked through to another website.

    Justice Richards rejected this in her ruling today.

    “The Google search engine … is not a passive tool,” she wrote in her 98-page judgement.

    “It is designed by humans who work for Google to operate in the way it does, and in such a way that identified objectionable content can be removed, by human intervention.

    “I find that Google becomes a publisher of the search results that its search engine returns to a user who enters a search query.”
    She also found that providing the hyperlink within the search results “amounted to publication of the webpage”.

  73. Michael

    James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) has been censored many times by Twitter and recently returned from Twitter purgatory.
    His tweets appear to be reported regularly, as he also posts advice from Twitter that he has been reported, but that investigations have not revealed any violations.
    Incidentally, he is against censorship, regardless of the side of the political divide which the comment is from.

  74. Iampeter

    The Courts’ reasoning clearly contemplates that the subordinate distributor exemptions do protect Google from liability which it would otherwise face.

    Which they do because they must consider all the defenses available but ultimately Google loses, as they should in those cases, thus providing perfect supporting examples for my position that regulations like s230 don’t protect companies from anything. Thanks for the examples. Those links will be useful in other similar discussions.

    Now you, Peter, may argue that publishers should not be liable either

    Liable for what?

    what Trump has said is essentially “Act like a dog, you’ll be treated like a dog. Act like a cat, you’ll be treated like a cat.”
    What’s wrong with that?

    That’s a good question! Luckily we’re on a right wing blog so let’s open it to the crowd: dear Cats, who can answer what is wrong with the President of the United States threatening to treat businesses like cats and dogs?

  75. JC

    …. so let’s open it to the crowd: dear Cats, who can answer what is wrong with the President of the United States threatening to treat businesses like cats and dogs?

    Okay, I’ll bite. A few months ago, there was supposed to be a very damaging video against your preferred presidential candidate – Sleepy Joe. It was in the CNN vaults, but mysteriously disappeared. These sorts of things impact elections and in an open society the electorate has the right to know about things like this. It mysteriously disappeared because CNN deliberately lost the tape.
    There was also the “good people” hoax. This was the hoax where Trump was supposed to have called protesting Nazis good people when this is clearly and explicitly not what he said. Yet certain parts of the MSM which attracts badly educated viewers continually ran with the hoax. These are the sorts of problems you have never once mentioned, plodes and yet you’re always lambasting the Right.
    Do fuck off as your attempts at demonstrating purity are cover for being a hard left troll.
    Face facts, you’re a leftist.

  76. Kneel

    “That’s a good question! Luckily we’re on a right wing blog so let’s open it to the crowd: dear Cats, who can answer what is wrong with the President of the United States threatening to treat businesses like cats and dogs?”

    If there is a better example of your deliberate evasion in answering a post that demolishes your argument, I’d very much like to read it – I could do with a laugh.

    So Peter, just replace “dog” with “publisher” and “cat” with “common carrier”.
    Now can answer you the (modified) question(s)?

    As I said, and you studiously ignored, it’s about free enterprise and equal rules for all based on how people act – something you appear to be opposing. And you claim to be of the right… go figure!

  77. The EO is useless, just a collection of whinges and petulance with no power.

    Even if Section 230 were repealed, libel law in America is weak as water compared to Australia due to the First Amendment.

    This is just another skirmish in the culture wars, which the right always loses.

  78. JC

    Monty’s prediction means the Right wins.

  79. Iampeter

    So Peter, just replace “dog” with “publisher” and “cat” with “common carrier”.
    Now can answer you the (modified) question(s)?

    The fact that you’re not trolling is the real comedy here.

    These are the sorts of problems you have never once mentioned, plodes and yet you’re always lambasting the Right.

    Private enterprises engaging in activities that while scummy, don’t violate anyone’s rights, are not “problems.”
    On the other hand, the President attacking private enterprise is a massive problem, for those of us who are actually on the Right.

  80. JC

    The internet creates an aggregation problem and information aggregators such as Google, Facebook and of course Twitter create choke points in the transmission of information. No one wants one person or a group of people to be telling us what to read and what information we should be allowed to consume.

    It’s nonsensical to argue that the Right wants to limit free speech when the tech’ed up left is actually taking that very action.

    You’re a leftist who doesn’t understand the “politics”. So STFU.

  81. Tim Neilson

    Which they do because they must consider all the defenses available but ultimately Google loses, as they should in those cases, thus providing perfect supporting examples for my position that regulations like s230 don’t protect companies from anything.

    You haven’t read the judgments have you?

    And you’re clearly incapable of understanding a straightforward explanation of them.

    As I stated clearly above, both Courts held expressly that the subordinate distributor exemptions give Google protection that it otherwise wouldn’t have.

    They expressly held that if Google had just done its normal tricks of selective search algorithms, shadow banning etc., that would normally get them liable as a “publisher”, they would have got off because of the statutory subordinate distributor exemptions.

    The only reason they lost was because in these two particular cases they foolishly chose to go beyond their normal business practices, for which they do get that extra protection, and made a specific decision to keep publishing defamatory material.

    So your statement that regulations like s230 don’t protect companies from anything is demonstrably false on the face of those judgements.

  82. Iampeter

    The internet creates an aggregation problem and information aggregators such as Google, Facebook and of course Twitter create choke points in the transmission of information.

    So? That’s called, “free speech.”

    No one wants one person or a group of people to be telling us what to read and what information we should be allowed to consume.

    Except for those of you supporting this executive order from Trump and the assortment of conservatives calling for tech companies to be regulated, in this or that way, specifically to control their speech, you mean? Telling people what to read or write is EXACTLY what Trump, conservatives and the likes of you want.

    It’s nonsensical to argue that the Right wants to limit free speech when the tech’ed up left is actually taking that very action.

    That’s not what’s being argued. What’s being argued is that conservatives are calling for censorship, just like the censorious and statist leftists that they are, without even realizing what they’re doing, because they have no knowledge on the subject of politics whatsoever.

    So your statement that regulations like s230 don’t protect companies from anything is demonstrably false on the face of those judgements.

    Except “on the face of those judgement’s” my position that laws like s230 don’t protect tech from anything is literally demonstrated. The exact opposite of what you’re saying.
    This doesn’t fit with your narrative so as usual you are going off into the irrelevant, trying to find a way to fit your round peg into a square hole.

  83. Lee

    It’s nonsensical to argue that the Right wants to limit free speech when the tech’ed up left is actually taking that very action.

    You’re a leftist who doesn’t understand the “politics”. So STFU.

    He engages in the tactics of leftist trolls (quite common on the ‘net), who pretend not to be the left winger they are themselves, all the while ONLY attacking conservatives and right wingers.

  84. BorisG

    Trump announcing on Twitter his executive order against Twitter is hilarious. Why doesn’t he boycott twitter?

  85. BorisG

    On the other hand, maybe Trump is waiting for Twatter and Flakebook to come to him contrite and ready to make concessions – since there is no way they can police every bit of what is posted from every loony, fanatic, and Gargoloorgy out there.

    That’s one possibility. Or perhaps they can move offshore.

  86. 2dogs

    It should be noted that at the time that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was enacted, the Big Tech companies were making hand-over-heart pledges in support of free speech.

    When Twitter was founded, it called itself the “free-speech wing of the free-speech party” – an epithet which is laughable now.

    It’s a bait-and-switch. And removing the protection given is the appropriate response to such behaviour.

  87. Tim Neilson

    Except “on the face of those judgement’s” my position that laws like s230 don’t protect tech from anything is literally demonstrated. The exact opposite of what you’re saying.

    Poor old zero IQ intellectual failure. You haven’t read the judgments have you?

    Come on, admit it, you haven’t read them.

    Both Courts said unequivocally:
    (a) Google is a “publisher” (within the meaning of defamation law) of anything its search engines cause to be presented to a user;
    (b) therefore Google is prima facie liable in defamation if its search engines cause defamatory material to be presented to a user;
    (c ) but the statutory “subordinate distributor” exemption means Google is NOT liable in defamation, as a normal publisher would be, when its search engines cause defamatory material to be presented to a user.

    Got that? Google is NOT liable in defamation for what its search engines present to users, but only because of the statutory exemption corresponding to s.230. Google DOES get an exemption that’s not available to normal publishers.

