Racist goons are targeting the FCC chief — and his family

[lmachine]

So I would say, ThinkSapien, that these folks would not have been randomly attacked or picked on but that they started a fight they couldn’t finish.

If this is referring to the Gamergate victims then yes, you were definitely late to the Gamergate party.

Now, I think rape threats and death threats are just stupid—and if someone feels threatened, they should file a police report. If you’re first instinct is to upload that garbage to Facebook or twitter, my impression is you don’t take such threats seriously or do not feel that bad about it.

The threats were reported to the police and FBI. We even have lovely FBI documents that reveal they identified the perpetrators and got confessions but didn’t file charges.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The threats were reported to the police and FBI. We even have lovely FBI documents that reveal they identified the perpetrators and got confessions but didn’t file charges.

Sounds like a good compromise to me. But I’m sure you’ll understand if I don’t take the word of anonymous internet accounts for it.

If this is referring to the Gamergate victims then yes, you were definitely late to the Gamergate party.

True, but I do know they were basically targeting people like me. The response though was overblown by these folks. Threats need to be taken seriously.

They should have just used satire. There’s a mountain of material and people like Wu and Sarkessian act like walking memes.

 

[lmachine]

Sounds like a good compromise to me. But I’m sure you’ll understand if I don’t take the word of anonymous internet accounts for it.

…What sounds like a good compromise, and what anonymous internet accounts are are you not taking the word of? I’m confused how this is a response to what you quoted.

True, but I do know they were basically targeting people like me. The response though was overblown by these folks. Threats need to be taken seriously.

Again, I’m having a really hard time parsing this.
Who was targeting people like you, who are the people like you, and what response was overblown?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So you’ll excuse me if I don’t buy into all the politically and culturally selective moral outrage.

I think that might be better shared directly with those that you’ve seen express “culturally selective moral outrage.” I’ve not said much on my feelings on the matters. From what I can tell the issues for which you are expressing concern are not issues of concern that you have with me.

I’m trying to determine if bringing up gamergate on here is just a proxy attack on the free speech crowd

It’s part of the effect of humans having associative memory. A event with some set of attributes can invoke memories of other events that have the same or similar attributes.
Why is it that you think this might be an attack?

If you’re first instinct is to upload that garbage to Facebook or twitter, my impression is you don’t take such threats seriously or do not feel that bad about it.

I don’t agree with you on this. Twitter originally had little to no response for online harassment. Sharing the types of messages that one received made a larger audience aware of it and eventually resulted in Twitter taking steps to respond to it and in some cases identify the primary actors that were inspiring others to engage in such harassment.

True, but I do know they were basically targeting people like me.

What is it that causes you to feel like people that are similar to you were being targeted? What shared attributes do people that are like you in this sense have?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The threats were reported to the police and FBI. We even have lovely FBI documents that reveal they identified the perpetrators and got confessions but didn’t file charges.

Sounds like a good compromise to me. But I’m sure you’ll understand if I don’t take the word of anonymous internet accounts for it.

Would you take the word of the FBI’s public archives for it?

https://vault.fbi.gov/gamergate/Gamergate Part 01 of 01/view

(PDF Document)

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t agree with you on this. Twitter originally had little to no response for online harassment. Sharing the types of messages that one received made a larger audience aware of it and eventually resulted in Twitter taking steps to respond to it and in some cases identify the primary actors that were inspiring others to engage in such harassment.

I get to say N/A on this because of the conditional introductory phrase.

 

[pnewton]

Leftists are far more hateful and racist than people on the right. And this is that much worse because they make it a point to specifically say they are the better ones.

I don’t think that is the problem. Most of the back lash comes from those who are younger. Kids and young adults are the ones who are volatile and hateful. They plague both the left and the right.

 

[upant]

Google and Facebook

big tech companies want to be the only ones censoring the internet.

overturned monopoly protection

what about the tech companies demonetizing people?

who is protecting us from them?

a tech company should not be able to shut free speech down.

 

[Rhubarb]

They aren’t infringing on your free speech. You have protections against government prosecuting you for your speech. Tech companies aren’t government. And there are numerous ways to publish your message.

Meanwhile monopolies and discouraging competition is very much illegal. Apples and oranges my friend.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

what about the tech companies demonetizing people?

who is protecting us from them?

a tech company should not be able to shut free speech down.

That’s not a First Amendment violation. What is your understanding of the meaning of “free speech” in the context of the First Amendment?

