Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:51 pm
Not sure if this is genuine:
Open to critical enquiry
https://scrutable.science/
It almost certainly isn't, it took me about twenty seconds to check that Pornhub's twitter account is just their name.
There are screenshots* showing that Fox News has been reporting it as fact. Not that that should change your assessment.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:41 pmIt almost certainly isn't, it took me about twenty seconds to check that Pornhub's twitter account is just their name.
Interestingly, some content producers do use Pornhub for non-p.rn content either because what they are covering is otherwise controversial (InRange is a firearms/history channel that decided to switch to self-demonetisation and distributed distribution as an antcensorship position) or because Youtube are rather capricious with moderation (though it didn't spur them to switch to PornHub, RoosterTeeth were getting demonetised on stuff like RWBY episodes which really don't warrant demonitisation)
hxxps://www. pornhub. com/model/changhsumath666/videosl --- a series of maths lectures. (hxxp protocol: videos are SFW but the rest of the site and accompanying adverts aren't. In case you didn't know.) Apparently Pornhub have had a bit of a crack-down on who they allow to post, for reasons according to which particular conspiracy theory you favour, but this guy is one of the few individuals who were specifically allowed to remain.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:41 pmInterestingly, some content producers do use Pornhub for non-p.rn content either because what they are covering is otherwise controversial (InRange is a firearms/history channel that decided to switch to self-demonetisation and distributed distribution as an antcensorship position) or because Youtube are rather capricious with moderation (though it didn't spur them to switch to PornHub, RoosterTeeth were getting demonetised on stuff like RWBY episodes which really don't warrant demonitisation)
Censorship of the internet has nothing to do with this discussion. None of the companies here are censoring the internet.Herainestold wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:49 pmDo you really want tech bros, oligarchs and billionaires censoring the internet for you? Social media and the internet need to be regulated by some sort of public process, not private entities.
The journalist Nicholas Kristof did an exposé where he found huge amounts of user-uploaded content was non-consensual and/or involving minors - pretty grim stuff. So rather than attempt to moderate each video, Pornhub have banned all uploads from unverified users https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55231181 (link is safe for work - the initialism in the url refers to the British Broadcasting Company).Sciolus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:54 pmhxxps://www. pornhub. com/model/changhsumath666/videosl --- a series of maths lectures. (hxxp protocol: videos are SFW but the rest of the site and accompanying adverts aren't. In case you didn't know.) Apparently Pornhub have had a bit of a crack-down on who they allow to post, for reasons according to which particular conspiracy theory you favour, but this guy is one of the few individuals who were specifically allowed to remain.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:41 pmInterestingly, some content producers do use Pornhub for non-p.rn content either because what they are covering is otherwise controversial (InRange is a firearms/history channel that decided to switch to self-demonetisation and distributed distribution as an antcensorship position) or because Youtube are rather capricious with moderation (though it didn't spur them to switch to PornHub, RoosterTeeth were getting demonetised on stuff like RWBY episodes which really don't warrant demonitisation)
This. I think the banning of Trump has conflated two different issues for a lot of people and it's really hard to get them to untangle them. The first issue is, does everyone get to have access to a public platform to speak their mind, unfiltered from formal oversight regardless of what they say? If you decide that there are limits on speech then the next issue is who gets to decide and enforce those limits. We have a situation currently where we have decided that there are limits on free speech (I don't know anyone who complained when ISIS and its supporters were blocked on twitter) but we haven't decided where those limits are and the private companies running the platforms lack external oversight and consistency in their application of their own rules.dyqik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:37 pmCensorship of the internet has nothing to do with this discussion. None of the companies here are censoring the internet.Herainestold wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:49 pmDo you really want tech bros, oligarchs and billionaires censoring the internet for you? Social media and the internet need to be regulated by some sort of public process, not private entities.
What you are advocating for here is forcing private companies to publish speech they they don't want to publish, and for which they may have legal liability.
The Serious Inquiries podcast did an episode on that article, looking at the sources of his data. It really looks like Kristoff was duped by a right-wing anti-p.rn organisation called Exodus Cry which is the ultimate source of a lot of his arguments, through its TraffickingHub Campaign. I didn't realise but Pornhub already has human screeners who watch every video before they're uploaded. They also have trusted flaggers who can take down videos immediately without them having to go through any adjudication process. They've had processes to report revenge p.rn since 2015. That's not to say there aren't problems with Pornhub, but compared to other social media platforms they're doing pretty well.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:50 pmThe journalist Nicholas Kristof did an exposé where he found huge amounts of user-uploaded content was non-consensual and/or involving minors - pretty grim stuff. So rather than attempt to moderate each video, Pornhub have banned all uploads from unverified users https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55231181 (link is safe for work - the initialism in the url refers to the British Broadcasting Company).Sciolus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:54 pmhxxps://www. pornhub. com/model/changhsumath666/videosl --- a series of maths lectures. (hxxp protocol: videos are SFW but the rest of the site and accompanying adverts aren't. In case you didn't know.) Apparently Pornhub have had a bit of a crack-down on who they allow to post, for reasons according to which particular conspiracy theory you favour, but this guy is one of the few individuals who were specifically allowed to remain.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:41 pmInterestingly, some content producers do use Pornhub for non-p.rn content either because what they are covering is otherwise controversial (InRange is a firearms/history channel that decided to switch to self-demonetisation and distributed distribution as an antcensorship position) or because Youtube are rather capricious with moderation (though it didn't spur them to switch to PornHub, RoosterTeeth were getting demonetised on stuff like RWBY episodes which really don't warrant demonitisation)
I am totally in favour of censoring the internet. I just don't want unaccountable capitalists doing it.dyqik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:37 pmCensorship of the internet has nothing to do with this discussion. None of the companies here are censoring the internet.Herainestold wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:49 pmDo you really want tech bros, oligarchs and billionaires censoring the internet for you? Social media and the internet need to be regulated by some sort of public process, not private entities.
