|
natetimm posted:Does something really voluntarily fall out of popularity when the only people who no longer like it are the thin-skinned pseudo journalists writing the articles? Nobody has ever lamented the trash fire that is comments section before
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:52 |
|
natetimm posted:Does something really voluntarily fall out of popularity when the only people who no longer like it are the thin-skinned pseudo journalists writing the articles? Is something really popular when the only people who like it are overgrown seafood?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Does something really voluntarily fall out of popularity when the only people who no longer like it are the thin-skinned pseudo journalists writing the articles? uh yeah that's definition of voluntary. just because you're being a partisan tool being mad at a caricature doesn't suddenly get the government involved in a news organization's realization that comment sections only foster bitter weirdos
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Is something really popular when the only people who like it are overgrown seafood? Depends. Is Natetimm the only one of his monstrous kind?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I've moderated goon communities and my take away is a completely egalitarian point that just because a venue is possible does not mean it should exist. If you want a broader example Facebook for sure increases the quantifiable " free speech" in the world but that doesn't mean it either benefits nor improves society. There's a reason why it has the rep it does. I think once media companies reach a certain amount of control over the market where they run a near-monopoly and conspire with each other to maintain it, they should be subjected to the same types of laws that the government is subject to. Watching leftists tie themselves in a knot to suck corporate dick will never stop being amusing to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:uh yeah that's definition of voluntary. just because you're being a partisan tool being mad at a caricature doesn't suddenly get the government involved in a news organization's realization that comment sections only foster bitter weirdos He posted in the comments section of a website.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:54
|
|
natetimm posted:I think once media companies reach a certain amount of control over the market where they run a near-monopoly and conspire with each other to maintain it, they should be subjected to the same types of laws that the government is subject to. Watching leftists tie themselves in a knot to suck corporate dick will never stop being amusing to me. I think that instead of all this bullshit, we should end the concept of "private property". Who's with me?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
^^^ironically "criminal syndicalism" laws in America in the early 1900's before the Supremes' current 1A philosophy were mostly used to outlaw early communist meetings. OwlFancier posted:Possibly the best argument against free speech is that free speech implies that all speech is valid, when it really isn't. Sometimes, if not a lot of the time, people say things which are demonstrably wrong, either ethically or factually, and sometimes they say things which are so wrong, or say them so often, that it can cause material harm to other people in the process. Nope. No way does somebody unironically write that last bit. You had us going OwlFancier but no way does someone look at that and go "yep no way this will be abused." 
DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:56
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Nope. No way does somebody unironically write that last bit. You had us going OwlFancier but no way does someone look at that and go "yep no way this will be abused." When you're in the minority and out of power, the Bill of Rights is a sacred document and worthy of worship that must be obeyed. When you're in the majority and in power, it's an inconvenient speed bump to finalizing the defeat of your enemies. It's working exactly the way it's supposed to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think once media companies reach a certain amount of control over the market where they run a near-monopoly and conspire with each other to maintain it, they should be subjected to the same types of laws that the government is subject to. Watching leftists tie themselves in a knot to suck corporate dick will never stop being amusing to me. I'm not a leftist I'm a robo socialist. Slanderer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
natetimm posted:He posted in the comments section of a website. which has rules and bans bitter weirdos natetimm posted:When you're in the minority and out of power, the Bill of Rights is a sacred document and worthy of worship that must be obeyed. When you're in the majority and in power, it's an inconvenient speed bump to finalizing the defeat of your enemies. It's working exactly the way it's supposed to. lmao and what minority are you in natetimm
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think once media companies reach a certain amount of control over the market where they run a near-monopoly and conspire with each other to maintain it, they should be subjected to the same types of laws that the government is subject to. Watching leftists tie themselves in a knot to suck corporate dick will never stop being amusing to me. so just to make this clear, you really do believe that the removal of comment sections is just an additional barrier thrown around the towering edifece of corporate speech and a way to disenfranchise the little guy from being able to participate in public life that's irl what keeps you up at night comment sections as the last battlefield of free expression
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:lmao and what minority are you in natetimm christian white straight male, obvs. the most hated group in america
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
[quote="Literally The Worst" post=""452194185"] lmao and what minority are you in natetimm [/quote] Apparently not leftists. Which is a telling turn of phrase in itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Natetimm, what do you think of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier? Or Morse v. Frederick?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so just to make this clear, you really do believe that the removal of comment sections is just an additional barrier thrown around the towering edifece of corporate speech and a way to disenfranchise the little guy from being able to participate in public life It doesn't keep me up at night, but I certainly think it's being done so the writers for those sites can present their views without disagreement. Blaming their elimination on troll or low-content posts is just a convenient excuse to eliminate any sort of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Apparently not leftists. Not internet leftist, but still generally leftist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It doesn't keep me up at night, but I certainly think it's being done so the writers for those sites can present their views without disagreement. my model girlfriend keeps me up at night if you know what i mean, but i certainly think you're insane
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think once media companies reach a certain amount of control over the market where they run a near-monopoly and conspire with each other to maintain it, they should be subjected to the same types of laws that the government is subject to. Watching leftists tie themselves in a knot to suck corporate dick will never stop being amusing to me. Wait I thought the reason not having to publish comments was not a threat to free speech when done by newspapers because there's significant expense and effort involved. While websites don't have that expense and effort therefore they should protect free speech by publishing comments. Now, you're telling me that websites have a monopoly on the market. How can you have a monopoly on something as cheap and effortless as a website? Please clean the human flesh from your monstrous claw and use it to clumsily hunt-and-peck out your reasoning behind this. natetimm posted:If this is truly a problem for you in your life, I recommend chilling out because it's not really a problem. But not being able to go to any random website and write about the pleasure I would get in plunging a trident through the brittle shell of a loathsome crab endowed with a malignant parody of a human mind is a problem, right? Sharkie fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It doesn't keep me up at night, but I certainly think it's being done so the writers for those sites can present their views without disagreement. Blaming their elimination on troll or low-content posts is just a convenient excuse to eliminate any sort of discussion. so just to keep it clear, you think that most comment sections are full of well considered posts that are worth reading, comprehending, and responding to in turn this is what you believe. this is your argument that you're making and, having made this argument, expect people to take you seriously
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
I love the free speech that lets our newspapers call asylum seekers cockroaches. That's wonderfully helpful for minorities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
*drinks unfiltered sewage from a plastic cup* "i dont' even know why we have an FDA. in my experience, people are pretty good at judging for themselves what's fit to drink" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:lmao and what minority are you in natetimm
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Natetimm, what do you think of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier? Or Morse v. Frederick? So, I read the summaries for both of these and I would be of the opinion that the student's first amendment rights were violated in both instances, even though the court disagrees with me. Schools are by default arms of the state, and the state shouldn't have the power to suppress speech, even if somehow the power to do so being filtered down to a school makes it "different".
