from the initial-responders dept
This 7 days, equally our winners on the insightful aspect are nameless responses to commenters trotting out the exact outdated, unexciting, very easily dismissed arguments about written content moderation on our write-up about how incredibly minor articles moderation has anything to do with politics. In to start with place, it is a reaction to someone essentially just stating “nuh-uh, of system it does”:
Ummm… This total short article details out how social media has zero fucks to give about your political affiliation, they just never want fucking assholes on their support.
That you think about the persons having banned from social media for getting fucking assholes, ie racists, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, bigoted assholes, is getting biased in the direction of conservatives, it’s possible you must just take a very long tricky glance at the firm you want to maintain and why you contact yourself a conservative.
In second put, it’s a response to an individual insisting that Techdirt’s individual comment flagging procedure is abused for political causes:
You are a fucking abusive troll.
It is not that we really do not like your politics, its that we don’t like fucking assholes like you.
Hell, for all you know, we could be aligned politically, it is just that I really do not act like a fucking asshole.
Why really don’t you men and women at any time master, it is not your politics we do not like, its you, the fucking asshole.
For editor’s preference on the insightful side, we have acquired a pair of remarks from Stephen T. Stone. Initial, a remark about why platforms don’t make their moderation guidelines much more clear and specific:
But that lets “I’m not touching you”–type rules-lawyering assholes to glimpse for loopholes in the method and exploit them. That creates an infinite responses loop where by the mods attempt to fix the loopholes, only to open extra loopholes, which the assholes will exploit, and repeat right until the guidelines are so microdetailed that persons can barely article something with out breaking the guidelines.
The full place of possessing some vagueness driving moderation choices is to permit for on-the-fly adaptation to cases admins did not hope when they wrote the principles. Get absent that vagueness and you get the opinions loop of “rules lawyering ➡️ resolve the policies ➡️ exploit the policies ➡️ policies lawyering…”, which does no one any excellent.
Subsequent, a remark about the lawsuit towards Barnes & Noble in Virginia:
Republicans went from “don’t go through that reserve in class” to “yank it from the library” to “fuck you, nobody should be capable to get this” in the span of a yr. Welcome to the “openly fascist with no apologies” phase of American conservatism.
Above on the funny aspect, our initially area winner is an nameless response to the assertion that Twitter blocking tales about Hunter Biden’s laptop computer swung the election:
That’s it I’m not gonna vote for hunter now!
In next area, it is Flakbait with a comment about Hertz refusing to fall prosecutions inspite of getting sued for bogus theft reviews:
For many many years, beginning in the early 60s, Avis – smaller than Hertz – played on their #2 rental motor vehicle firm standing with the slogan, “We Test More challenging.” It appears to be that Hertz’s participate in on that catch phrase is, “We’ll Demo You Tougher.”
For editor’s alternative on the amusing aspect, we have obtained a pair of comments about California’s blatantly unconstitutional monthly bill allowing for mother and father to sue internet sites due to the fact their young children are frustrated. Very first, it’s That One Man with an strategy about turning the tables:
Uncomplicated way to switch this close to if they had the guts
California: If social media does something that could make kids worse off and/or they transpire to serve as a good scapegoat for that they’ll be sued.
Social media: Alright, effectively we’ll be complicated this blatant unconstitutional Look At Us Executing One thing/Think of The Little ones bill but till then we’ll be prohibiting any particular person underneath 18 and who lives in california from working with our platforms, and you’d far better think we’re going to be telling them specifically who to blame for that.
California: But… that is us, you cannot blame us when we’re making an attempt to blame anything on you! Our young children are going to scream our ears off!
Very last but not least, it is Blake Stacey with a further way of on the lookout at it:
Now, now, let’s not be hasty. This complete “suing for the reason that the small children are depressed” plan could possibly have potential. For illustration, how about we sue politicians due to the fact the small children are depressed about their world being fucked.
That is all for this week, people!