    Totally the opposite of what you’re saying.

    Google didn’t lose the two cases in relation to its “publication” of the material via its search engines. It WON that part of the case, but only because it gets special treatment by statute. If Google had taken down the posts within a reasonable time after being told they were defamatory it would have won the case totally. Normal publishers don’t get that treatment. If they publish, then retract after being called out, they lose – they can only mitigate the damage by a retraction.

    Again, got that? I’ll repeat it for the slow learners. Google didn’t lose the two cases in relation to its “publication” of the material via its search engines. It WON that part of the case, but only because it gets special treatment by statute. If Google had taken down the posts within a reasonable time after being told they were defamatory it would have won the case totally. Normal publishers don’t get that treatment. If they publish, then retract after being called out, they lose – they can only mitigate the damage by a retraction.

    Got that? If Google hadn’t decided to double down it would have won totally – when a normal publisher would still have lost. That is, what you’re saying about s.230 is totally wrong on the face of the judgments.

    Google WON the case right up to the point where, after having been specifically told that the material was defamatory Google made a conscious decision to keep hosting it. It was only after that point that Google ceased to be acting as a subordinate distributor and lost in respect of what it did after that point.

  88. Kneel

    “…calling for tech companies to be regulated, in this or that way, specifically to control their speech…”

    It has nothing to do with free speech any more than forcing your ISP to provide carriage of material they object to affects their free speech. Twitter are still free to say whatever they choose to say – just so long as they allow others the same right by not editorialising in such a way as to dilute or enforce a particular point of view.

  89. Iampeter

    He engages in the tactics of leftist trolls (quite common on the ‘net), who pretend not to be the left winger they are themselves, all the while ONLY attacking conservatives and right wingers.

    No one is trolling you. Conservatives are not right wing. The fact you are complete leftists shouldn’t need explaining anymore than the fact that Twitter can’t censor anyone. You guys don’t even know how “censorship” and “free speech” works.
    None of you could even speak up against someone asking what was wrong with the President of the United States treating businesses like cats and dogs on what’s meant to be a right wing blog.

    It has nothing to do with free speech any more than forcing your ISP to provide carriage of material they object to affects their free speech.

    That does affect free speech and property rights. Those of us who are actually right wing oppose forcing ISP’s to carry anything. It’s Twitter’s actions that do not affect anyone’s free speech and never could. I’m not trying to be mean when I say this but you simply have no idea.

    Come on, admit it, you haven’t read them.

    I never claimed I read them. I’m going entirely by your summary, which if true, is 100% supporting of my point, not yours. Because this is the Cat I’m not surprised that someone would post something that completely goes against them and claim victory. It’s all part of the fun, I guess.

    Got that? Google is NOT liable in defamation for what its search engines present to users, but only because of the statutory exemption corresponding to s.230. Google DOES get an exemption that’s not available to normal publishers.

    Google is not a publisher. They are not liable in defamation for what it’s search engine presents to users anyway, nor should they be obviously.
    You may have read the rulings but it’s pointless if you have no idea what’s going on.

  90. Tim Neilson

    Google is not a publisher.

    Two superior Courts of record in Australia have said that they are. Expressly and unequivocally. Google is a publisher. You’re lying when you say they aren’t.

    They are not liable in defamation for what it’s search engine presents to users anyway, nor should they be obviously.

    Two superior Courts of record in Australia have said that the only reason they aren’t is the special statutory exemption for subordinate distributors – i.e. they said expressly that if that exemption didn’t exist Google WOULD be liable for what its search engines present because it’s a publisher.
    That is, the equivalent here of s.230 in the USA does give them an exemption that they otherwise wouldn’t have. Two superior Courts of record have said so. That is, the Courts said exactly the opposite of what you’re saying – expressly and unequivocally.

    I’m going entirely by your summary, which if true, is 100% supporting of my point, not yours.

    I don’t know whether you’re being 100% dishonest or 100% stupid – maybe both.
    The Courts said, expressly and unequivocally:
    (a) Google is a publisher which would normally, like any other publisher, be liable for defamation if its search engines presented defamatory material;
    (b) Google WON that part of the case, but ONLY because Google gets a special statutory exemption – our equivalent of s.230 in the USA
    That is, the Courts said exactly the opposite of what you’re saying – expressly and unequivocally.
    (c ) the only part of the case Google lost was the part where they chose to go beyond their normal business activities (for which they get a special exemption) and deliberately decided to keep publishing defamatory material.
    Google could be totally exempt from defamation without changing its business practices at all – all it’s got to do is not deliberately publish defamatory material. That’s NOT the case for normal publishers who don’t have Google’s special statutory exemption – they’re liable for inadvertent defamation. That is, the position is exactly the opposite of what you’re saying.

  91. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3467639, posted on May 29, 2020 at 11:00 pm
    ultimately Google loses, as they should in those cases, thus providing perfect supporting examples for my position that regulations like s230 don’t protect companies from anything.

    Iampeter
    #3469076, posted on May 31, 2020 at 9:41 am
    Google </strong>is not a publisher. They are not liable in defamation for what it’s search engine presents to users anyway, nor should they be obviously.

    Contradiction alert! Contradiction alert!

    Iamashiteater says on the one hand that Google lose, thus proving (he says) that the statutory exemptions are superfluous, then he says they win!

    Of course the truth is that:
    (a) Google won part of the cases because totally contrary to Iamashiteater’s bloviation the statutory exemptions are highly effective – but they don’t declare Google not to be a “publisher”;
    (b) so Google lost part of the cases because totally contrary to Iamashiteater’s bloviation it is a “publisher” and therefore liable for anything presented on their platform in a way that falls outside the exemption.

    Poor old Iamashiteater hopelessly contradicts himself because of his mental deficiency which prevents him from understanding anything other than cartoon like binary absolutist generalities.
    Thus he flip flops around – when directly confronted with that part of the decision that Google lost he says “see, they’re liable”, but the moment that recedes from his consciousness he pronounces “they’re not liable”.

    Poor old Iamashiteater.

  92. Iampeter

    You don’t seem to understand how liability or defamation works at all.

    Maybe I need to reconsider my position on regulations like s230.
    Laws like this might be necessary if for no other reason than to help protect us from people who care this clueless.

  93. Tim Neilson

    You don’t seem to understand how liability or defamation works at all.

    You were forced to admit that you haven’t read the judgments.
    I’ve told you what they say. Judgments of a superior Court of record are the law until and unless they’re overturned on appeal, overruled in a subsequent case or negated by statute. (See, e.g. Edmonds J in the Indooroopilly case.)

    If you want to dispute that the law of defamation is as I’ve described you need to be able to refer me to statutes or case law that support your position. (If you think that the two judgments I’ve referred to do support your position, you’d better read them and then explain why that’s the case. I’ve already told you that they say exactly the opposite of what you say. Several times. I’ve set it out in great detail. But there’s no substitute for reading the judgments themselves. Go to it.)

    If you can’t refer me to a statute or case which supports your position, then you’re just wrong, because the judgments I’ve referred to state categorically and unequivocally the opposite of what you claim to be the law.

    Or perhaps you think you’ve got some superior capacity for understanding defamation law? What are your qualifications and experience which enable you to pronounce that the law of defamation is different to what four judges of superior Courts of record have said it is, without even bothering to read their judgments?

  94. Tim Neilson

    Seriously Iamashiteater, how did you get your apparently infallible knowledge of defamation law?
    Did you study it at University? (Where and in what faculty?)
    Have you practised in that area of the law?
    Have you read any of the leading textbooks on the subject (and if so, which ones)?
    Have you read the law reform materials which led to the enactment of the uniform defamation law, or the statute and its related explanatory materials?
    Have you read any leading judgments on the uniform defamation law, and in particular the subordinate distributor exemptions (and if so which ones)?

    If, as I suspect, your honest answer to all of the above is “no”, on what grounds do you form the view that I “don’t understand how liability or defamation works at all”?

  95. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3469076, posted on May 31, 2020 at 9:41 am
    Google is not a publisher.

    Four judges, in two decisions of superior Courts of record, say the opposite.
    What are your grounds for saying that those four judges are wrong?

    Iampeter
    #3467639, posted on May 29, 2020 at 11:00 pm
    regulations like s230 don’t protect companies from anything.