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Wait I thought the reason not having to publish comments was not a threat to free speech when done by newspapers because there's significant expense and effort involved. While websites don't have that expense and effort therefore they should protect free speech by publishing comments. Now, you're telling me that websites have a monopoly on the market. How can you have a monopoly on something as cheap and effortless as a website? Do you fancy yourself as Trident-man, righter of wrongs on the internet and protector of the downtrodden companies with cancelled comments sections?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
natetimm posted:So, I read the summaries for both of these and I would be of the opinion that the student's first amendment rights were violated in both instances, even though the court disagrees with me. Schools are by default arms of the state, and the state shouldn't have the power to suppress speech, even if somehow the power to do so being filtered down to a school makes it "different". So you don't believe that the compelling interests of an institution should help dictate what speech should be allowed there? Even if it's, say, a school that has a compelling interest to prevent its students from committing criminal activities, or a website that has a compelling interest to present itself as reasonable and unsupportive of hateful speech?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:So you don't believe that the compelling interests of an institution should help dictate what speech should be allowed there? Even if it's, say, a school that has a compelling interest to prevent its students from committing criminal activities, or a website that has a compelling interest to present itself as reasonable and unsupportive of hateful speech? I think the basic human rights of individuals, including free speech, should trump the interests of institutions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think the basic human rights of individuals, including free speech, should trump the interests of institutions. If you have a website, say a list of the best sewage outflow tunnels leading from the beach into the subterranean heart of Los Angeles, are you violating people's free speech and their basic human rights if you don't host comments?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think the basic human rights of individuals, including free speech, should trump the interests of institutions. i hate to break this to you but
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think the basic human rights of individuals, including free speech, should trump the interests of institutions. Sooo you would be 100% in favour of restricting the freedom of the press, then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think the basic human rights of individuals, including free speech, should trump the interests of institutions. Is Facebook a good thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Sooo you would be 100% in favour of restricting the freedom of the press, then? How so? When does the freedom of the press come into direct conflict with the basic rights of an individual? Give me a specific example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
You trying to pin him down with taking a coherent position is an abrogation of his right to shitpost all the time. Fascists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:lmao and what minority are you in natetimm quoting this until i get an answer preemptive lolin at him ging "i never said i was" despite that being the clear implication
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Is Facebook a good thing? Overall, yes. I know it's popular to hate on because everyone ends up adding some distant relative or friend from childhood and then having to deal with the fact that they are an idiot, but overall I think things like Facebook, and even Twitter, which I personally can't stand, do more good than bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
natetimm posted:How so? When does the freedom of the press come into direct conflict with the basic rights of an individual? Give me a specific example. To use my earlier example: http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...ts-commissioner I would suggest that people have a basic human right not to be referred to as cockroaches or to have national newspapers inciting hatred of them but maybe that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:quoting this until i get an answer That statement was a direct response to something another person said, not a declaration of my minority status. There's no mistaking the fact that every time either the right or the left get into power, the Bill of Rights becomes an obstacle to them, and the majority/minority statement I made was in reference to being in the political majority or minority, not some identity politics bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Overall, yes. I know it's popular to hate on because everyone ends up adding some distant relative or friend from childhood and then having to deal with the fact that they are an idiot, but overall I think things like Facebook, and even Twitter, which I personally can't stand, do more good than bad. I would honestly like to ask what good you think either are doing because this past week I watched a sitting senator try to get people to trend something from c-span.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:To use my earlier example: You would be wrong, then. Not being insulted is not a basic human right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
natetimm posted:That statement was a direct response to something another person said, not a declaration of my minority status. There's no mistaking the fact that every time either the right or the left get into power, the Bill of Rights becomes an obstacle to them, and the majority/minority statement I made was in reference to being in the political majority or minority, not some identity politics bullshit. glad i loled preemptively
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:29
|
|