 

[upant]

They aren’t infringing on your free speech.

did i say they were infringing?

i said:

a tech company should not be able to shut free speech down.

the original net neutrality plan had a safeguard for this. google lobbied the obama admin and that section was dropped.

ex senator franken recognized the defacto monopoly and was calling for laws against what google, facebook and twitter are doing. let us hope someone else champions the idea.

That’s not a First Amendment violation

did i claim it was protected?

these companies need to be regulated as well as the isp’s as obama’s fcc chief originally intended.

 

[Rhubarb]

You said “a tech company should not be able to shut down free speech”. So yes you did say infringing. Any worry about “free speech” relates to the First Amendment. You have freedom of speech. You don’t have freedom from the consequences of speech - like when youtube demonetizes hateful or incendiary or dangerous videos.

And demonetizing a video doesn’t shut their speech down. The video is still up for anyone to view. And there are numerous ways to publish on the internet.

And I’m sure you mean well but this whataboutism isn’t doing anyone any favors. It just is meant to muddy the waters and deflect from the original point. These are two different things that have different circumstances in play for each.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

a tech company should not be able to shut free speech down.

That’s not a First Amendment violation. What is your understanding of the meaning of “free speech” in the context of the First Amendment?

did i claim it was protected?

You said something about free speech. I asked you for your understanding of free speech. You responded by asking me if you had said something while not sharing your understanding of free speech. Pardon me for saying so, but with the evasion you are coming across as less than genuine.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And I’m sure you mean well but this whataboutism isn’t doing anyone any favors.

Additionally, not specific to this thread, in recent days I’ve seen a lot of playing the victim and expressions of anger and disagreement against things that no one has said or even implied. I’m getting the impression that there is some interest in spreading and maintaining discord.

 

[upant]

You said “a tech company should not be able to shut down free speech”.

free speech may have been the wrong words. free flow of information needs to be maintained

Addressing the prominence of firms like Google, Facebook and Amazon in data gathering and advertising, Franken wrote in the Guardian (contemporaneous with his speech):

As tech giants become a new kind of internet gatekeeper, I believe the same basic principles of net neutrality should apply here: no one company should have the power to pick and choose which content reaches consumers and which doesn’t. And Facebook, Google, and Amazon – like ISPs – should be “neutral” in their treatment of the flow of lawful information and commerce on their platforms. … While we fight to preserve the Order, we must now begin a thorough examination of big tech’s practices in order to secure the free flow of information on the internet.

 

[Rhubarb]

Being confronted with a threat to your beliefs and world view triggers the same parts of the brain that activates when you’re placed in physical danger. I chalk it up that. We respond to intellectual threats the same way as physical threats.

 

[Rhubarb]

And do you think this kerfuffle is intended to keep information flowing? Because what it allows is for ISPs to choke bandwidths and block IP addresses in certain circumstances. Which they were formerly not allowed to do.

Demonetizing, for example, InfoWars doesn’t silence Alex Jones or his messages. He is still able to post and spread his speech. He just won’t get paid by youtube for it. That’s not hampering any information.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Demonetizing, for example, InfoWars doesn’t silence Alex Jones or his messages. He is still able to post and spread his speech. He just won’t get paid by youtube for it. That’s not hampering any information.

It’s worth mentioning that one of the things that sparked some of YouTubes demonetization and adjustments of their demonetization process was that advertisers saw their videos were playing before some content to which they objected. (ex: I might not want my ads playing before a video on say how to steal cars) They made it known to Google that they didn’t want to be associated with that content. As a result videos could now have three statuses; monetized, earning no money, or a new status of being partially demonetized (in which case it can still make money, but there’s a reduced set of advertisers ). It’s not a Net Neutrality issue. YouTube still allows the video to be there, but it will get less or no money from Google Ad Revenue.

Explanation: The Adpocalypse: What it Means

 

[SuperLuigi]

It’s going to keep getting harder and harder to equate the left and the right. Fact is the left controls the institutions that produce what young people consume.

 

[niceatheist]

Rhubarb:

You said “a tech company should not be able to shut down free speech”.

free speech may have been the wrong words. free flow of information needs to be maintained

I’m assuming you are a believer in property rights. That being the case, if Facebook or Google wish to censor what appears on their sites, well, those sites are their property and they are within their rights to do so. There’s nothing stopping you building your own site or portal, and allowing whatever you want on it.