    Four judges, in two decisions of superior Courts of record, say the opposite.
    What are your grounds for saying that those four judges are wrong?

  96. Tel

    Liability for your actions is normal in a free and law abiding society.

    Does anyone disagree?

  97. Rex Anger

    Only those classical liberals who like to call everyone they don’t like leftists, I think…

  98. Lee

    No one is trolling you. Conservatives are not right wing. The fact you are complete leftists shouldn’t need explaining anymore than the fact that Twitter can’t censor anyone.

    I am no “leftist,” ignoramus.
    Politically, I would be to the right of nearly every politician in Australia.

  99. Lee

    “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

    – Mark Twain

  100. Iampeter

    If you want to dispute that the law of defamation is as I’ve described you need to be able to refer me to statutes or case law that support your position.

    You haven’t described defamation law, you just keep using terms like “defamation” and “liability” in a manner that suggests you don’t know what they mean or how they work. For example, suggesting that Google can be liable for defamation because of what someone does on their platform, instead of the person actually engaging in the defamation.
    This confusion then leads to you incorrectly assuming that laws like s230 protect tech companies and in turn leads to you not even understanding the cases you yourself brought into the discussion.
    Even your own summary of the cases in your original post supports my position, but because of all of this confusion you don’t even understand what you yourself summarized.

    Liability for your actions is normal in a free and law abiding society.
    Does anyone disagree?

    No. No one is arguing anything like this.
    Excellent contribution as always, Tel.

    I am no “leftist,” ignoramus.
    Politically, I would be to the right of nearly every politician in Australia.

    Uh-huh. If that was the case you’d just easily demonstrate it instead of making two pretentious posts projecting. In reality you wouldn’t even know where to begin.
    Hint: those of us who are right wing don’t support this executive order from Trump because we understand that it violates free speech and property rights. In your case, you don’t even know how to use any of these terms correctly.
    Being exposed as a politically illiterate leftist who didn’t even realize it is why you’re so triggered, but you shouldn’t take your embarrassing ignorance out on me.

    “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

    – Mark Twain

    Like I always say, the total ignorance at the Cat about pretty much everything is only matched by the total lack of self awareness.

  101. Lee

    Like I always say, the total ignorance at the Cat about pretty much everything is only matched by the total lack of self awareness.

    The irony meter just exploded!

    Hint: those of us who are right wing don’t support this executive order from Trump because we understand that it violates free speech and property rights. In your case, you don’t even know how to use any of these terms correctly.

    And Twitter and other social media do believe in “free speech”?

    ROFLMAO!

    THEY are the ones censoring conservatives and right wingers, like me, and you have the sheer chutzpah to defend THEM, leftist!

  102. Iampeter

    And Twitter and other social media do believe in “free speech”?

    You don’t even know what “free speech” means.
    Hint: it doesn’t involve forcing private businesses to do anything.

    The irony meter has been exploding indeed but you are utterly oblivious as to why.

  103. Tim Neilson

    You haven’t described defamation law, you just keep using terms like “defamation” and “liability” in a manner that suggests you don’t know what they mean or how they work.

    The way they work in this context is, as four judges of superior Courts of record have stated expressly and without qualification, that:
    (a) Google is a “publisher” (within the meaning of defamation law) of anything which its search algorithms present on its platform; [If you disagree with that, please state your grounds for disagreeing]
    (b) Like any other publisher, subject only to any specific exception in the law, Google is liable for damage caused by what it publishes (in the sense of Google being potentially subjected to Court orders to rectify that damage, e.g. payment of monetary damages) to the extent that that damage is caused by the defamatory nature of what it publishes – in Google’s case, as noted, what it publishes is anything which its search algorithms present on its platforms, regardless of who originally wrote it or whether Google actually knew about the content ; [If you disagree with that, please state your grounds for disagreeing]
    (c ) unlike most publishers, Google can shelter behind the special statutory rule for subordinate distributors [corresponding to s.230 in the USA] – that is, the special statutory rule for subordinate distributors exempts Google from liability it would have if that exemption did not exist; [If you disagree with that, please state your grounds for disagreeing]
    (d) that exemption means that Google is not liable for defamatory material which appears on its platform as a normal operation of Google’s search algorithms – but if the special statutory exemption didn’t exist Google would be liable for that defamatory material; [If you disagree with that, please state your grounds for disagreeing]
    (e) But because Google is a “publisher” of what appears on its platform it can be liable for defamatory material appearing on its platform to the extent that Google doesn’t just host the platform, but deliberately and consciously chooses to host defamatory material – because if it does that, that action isn’t covered by the subordinate distributor exemption. [If you disagree with that, please state your grounds for disagreeing]

    That is, your statements that
    [Iampeter
    #3469076, posted on May 31, 2020 at 9:41 am]
    Google is not a publisher.
    …and…
    [Iampeter
    #3467639, posted on May 29, 2020 at 11:00 pm]
    regulations like s230 don’t protect companies from anything.
    …are both incontrovertibly false, for the reasons I’ve outlined on this thread.

    Four judges, in two decisions of superior Courts of record, say the opposite to your two statements.
    What are your grounds for saying that those four judges are wrong?

  104. Iampeter

    THEY are the ones censoring conservatives and right wingers, like me, and you have the sheer chutzpah to defend THEM, leftist!

    You don’t know what “censorship” means and don’t even realize conservatives and you are the ones advocating for it.
    You are a censorious leftist who doesn’t get it.

  105. Rex Anger

    @ Lee-

    Petey has previously declared on multiple occasions that ‘pure’ right-wing thinking is incoherent and heterodox, because we should all be focussed on our individual rights or something. Only leftists can display a coherent message because collectivism, comrade.

    We are thus all ‘leftists’ and projecting at him because we have committed the thoughtcrime of more or less arriving at the same conclusions and saying so, rather than ceding the field of ideas entirely because we should all be focussing solely on ourselves and our individual rights, etc.

    Just watch out where his rebuttals of “No, U!” land. The stains can be mighty hard to clean out…

  106. Iampeter

    The way they work in this context is, as four judges of superior Courts of record have stated expressly and without qualification, that:

    I’ve specifically explained to you, in the very post you’re responding to, exactly where your confusion lies but you’ve ignored it and repeated the same nonsense.

    What are your grounds for saying that those four judges are wrong?

    I’m not saying those judges are wrong, I’m saying you don’t understand what they’re saying.
    I’ve also pointed out exactly where your confusion lies.

  107. Iampeter

    Petey has previously declared on multiple occasions that ‘pure’ right-wing thinking is incoherent and heterodox, because we should all be focussed on our individual rights or something.

    Just to clarify, individual rights is the basis for right-wing thinking and because conservatives are collectivists they are leftists. Because they need this explained to them they are politically illiterate leftists.

    Just watch out where his rebuttals of “No, U!” land.

    This is a description of many here, including yourself, but not me. In fact, all you seem to do in threads at this point is engage in the very behavior you accuse me of engaging in.
    Which is weird, since if you knew something about politics you would probably just bring that up.
    Oh yea, you already admitted politics is impossible to know anything about because human minds are too complex or something.
    You should try your shtick on some other blogs and see how it goes for you.

  108. Tim Neilson

    For example, suggesting that Google can be liable for defamation because of what someone does on their platform, instead of the person actually engaging in the defamation.

    Poor old conceited stupid ignorant Iamashiteater. Once again your mental deficiencies are on full display.
    Google can be liable in that way if it consciously chooses to publish such material (and of course the original perpetrator can be liable as well). Google would be liable for such material even if it appeared as a result of the normal operation of Google’s search algorithms, except that the special statutory exemption shelters Google in that case.

    This confusion then leads to you incorrectly assuming that laws like s230 protect tech companies
    But they do. The cases expressly say that. That’s why Google won the first part of each case, but wouldn’t have won that part of the case if the exemption didn’t exist.

    and in turn leads to you not even understanding the cases you yourself brought into the discussion.
    Says someone who hasn’t even read them.