What you are advocating for here is forcing private companies to publish speech they they don't want to publish, and for which they may have legal liability.
Who has censored the internet? Stop them at once!Herainestold wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:22 pmI am totally in favour of censoring the internet. I just don't want unaccountable capitalists doing it.dyqik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:37 pmCensorship of the internet has nothing to do with this discussion. None of the companies here are censoring the internet.Herainestold wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:49 pmDo you really want tech bros, oligarchs and billionaires censoring the internet for you? Social media and the internet need to be regulated by some sort of public process, not private entities.
What you are advocating for here is forcing private companies to publish speech they they don't want to publish, and for which they may have legal liability.
It is fine when Big Tech bans Donald Trump and his henchmen. What are you going to say when they ban AOC and Jeremy Corbyn?
It is a series of tubes.Grumble wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:32 pmWho has censored the internet? Stop them at once!Herainestold wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:22 pmI am totally in favour of censoring the internet. I just don't want unaccountable capitalists doing it.dyqik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:37 pm
Censorship of the internet has nothing to do with this discussion. None of the companies here are censoring the internet.
What you are advocating for here is forcing private companies to publish speech they they don't want to publish, and for which they may have legal liability.
It is fine when Big Tech bans Donald Trump and his henchmen. What are you going to say when they ban AOC and Jeremy Corbyn?
Do you know what the internet is?
Apologies if my comment came across as facetious --- the forum where I learned about this mostly favoured rather more barking conspiracy theories.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:50 pmThe journalist Nicholas Kristof did an exposé where he found huge amounts of user-uploaded content was non-consensual and/or involving minors - pretty grim stuff. So rather than attempt to moderate each video, Pornhub have banned all uploads from unverified users https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55231181 (link is safe for work - the initialism in the url refers to the British Broadcasting Company).Sciolus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:54 pmhxxps://www. pornhub. com/model/changhsumath666/videosl --- a series of maths lectures. (hxxp protocol: videos are SFW but the rest of the site and accompanying adverts aren't. In case you didn't know.) Apparently Pornhub have had a bit of a crack-down on who they allow to post, for reasons according to which particular conspiracy theory you favour, but this guy is one of the few individuals who were specifically allowed to remain.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:41 pmInterestingly, some content producers do use Pornhub for non-p.rn content either because what they are covering is otherwise controversial (InRange is a firearms/history channel that decided to switch to self-demonetisation and distributed distribution as an antcensorship position) or because Youtube are rather capricious with moderation (though it didn't spur them to switch to PornHub, RoosterTeeth were getting demonetised on stuff like RWBY episodes which really don't warrant demonitisation)
This doesn't seem to be true yet, but is supposedly under consideration.dyqik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:26 pmSomething Trump actually cares about might be happening: the PGA tour apparently says it will never go to his golf courses again, including stripping his courses of hosting the 2022 championship.
https://twitter.com/angry__saint/status ... 97376?s=19
Just so long as they are separated from most of people that could fall into their rabbit hole, that's a net benefit.
Yeah, though I think you can have groups.
It has everything to do with the discussion. Censorship is relevant when the intent and effect is to limit one person's ability to communicate with others based on the content of what they want to say. You can have state sponsored censorship and private censorship. When large providers provide a virtual monopoly on communication, then their actions are as significant as states'.dyqik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:37 pmCensorship of the internet has nothing to do with this discussion. None of the companies here are censoring the internet.Herainestold wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:49 pmDo you really want tech bros, oligarchs and billionaires censoring the internet for you? Social media and the internet need to be regulated by some sort of public process, not private entities.
What you are advocating for here is forcing private companies to publish speech they they don't want to publish, and for which they may have legal liability.
Unless I am misunderstanding you, you have it backwards. The motivation for Section 230 was make the law not be the way you say it should be. Paragraph (c)(2) of Section 230 explicitly allows companies to moderate objectionable content, even if it is constitutionally protected as free speech, without the fact of that moderation making the company liable for other content that it allows through.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:33 amThe rule for private companies should be that they get to choose if they are going to moderate content or not. If they moderate it, they are fully liable for anything said on their platform, while if they carry everything regardless then they get immunity from liability, That was the motivation for section 230.
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:50 pmPornhub have banned all uploads from unverified users https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55231181 ( link is safe for work - the initialism in the url refers to the British Broadcasting Company).
Talk-radio owner orders conservative hosts to temper election fraud rhetoric
By Paul Farhi
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... story.html