    Even your own summary of the cases in your original post supports my position,

    No it doesn’t, it totally refutes your position. I can’t help it if your mental deficiencies mean that you can’t comprehend the idea of a party winning part of a case [because it gets a special statutory exemption for that part] but losing the other part [because it’s a publisher, so is liable because it chose in that part to act outside the exemption].

    but because of all of this confusion you don’t even understand what you yourself summarized.
    Perhaps we should start slowly. Do you comprehend the idea that a party to a case might win part of it but lose the other? I suspect that you can’t, which is why you project your own confusion onto others.

  109. Tim Neilson

    I’m not saying those judges are wrong, I’m saying you don’t understand what they’re saying.
    I’ve also pointed out exactly where your confusion lies.

    You haven’t even read the judgments but you’re lecturing me on what the judges said?

    Even by your standards that’s unbelievable conceit, stupidity and ignorance.

  110. Rex Anger

    Oh yea, you already admitted politics is impossible to know anything about because human minds are too complex or something.

    No Petey, we’ve been through this before. If you are going to misquote me, do it properly. I told you I did not need to know the textbook definitions of liberalism or libertaianism, etc. to know your statements about them were full of crap. I promptly demonstrated that by using your own logic and hatred of Christianity, your oft-cited liberal idol of John Locke was in fact a leftist spouting dangerously irrational ideas based on a murderous, leftist, anti-western ideology. I note with interest that you immediately stopped making any further reference to him, and tried to downplay his influences in your rantings by comparing his flaws relative to Rand.

    Furthermore Petey, you do not rebut my claims about your standard dreck-hurling reply of “No, U!” by replying with this:

    This is a description of many here, including yourself, but not me. In fact, all you seem to do in threads at this point is engage in the very behavior you accuse me of engaging in.

    You prove me correct by throwing out a “No, U!” as a counter to my prediction that you would reply with a “No, U!” Furthermore, my statement of:

    [Petey has decided] We are thus all ‘leftists’ and projecting at him because we have committed the thoughtcrime of more or less arriving at the same conclusions and saying so, rather than ceding the field of ideas entirely because we should all be focussing solely on ourselves and our individual rights, etc.

    Is absolutely correct. By your own actions above.

    Just to clarify, individual rights is the basis for right-wing thinking is about the only statement you have ever made that I can agree with you on. This was never in question. This is why both the Executive Order your hated Orange Man signed and s.230 all exist in the first place.

    However, your attempts to insult anyone who considers themselves conservative as being politically illiterate leftists are very much in question.

    Your name-calling proves my statement that in your eyes, we have committed the thoughtcrime of more or less arriving at the same conclusions [Despite being right-wing thinkers who believe in individual freedom of speech and thought, albeit with different nuances to our philosophy] and saying so.

    I once called you a dreck-hurling cultural Marxist in a nice hat. And I stand by it, you utter turnip.

  111. Tim Neilson

    I’ve specifically explained to you, in the very post you’re responding to, exactly where your confusion lies but you’ve ignored it and repeated the same nonsense.

    False. You’ve just repeated your falsehood that s.230 and the like don’t protect tech companies.
    Four judges of superior Courts of record have said expressly and unequivocally that our equivalent of s.230 does protect Google from some liabilities which Google would have if the exemption didn’t exist.

    I’ve told you that repeatedly. You refuse to read the judgments, and yet bizarrely assert that you know better than m what’s in them.
    I’ve asked you for your grounds for making your assertion. You’ve repeatedly gutlessly and dishonestly refused to state any grounds – because you can’t, because there are no grounds, because your statement is false.

    Newsflash! Defamation law is what’s in the statutes and decisions of superior Courts of record, not what you just invent because of your own totally erroneous preconceptions. If you can’t cite the statutes or such Court decisions in support of your assertions, then what you say is baseless.

    And, just for emphasis, in the two cases I’ve referred to, four judges of superior Courts of record have said expressly and unequivocally that our equivalent of s.230 does protect Google from some liabilities which Google would have if the exemption didn’t exist.

  112. Tim Neilson

    Poor old Iamashiteater.

    He’s just too mentally defective to understand the idea that Google WON the first part of the two cases and LOST the second part, and that the judges stated expressly and without qualification that Google would have lost the first part if there wasn’t a statutory special exemption covering them for that part of the case.

    The problem is that the idea of winning in part and losing in part isn’t a cartoon like binary absolutist generalisation, therefore the poor old Iamashiteater gets brain-hurty trying to comprehend it, and ends up projecting his hopeless confusion onto others.

  113. NoFixedAddress

    This is HeIsStoned,

    “I am Groot”

  114. Tim Neilson

    Iamashiteater:
    Let’s take it point by point.
    Are you claiming that the four judges in the two cases I’ve referred to DIDN’T say that Google is a “publisher” (within the meaning of defamation law) of anything which its search algorithms present on its platform?
    If so, please identify your grounds for claiming that they didn’t say that.

  115. Iampeter

    Google would be liable for such material even if it appeared as a result of the normal operation of Google’s search algorithms, except that the special statutory exemption shelters Google in that case.

    This is what I mean. You simply don’t get how liability works.
    Until you figure out why what you’ve said here is incorrect there’s nowhere to go.

    But this confusion is exactly why laws like s230 are on the books.

  116. Iampeter

    However, your attempts to insult anyone who considers themselves conservative as being politically illiterate leftists are very much in question.

    I never tire of being told how I’m trying to insult everyone while everyone is throwing endless insults at me.
    It’s like you don’t think anyone can just read this thread for themselves or something.

    Sorry, crazy internet person, but no amount of inane walls of text from you will change the fact that you’re just describing you’re own dumb self, know nothing about these topics and are triggered by this fact.

  117. Tim Neilson

    This is what I mean. You simply don’t get how liability works.

    Not me, Iamashiteater.
    Four judges of superior Courts of record, who stated unequivocally and expressly that Google would be liable in defamation for such material even if it appeared as a result of the normal operation of Google’s search algorithms, except that the special statutory exemption shelters Google in that case.
    That’s what they said. It’s in the judgments. I’ve read them.

    Until you figure out why what you’ve said here is incorrect there’s nowhere to go.
    If you really believe that that’s true, you should be able to point to some statute or decision of a superior Court of record that corroborates your assertion. I’ve referred you to two such decisions that support my assertion.

    But you can’t. Because there aren’t any. Because what the four judges said is the law. You’ve got nothing. Zero. Perhaps you’re not actually lying about this because perhaps you’re really such a conceited stupid ignorant megalomaniac that you actually believe that you know about defamation law even though you’ve never read a single line of statute, extrinsic material, Court decision or academic textbook about it. You’re the one who simply doesn’t get how liability works because you’re 100% ignorant of the actual law of liability – all you’ve got is your own conceited stupid ignorant misconceptions.

    Go on, prove me wrong. Refer me to the relevant source of law that justifies you saying that my assertion is wrong. It’s useless just repeating the assertion – unless you can point to some evidence backing your assertion, merely repeating it just proves again and again that you’re wrong.

  118. Tim Neilson

    PS where did you get your understanding of how liability works?

    Tertiary studies in law?
    A career in the legal system?
    Reading of legal texts (and if so, which ones), or of judgments of superior Courts of record (and if so which ones)?

    Some other way – and if so, what?

    (Actually I think the real answer is that you’ve got zero idea of how liability works. You’re just spouting your own conceited, stupid, ignorant and demonstrably false misconceptions, without any basis in any valid source of legal knowledge.)

    I’m prepared to reciprocate, but seeing as how I’m basing my arguments on what judges say, not what I say, I shouldn’t really need to.

  119. Rex Anger

    I never tire of being told how I’m trying to insult everyone while everyone is throwing endless insults at me.
    It’s like you don’t think anyone can just read this thread for themselves or something.

    We are all writing for a wider audience here, Petey. Hence I like to point out that your best comeback when challenged in any way is “No, U!”

    Sorry, crazy internet person, but no amount of inane walls of text from you will change the fact that you’re just describing you’re own dumb self, know nothing about these topics and are triggered by this fact.

    Closely followed by ad hominems. This way, if someone else is ever inspired to respond to your inanity, they know not to expect a reasoned answer.

    And I note you never fail to return to try and get the last word on me. Just like a dog returns to its vomit. And always with a “No, U!”

  120. Tel

    We are all writing for a wider audience here, Petey. Hence I like to point out that your best comeback when challenged in any way is “No, U!”

    His best comeback is to be able to waste your time so effectively on a regular basis.

    Since everyone agrees that Twitter should be held liable for its own actions, just like anyone would normally be held liable for their own actions, there really is nothing to argue about anyhow.

  121. Tim Neilson

    This is what I mean. You simply don’t get how liability works.

    Actually this comment in and of itself reveals that you are the one who’s ignorant of how liability works.

    If you had any idea of how liability works you’d know that, notwithstanding the revolution wrought by the House of Lords in Donoghue v Stevenson in relation to liability for negligence, there are still different rules for different types of tortious liability, and thus that generalised bloviations about “how liability works” are useless in identifying how any particular type of tortious liability works.

    The only way to understand a particular type of tortious liability, e.g., shall we say, defamation…?, is to examine the statutes (if any) and decisions of superior Courts of record relevant to that particular tort.
    Which you consistently neglect to do, relying instead on your supernatural powers of discernment untrammelled by any examination of reality.

  122. Rex Anger

    @ Tel-

    His best comeback is to be able to waste your time so effectively on a regular basis.

    ‘Your’ as in everyone collectively who reads his replies? Or just mine? Either answer is unfortunately correct.

  123. Iampeter

    Since everyone agrees that Twitter should be held liable for its own actions, just like anyone would normally be held liable for their own actions, there really is nothing to argue about anyhow.

    Yes but Twitter shouldn’t be held liable for your actions just because they take place on Twitter, so it doesn’t sound like you’ve even understood the issue under discussion.

  124. Iampeter

    Closely followed by ad hominems. This way, if someone else is ever inspired to respond to your inanity, they know not to expect a reasoned answer.

    I never tire of nutters throwing nothing but ad hominem all thread accusing me of ad hominem.
    Also, reasoned answer? To what? You’re inane babbling?
    Look, I’ll tell you what, you’re an insane person so you’ll just keep following me from thread to thread hurling butt-hurt insults because you’ve been exposed as yet another politically illiterate leftist who is on a right wing blog for some reason.
    And I’m just gonna ignore you while being entertained by your crazy antics.

    So carry on. Your next post should include some insults and rants and then accuse me of insults and rants all in the one post…

  125. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3470133, posted on June 1, 2020 at 8:24 am

    Poor old conceited ignorant stupid Iamashiteater, still peddling his stupid facile dogmatic absolutist wrongologist generalities, with zero facts in support.

    You’re 100% ignorant of “how liability works”.

    Stupid idiotic fact-free generalities like you push are no substitute for examining the specific statutory provisions and judgments of superior Courts of record addressed precisely to the point under discussion.

    In defamation law the act of “publishing” is what attracts liability to the publisher, and it’s no excuse for the publisher to say “I didn’t write that”. See, e.g., on this point, the judgments in Google Inc v Duffy and Defteros v Google LLC to which I’ve referred you so often.

    Courtroom scene:
    Tim Neilson: Your Honour, Google Inc v Duffy and Defteros v Google LLC state expressly and unqualifiedly that Google is a “publisher”, and thus liable for defamatory material which it hosts on its platform, except to the extent that a specific exemption applies, like the subordinate distributor exception.
    Iamashiteater: Your Honour, I know how liability works, and I therefore say that Tim Neilson is wrong.
    The Bench: Mr Iamashiteater, if you know how liability works, perhaps you could refer us to some statutory provisions and judicial authorities which prescribe how liability works.
    Iamashiteater: I don’t need to read statutory provisions or judicial authorities, I just know how liability works.
    The Bench: Thank you Mr Iamashiteater.
    I won’t need to hear any further submissions. Mr Neilson, I expect that you’ll be submitting that the order against Mr Iamashiteater should include provision for him to pay your costs?

    Poor old Iamashiteater. If you’re really so utterly determined to remain 100% ignorant about the law of defamation, go and find a copy of Fleming on Torts or any other good general text on liability, look up “vicarious liability”, and ponder the stupidity of your assertions on this thread about the limits of liability at law.

  126. Iampeter

    You’re 100% ignorant of “how liability works”.

    I’m sure you would’ve mentioned how that is by now in one of these long posts. What part of you can’t sue Twitter for something someone else does on Twitter do you find hard to get your head around?
    Sorry Tim, but rationalizing conservative talking points you’re mindlessly regurgitating is no substitute for actually knowing what you’re talking about.

    In defamation law the act of “publishing” is what attracts liability to the publisher

    No, liability is what determines if you can be sued for defamation, or anything else for that matter, not whether you’re a publisher or not. Confusion about this is why regulations like s230 exist in the first place, spelling things out that shouldn’t need spelling out.

  127. Tim Neilson

    I’m sure you would’ve mentioned how that is by now in one of these long posts.

    I have, again and again. I’ve told you that liability works by means of sources of law, i.e. statutory provisions and judicial authorities which prescribe, for each particular type of liability, when and how that particular type of liability applies. If you disagree, please state how you think liability works. I’ve explained, therefore, that your stupid ignorant dogmatic generalisations are totally wrong in relation to defamation law, because when liability for defamation exists is prescribed solely by the statutes and judicial decisions specifically about defamation, not by fact-free generalist bloviations totally devoid of citations of statutes or cases in support.

    You’re totally unable to point to one single statutory provision or judicial authority to back up your views, whereas I can point to judgments of superior Courts of record which state categorically and unequivocally that my views are correct. If you think that the judgments I’ve referred to are wrong, please explain why. And don’t beclown yourself by claiming that I’ve misunderstood judgments which you haven’t read.</strong

    What part of you can’t sue Twitter for something someone else does on Twitter do you find hard to get your head around?

    Poor old intellectual failure. I’ve explained over and over again that the subordinate distributor provisions do in fact exempt people like Twitter for what they host in the normal course of their business (but if it wasn’t for the exemption they would be liable).

    The part that you clearly can’t get your head around is where I’ve referred you to two decisions of superior Courts of record which say exactly what I said about Google, and you’ve abjectly failed to provide one reference to statute or judicial authority to explain why you think Twitter is different. I think it’s the same because I’ve read the uniform defamation law so I know a “publisher” is liable and I know from reading the cases what a “publisher” is. You don’t know either of those things because you’re 100% ignorant on the subject.

    Poor old zero IQ failure.

    liability is what determines if you can be sued for defamation, or anything else for that matter, not whether you’re a publisher or not.

    Poor old ignorant imbecile. Here’s a direct quote from the Defteros judgment:
    In the 2017 proceeding, Mr Defteros sues Google for damages for defamation, as the publisher of these matters.

    Come on Iamashiteater, tell me that the judge hasn’t properly described the basis of liability for defamation.

    You still haven’t told me what sources of law give you your knowledge of “liability”. I’m directly accusing you of being a liar, because I’m directly accusing you of knowing that there are absolutely no sources of law that support your claim that liability in defamation doesn’t depend on being a publisher.
    Back up or grovel in apologies for being a stupid, conceited dishonest little turd.

  128. Tim Neilson

    liability is what determines if you can be sued for defamation,

    Please identify the statute or judicial decision which you claim prescribes what “liability” means in this context.

    Please identify clearly why that statute or authority doesn’t define “liability” for defamation by reference to being a “publisher” of the defamatory material.

    Come on you gutless and dishonest shit – you’ve pushed this line all thread. Back it up or grovel in apologies.

  129. Tim Neilson

    Another direct quote from the Defteros judgment.

    Google submitted that it could not be liable as a secondary publisher, because its search engine is fully automated and does not intend the communication of any particular words or images, including any third party webpage to which a user might navigate. I do not accept this submission, which is at odds with the reasoning of Beach J in Trkulja v Google Inc (No. 5),[16] with the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Trkulja (CA),[17] and with the reasoning of the South Australian Full Court in Duffy (FC).[18]

    [Just so you don’t try to lie your way out, I’ll make it clear that this section comes before the part where the judge decides to what extent the subordinate distributor provisions do or don’t exempt Google. The judgment states later that Google won part of the case because of the subordinate distributor provisions.]

    Come on you disgracefully dishonest conceited ignorant and stupid little turd – repeat your assertion that liability in defamation doesn’t depend on being a publisher, and then explain how that “liability” is determined in a way that automatically lets Google et. al. off the hook without needing to rely on the subordinate distributor provisions.

  130. Iampeter

    I have, again and again. I’ve told you that liability works by means of sources of law i.e. statutory provisions and judicial authorities which prescribe

    No mate, you don’t even understand how liability works, despite the very straight forward example I keep giving you. You don’t need to get into “statutory provisions and judicial authorities which prescribe anything.” You don’t even get the basics.

    Poor old intellectual failure. I’ve explained over and over again that the subordinate distributor provisions do in fact exempt people like Twitter for what they host in the normal course of their business (but if it wasn’t for the exemption they would be liable).

    LOL. No, they wouldn’t. You don’t understand how liability works.

    liability is what determines if you can be sued for defamation,
    Please identify the statute or judicial decision which you claim prescribes what “liability” means in this context.

    I can’t image what part of “liability is what determines if you can be sued for defamation” could possibly need further clarification.

  131. Tim Neilson

    Come on you contemptible little liar – tell me again that I’ve misunderstood the judgment.

  132. Tim Neilson

    I can’t image what part of “liability is what determines if you can be sued for defamation” could possibly need further clarification.

    The meaning of “liability” in the context of defamation, as contrasted with any other type of tortious or other legal liability.

    Google submitted that it could not be liable as a secondary publisher, because its search engine is fully automated and does not intend the communication of any particular words or images, including any third party webpage to which a user might navigate. I do not accept this submission, which is at odds with the reasoning of Beach J in Trkulja v Google Inc (No. 5),[16] with the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Trkulja (CA),[17] and with the reasoning of the South Australian Full Court in Duffy (FC).[18]

    This is a direct quote from a decision of a superior Court of record. Do you accept that the Court has correctly described the basis of Google’s liability – i.e. that it is a secondary publisher – subject only to the Court’s subsequent discussion of the subordinate distributor provisions? If not, perhaps you can explain why the Court is wrong.

  133. Tim Neilson

    Iamashiteater,
    You’re now well and truly got your scrotum stuck in the vice.
    You’ve been sucking yourself off in self-adulation, proclaiming that you know how liability works, and that you don’t need to resort to statutes or judicial decisions to justify your assertion that Google et. al. wouldn’t need the subordinate distributor provisions to escape liability for what they host on their platforms.
    I’ve just given you a direct quote from a judgment of a superior Court of record which says exactly the opposite to what you’ve said.
    So now you’ve got to either admit you’re totally wrong, and were utterly stupid and conceited to think that you could understand legal principles of liability without studying the relevant statutes and judicial decisions, or you’ve got to tighten the vice on your scrotum by claiming that the Court was wrong and you’re right even though you’ve never looked at a relevant statute or judicial decision.

  134. Kneel

    “So now you’ve got to either admit you’re totally wrong, and were utterly stupid and conceited to think that you could understand legal principles of liability without studying the relevant statutes and judicial decisions, or you’ve got to tighten the vice on your scrotum by claiming that the Court was wrong and you’re right even though you’ve never looked at a relevant statute or judicial decision.”

    Ah – you missed the options only available to leftists like Peter.
    Viz:
    1) continue as before ignoring any facts or logic because he knows he’s right
    2) fail to reply, and if it comes up, say he won anyway
    3) complain that you (ie, everyone else) “don’t understand”

    Of course, all three at once are his usual MO…

  135. Iampeter

    Tim, you not understanding how even basic examples of liability work, while trying to discuss cases that require at lot more understanding than these basics, is not an example of me being stuck.
    Obviously.

  136. Tim Neilson

    while trying to discuss cases that require at lot more understanding than these basics

    Yes, they do. And it helps to have read them. How do you claim to understand them? Please don’t hesitate to explain to me how the case doesn’t actually mean exactly what it says about how Google is prima facie liable in defamation. Please do. Go ahead. I’ll read your explanation with great attention.

    Poor old failure.
    He simply can’t comprehend, or can’t admit, that the law of defamation as spelled out in statutes and judicial decisions that he’s never read simply doesn’t accord with the comic book/cornflakes packet misconceptions of “these basics” that he’s somehow dreamed up without actually ever examining the relevant sources of law.

    Poor old loser. Just keep tightening the vice on your own scrotum.

    PS Kneel –3) complain that you (ie, everyone else) “don’t understand” Good call – off to Sportsbet to collect your winnings.

  137. Tim Neilson

    The poor old scrotum-tightener’s mental deficiencies are reliably on display yet again.
    Aside from the general conceit, stupidity, ignorance and dishonesty, he’s yet again showcased his inability to understand anything except facile absolutist generalities.
    He thinks that because the word “liability” is used both in defamation law and in other areas of the law, there must be one single universal set of rules for when liability arises.
    He’s just too stupid to comprehend that the rules for liability for defamation (about which he clearly knows nothing) may be different to the rules for liability in other areas of the law (about which he hasn’t evidenced any actual knowledge either, by the way).
    Thus, when presented with a judgment of a superior Court of record which says, in specific relation to defamation, exactly the opposite of his stupid generalised misconceptions about “liability”, all he can do is insist that, even though he hasn’t read the judgment, people who just quote exactly what the judgment says must be misunderstanding it.
    Poor old scrotum-tightener – if he wasn’t so conceited and dishonest you’d almost feel sorry for him.

  138. Tim Neilson

    PS Iamashiteater,

    Perhaps you could recommend me a good text on the basics of liability.
    It’s a long time since I got an upper second studying them with Professor Harold Luntz at Melbourne University Law School.
    A copy of your honours thesis on the subject will do fine – I’m sure that’s far and away the most perceptive view of the subject that’s ever been written.

  139. Iampeter

    Yes, they do. And it helps to have read them.

    Not if you don’t know how liability works. Without this you can’t tell if these are good judgement’s or not.

    Perhaps you could recommend me a good text on the basics of liability.

    Forget texts, you can’t even wrap your head around the simple example provided in this thread.

    It’s a long time since I got an upper second studying them with Professor Harold Luntz at Melbourne University Law School.

    Let me guess, you’re a tax lawyer? Or something similar?

  140. Tim Neilson

    Without this you can’t tell if these are good judgement’s or not.

    Aha, so you’re not prepared to accept the judgment as correctly stating the law, but you’re not prepared to read it and identify specifically what you think the Court may have got wrong – nor are you prepared to identify any other source of law, statute or judicial decision which supports your scepticism about the judgment.
    Do you really think that’s got any credibility?
    Come on, I’ve invited you to state precisely why you assert either that the decision is wrong or that the quote I’ve set out doesn’t mean exactly what it says.
    And you’ve repeatedly gutlessed out in an abysmal display of gutlessness and dishonesty.


    Forget texts, you can’t even wrap your head around the simple example provided in this thread.

    “Forget texts”! Oh what a giveaway! Once again, Iamashiteater dismisses the idea that he needs to point to any evidence in support of his assertions about law – all the world is just expected to accept his pronouncements, no matter how contrary they are to every available source of law in statute, judicial decision or otherwise.
    The problem with your “simple example” is that it consists of your mere assertion about Twitter, which is demonstrably inconsistent with decisions of superior Courts of record about Google. You say Twitter can’t be liable but you don’t explain why – you just think your mere assertion is sufficient. It isn’t. Your example is therefore no evidence at all. Your repeated insistence that your case rests on your own mere unsupported assertion that Twitter can’t be liable just proves that you’ve got 0.0000 [recurring to infinity] actual grounds for making the assertion.
    You keep tugging your peen about the basics of liability. Just state simply the source of law which you’ve used to come to your supposed knowledge of those basics. I’m directly accusing you of intellectual dishonesty – I’m saying you’ve never even looked at a source of law, you’re just relying on your own misconceived imagination to come up with your wrongology on the topic.

    Let me guess, you’re a tax lawyer? Or something similar?

    Yes. Now, how about you reciprocate and reveal your qualifications for expressing an opinion about “liability” in law. Or at least reveal the sources of law which you’ve used to form those opinions.

  141. Tim Neilson

    Come on you disgracefully dishonest and gutless shit. Tell us your qualifications for expressing an opinion about “liability” in law. Or at least reveal the sources of law which you’ve used to form those opinions.

    You are 100% ignorant about “liability” in law. And you’re a disgracefully conceited little turd who thinks that your mere pronouncement about Twitter somehow counts as evidence – it counts as evidence only of your conceit, ignorance and stupidity.

  142. Tim Neilson

    Let’s take it from the top.

    Google submitted that it could not be liable as a secondary publisher, because its search engine is fully automated and does not intend the communication of any particular words or images, including any third party webpage to which a user might navigate. I do not accept this submission, which is at odds with the reasoning of Beach J in Trkulja v Google Inc (No. 5),[16] with the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Trkulja (CA),[17] and with the reasoning of the South Australian Full Court in Duffy (FC).[18]

    This is a direct quote from a decision of a superior Court of record about Google’s potential liability in defamation.
    Do you accept that the Court has correctly described the basis of Google’s liability – i.e. that it is a secondary publisher – subject only to the Court’s subsequent discussion of the subordinate distributor provisions? If not, perhaps you can explain why the Court is wrong.
    If, instead, you claim that the Court’s decision on Google’s prima facie liability isn’t just as described in this direct quote, please explain why.

    If you can’t explain why the decision is wrong or why the Court didn’t actually mean what it said, then you should admit that you’ve been wrong all along.
    And, note, it’s nowhere near good enough to merely say “Google can’t be liable as a publisher in the way this direct quote from an authoritative decision of a superior Court of record says, because I say that Twitter wouldn’t be liable that way, even though I can’t identify a single source of law that supports that proposition and in fact I’ve never read a single source of law about how liability in law actually works”. Nor is it anywhere near good enough to just assert that I don’t understand the basics of liability – I’m not basing my argument on any opinion I hold, I’m basing it solely on what superior Courts of record say in authoritative decisions.

  143. Iampeter

    Aha, so you’re not prepared to accept the judgment as correctly stating the law…

    Um, no. That’s not what I said.

    “Forget texts”! Oh what a giveaway! Once again, Iamashiteater dismisses the idea that he needs to point to any evidence in support of his assertions about law

    Um, no. That’s not what I said.

    Yes. Now, how about you reciprocate and reveal your qualifications for expressing an opinion about “liability” in law.

    Bahahahahaha

  144. JC

    Yes. Now, how about you reciprocate and reveal your qualifications for expressing an opinion about “liability” in law.

    Bahahahahaha

    And, it’s the “politics”.

  145. Tim Neilson

    Aha, so you’re not prepared to accept the judgment as correctly stating the law…

    Um, no. That’s not what I said.

    I really don’t mind whether you accept the judgment as correct or not.
    The real point is that the judgment proves conclusively that you’re utterly and totally wrong about everything you’ve said about liability under defamation law, unless either:
    (a) it’s wrong – feel free to argue that – noting that you actually have to say why the judgment is wrong, not just assert that I don’t understand it, or liability, or whatever; or
    (b) it doesn’t actually mean what the quote I’ve presented to you says – feel free to argue that – noting that you’ll have to refer to the text of the judgment to explain any different meaning.

    But you can’t argue either because they’re both false.

    “Forget texts”! Oh what a giveaway! Once again, Iamashiteater dismisses the idea that he needs to point to any evidence in support of his assertions about law

    Um, no. That’s not what I said.

    So are you willing to do so? I’ve been asking for such evidence all thread, and you’ve failed to provide it.
    Because you can’t, because there isn’t any.
    Once again, it’s useless making sneering allegations about whether I understand this or that, because nothing I’m arguing is based on any opinion of mine, but on the express text of authoritative decisions of superior Courts of record.

    Yes. Now, how about you reciprocate and reveal your qualifications for expressing an opinion about “liability” in law.

    Bahahahahaha

    Yes, sorry, it is laughable to think that you’d be able to do any such thing, given that you’ve got no qualifications, have never accomplished anything in your life, and have never been able to hold down a job at even the lowest level of any organisation.

    But given that you’ve got zero qualifications to comment, perhaps you’d answer the second part of my question – Now, how about you reciprocate and reveal your qualifications for expressing an opinion about “liability” in law. Or at least reveal the sources of law which you’ve used to form those opinions.

    But more importantly …

    Let’s take it from the top.

    Google submitted that it could not be liable as a secondary publisher, because its search engine is fully automated and does not intend the communication of any particular words or images, including any third party webpage to which a user might navigate. I do not accept this submission, which is at odds with the reasoning of Beach J in Trkulja v Google Inc (No. 5),[16] with the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Trkulja (CA),[17] and with the reasoning of the South Australian Full Court in Duffy (FC).[18]

    This is a direct quote from a decision of a superior Court of record about Google’s potential liability in defamation.
    Do you accept that the Court has correctly described the basis of Google’s liability – i.e. that it is a secondary publisher – subject only to the Court’s subsequent discussion of the subordinate distributor provisions? If not, perhaps you can explain why the Court is wrong.
    If, instead, you claim that the Court’s decision on Google’s prima facie liability isn’t just as described in this direct quote, please explain why.

    If you can’t explain why the decision is wrong or why the Court didn’t actually mean what it said, then you should admit that you’ve been wrong all along.
    And, note, it’s nowhere near good enough to merely say “Google can’t be liable as a publisher in the way this direct quote from an authoritative decision of a superior Court of record says, because I say that Twitter wouldn’t be liable that way, even though I can’t identify a single source of law that supports that proposition and in fact I’ve never read a single source of law about how liability in law actually works”. Nor is it anywhere near good enough to just assert that I don’t understand the basics of liability – I’m not basing my argument on any opinion I hold, I’m basing it solely on what superior Courts of record say in authoritative decisions.

  146. Kneel

    Tim, Peter thinks that the entire concept of a publisher that publishes someone else’s words being liable for that content is wrong. That’s it – nothing else.

    What he fails to consider is that editorial choices can slant any correspondence in any direction the editor desires by many methods, thus changing the readers perception of events, potentially slandering an innocent.

    It’s also true that absolute truth is not a defense at law for libel in this country – can’t wait for his “thoughts” on that!

  147. Tim Neilson

    Kneel
    #3471066, posted on June 1, 2020 at 6:59 pm

    Yes, that’s essentially it.

    Of course even if he’d meant that only in a policy sense he’d still be wrong for the reasons you’ve set out.

    But where he got his scrotum caught in the vice was insisting that his view was the law, refusing to examine any actual source of law on the matter, and sneering that he didn’t have to look at the statute or the judicial authorities because he’s just oh so knowledgeable about how liability works.

    Then he had nowhere to go when it was proved that superior Courts of record had said exactly the opposite of what he was saying.
    From that moment, all his sneering about knowledge of how liability works just tightened the vice on his scrotum, with his nether garments falling to the ground and his bottom being spanked humiliatingly.

  148. Tel

    Google submitted that it could not be liable as a secondary publisher, because its search engine is fully automated and does not intend the communication of any particular words or images, including any third party webpage to which a user might navigate.

    Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee, giving the following statement:

    Guidelines. That is how we make sure the process is working. It is not some little man sitting behind the curtain. Basically, a compilation of what users are generating — trying to sort through that information — 3 Trillion searches ever single day. 15% of the searchs, we have never seen them before. This working at scale. We don’t manually intervene on any particular search.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?455607-1/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-testifies-data-privacy-bias-concerns

    On the other hand, Project Veritas got information from Zachary Vorhies who was working at Google and he explained there is a file called “news-black-list-site-for-google-now.txt” and would you know it? Turns out there really is a man behind the curtain, and this hand-edited list controls the sites that are deleted out of google search. Google then retaliated by reporting Vorhies to San Francisco police for a “mental health call” which involved sending around the SWAT team … you know the drill.

    Now this is my understanding of how the free market and rule of law works:
    * You can sell milk, and you can call it milk, and if asked under oath you testify, “This is in fact milk.”
    * You can sell melamine, and you can call it melamine, and if asked under oath you testify, “This is in fact melamine.”
    * What you must never do is sell melamine while pretending it is milk, and then testify under oath, “I say this is milk!”

    Google cannot get away with pretending that they don’t edit search results … when there is a witness on record who can show their black list where they have in fact edited those results. If you testify under oath, you better sure a heck not get caught telling porkies, that’s all I can say.

  149. Tim Neilson

    If you testify under oath, you better sure a heck not get caught telling porkies, that’s all I can say.

    If you or I do, yes. Unfortunately the “progressive” elite seem not to need to be so concerned about it. Even the Orange God-Emperor isn’t achieving a lot on that front.

  150. Iampeter

    The real point is that the judgment proves conclusively that you’re utterly and totally wrong about everything you’ve said about liability under defamation law

    No, it doesn’t. You don’t understand the cases because you don’t even understand what liability means.
    This is what I was actually saying…

    Tim, Peter thinks that the entire concept of a publisher that publishes someone else’s words being liable for that content is wrong. That’s it – nothing else.

    No, that’s not what I think. What I think has been written quite a few times now in this thread, but in typical Kneel fashion you have no idea what’s going on and don’t see that as a show-stopping problem to opining with the tone of an expert.

    It’s also true that absolute truth is not a defense at law for libel in this country – can’t wait for his “thoughts” on that!

    Ah, yes. Irrelevant tangents by confused tards! Politics!

    Now this is my understanding of how the free market and rule of law works:

    Except none of those examples are analogous to what Google was saying in those cases, which in turn isn’t even related to what’s actually being discussed.

    As usual you guys have no grasp of the basics, like how liability works, and are just jumping all over the place without realizing this is a show-stopping problem.

    LOL!

    And we’re not even getting into more advanced stuff like none of you know what “free speech” or “censorship” mean, etc.

    Just more priceless, one-of-a-kind content at the Cat.

  151. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3471519, posted on June 2, 2020 at 7:49 am

    Poor old Iamashiteater.

    He struts onto the thread, sneers at everyone else’s understanding of defamation law, makes snide remarks about understanding the basics of liability etc., and launches into one of his trademark fact-free, logic-free dogmatic absolutist bloviations, this time about defamation law…

    Then he gets his scrotum badly caught in a vice when it’s revealed that superior Courts of record have clearly and unqualifiedly authoritatively ruled that defamation law is the opposite to what Iamashiteater pontificated it is.

    To reiterate, how the law has been authoritatively ruled to be (Defteros v Google LLC):
    Google submitted that it could not be liable as a secondary publisher, because its search engine is fully automated and does not intend the communication of any particular words or images, including any third party webpage to which a user might navigate. I do not accept this submission, which is at odds with the reasoning of Beach J in Trkulja v Google Inc (No. 5),[16] with the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Trkulja (CA),[17] and with the reasoning of the South Australian Full Court in Duffy (FC).[18]

    The old scrotum-tightener then doubled down on his conceit, ignorance, stupidity and dishonesty by screaming hysterically that he didn’t need to read statutes, judicial decisions, extrinsic materials or academic texts to understand defamation law, and that defamation law simply couldn’t be as it was authoritatively declared to be in the express and unqualified words of superior Courts of record in their considered published judgments.
    The conceited little turd even accuses other people of not understanding a case that he himself has never read! What a turd! (Even now, the old scrotum tightener hasn’t actually explained how the quoted words can possibly mean anything except what they plainly say, or identified any other words from the judgment to justify his assertion – i.e. the pathetic shit is just lying.)

    The old scrotum-tightener didn’t fool anyone. “What should we believe about defamation law” they asked, “the totally unsubstantiated dogmatic pontification of the old scrotum-tightener or the express and unqualified words of superior Courts of record in their considered published judgments?”

    To the old scrotum-tightener’s astonishment, they went for the latter, and the old scrotum tightener was greeted with hoots and jeers of ridicule and contempt for the pathetically total and utter failure in life that he is.

    Poor old scrotum tightener.

  152. Tim Neilson

    You don’t understand the cases

    Please explain how the quoted words can possibly mean anything except what they plainly say, or quote any other words from the judgment to show that they don’t mean what they plainly say.
    It’s utterly facile to comment on whether I understand it – the words are plain, and unless you’ve got some grounds for saying they don’t mean what they say you should be honest enough to admit you’re wrong.


    because you don’t even understand what liability means

    Nothing I say is based on any opinion of mine – I’m just quoting the express and unqualified words of a superior Court of record in a considered published judgment.

  153. Iampeter

    He struts onto the thread, sneers at everyone else’s understanding of defamation law, makes snide remarks about understanding the basics of liability etc., and launches into one of his trademark fact-free, logic-free dogmatic absolutist bloviations, this time about defamation law…

    Um, no. That’s what many others, including yourself, have done here.

    You all responded to me, remember?

    Even this you get wrong…

  154. Tim Neilson

    Just to reiterate one point.

    When a superior Court of record publishes a judgment, it is not merely expressing an opinion on the law – its judgment has the authority of law by virtue of the status of the Court (see e.g. Edmonds J in the Indooroopilly case).

    Thus, when the Court stated in its judgment in Defteros v Google LLC…
    Google submitted that it could not be liable as a secondary publisher, because its search engine is fully automated and does not intend the communication of any particular words or images, including any third party webpage to which a user might navigate. I do not accept this submission, which is at odds with the reasoning of Beach J in Trkulja v Google Inc (No. 5),[16] with the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Trkulja (CA),[17] and with the reasoning of the South Australian Full Court in Duffy (FC).[18]
    … that statement is the law, unless there’s another equal or superior source of law (e.g. a decision of an equal or higher Court) to the contrary, or something elsewhere in the judgment materially qualifies those words.

    That’s why Iamashiteater, the old scrotum-tightener, is utterly impotent in the face of those words unless he can point to some other relevant source of law that negates them or can give a logical explanation of why those words themselves don’t mean what they plainly say. Sneers about whether I, or anyone else, understand “what liability means” do nothing except reveal the old scrotum-tightener’s 100% ignorance about the law and the legal system.

    The old scrotum-tightener can sneer all he likes about other people’s understanding of the cases, but unless he can quote from the actual words of those cases himself and articulate logically what the actual words of those cases mean, his bloviations are utterly meaningless.

  155. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3471661, posted on June 2, 2020 at 9:24 am

    Poor old Iamashiteater, the old scrotum-tightener.

    Once again displaying his humiliating abject failure, by being unable to actually quote from the authoritative words of the cases and articulate logically what those authoritative words – which ARE the law – actually mean.

    Just keep tightening the vice on your scrotum, Iamashiteater!

    Come on, display your utter abject failure to be able to discuss the actual cases by once again gutlessly and dishonestly retreating into irrelevant sneers about other commenters’ understanding – irrelevant because nothing I’ve said depends in any way on any opinion of mine, I’m just quoting the law itself as authoritatively ruled by a superior Court of record.

  156. Iampeter

    There’s no points for you to reiterate, LOL.
    You don’t even know how liability works so have no grounds in this discussion that you yourself started, LOL.
    Also, you’re original argument, that laws like s230 protect tech, is not supported by the case examples you yourself provided, since in both cases the judgement was against Google.

    You’ve literally gotten everything wrong on every level.
    This is like every thread with you so it’s not clear why you keep posting. It’s not like you’re ever going to save face or something.

    Just keep tightening the vice on your scrotum, Iamashiteater!

    Um, weird. And gross.
    You really are a creep, aren’t you?

  157. Tim Neilson

    You don’t even know how liability works so have no grounds in this discussion that you yourself started, LOL.

    I knew it! I knew that the poor old scrotum-tightener would gutlessly and dishonestly gutless out from a direct challenge to identify what words in the cases (or what other sources of law) he thinks support his view, and retreat into irrelevant sneers about understanding of liability.
    That’s because every single relevant source of law is exactly the opposite to his fact-free, logic -free bloviations.
    He’s got nothing (except a vice tightening on his scrotum).

    Also, you’re original argument, that laws like s230 protect tech, is not supported by the case examples you yourself provided, since in both cases the judgement was against Google.

    Poor old scrotum tightener! He hasn’t read the cases, and is 100% ignorant of every aspect of the law relevant to this discussion, so doesn’t understand that Google won part of the case, solely because (contrary to the old scrotum-tightener’s bloviations) they were able to rely on the subordinate distributor exemption for that part of the case, but lost the other part of the case because (contrary to the old scrotum-tightener’s bloviations) they were a publisher and therefore liable where an exemption didn’t apply.
    To think that the old scrotum-tightener, who doesn’t even know the actual result of the case (despite it having been explained to him again and again), accuses others of not understanding it! What a turd!

    Just keep tightening the vice on your scrotum, Iamashiteater!

Comments are closed.