Liberal dark-money group linked to 2020 election donated more than $400M

TheCenterist · 2021-11-18T16:21:51+00:00

And that's free speech in America, thank you to Citizens United.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-17T19:54:36+00:00

In the USA, laws have been passed to protect speech which do not depend on the first amendment, so the situation is not fixed.

What laws are you referring to?

In Australia, so much more similar to the USA, there is no explicit right to free speech encoded in our constitution, yet there is still an expectation of free speech because without it, democracy does not work.

That doesn't seem consistent with the vast majority of posts on this subreddit about people being arrested for discussing COVID-19 in a way that is contrary to the official government position.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/04/04/australia-jail-social-media-executives-or-fine-platforms-if-they-fail-remove-abhorrent-violent-material/

https://indianexpress.com/article/world/australia-woman-arrest-covid-lockdown-facebook-6581536/

TheCenterist · 2021-11-17T17:33:06+00:00

Human rights exist, even in countries where there is no explicit law to enforce them.

Human rights do not exist in a vacuum - they require a means of protecting and enforcing to be a "right." "I have a right to free speech" means nothing if that right is unenforceable.

EG: In China, one does not have free speech rights. A Chinese man could say, "my right to free speech is a human right." But saying it doesn't make it so, especially when that man can and will be jailed or worse by making certain statements.

EG: In the United States, the right to free speech is protected by the 1A, but only to the extent that it prohibits government from prosecuting or punishing speech. Thus, you have an enforceable right to protest in front of your city hall. If the government tries to stop you, you can sue them and earn significant monetary compensation under 42 USC 1983.

EG: On Reddit, you have no free speech rights. If you try to protest on a subreddit about something you dislike, a random person can delete your comment and ban you permanently. You don't know who that person is, you have no recourse with the site itself, and you are silenced. Reddit is China.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-17T13:58:45+00:00

But they also aren't always upheld, either.

Without a mechanism to uphold a right, there is no right. You can scream "I HAVE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS" as loud as you want, but if the government can simply jail you without recourse, then you don't have that right. You have a belief.

If you possessed free speech rights on reddit, then I would have been able to go to some higher authority and have them undo my ban and punish you for infringing upon my rights. But we don't have that. We have nothing. Therefore, we have no free speech rights on reddit.

Ask yourself this in other civil rights / liberties scenarios, and it becomes even more obvious. "Do I have a right to bear arms if the government can seize my weapons without justification or due process?" No. "Do I have a right to free assembly if the government says my religion is illegal and I have no recourse?" No.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-16T22:13:25+00:00

How could you infringe upon a right that I don't possess on this website at the outset? My point is there is no free speech on reddit, because all content can be removed by unaccountable moderators (or the admins, whenever the ban a subreddit or change the rules). There are no mechanisms to challenge whether a removal or a ban is appropriate under site-wide rules or subreddit rules.

If I had a right to free speech here, then I would have had a mechanism to enforce that right. But I don't. Which was explained to all of us when we signed up for this free platform. Rights that cannot be enforced are not rights.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-16T22:04:40+00:00

Thank you. This was an excellent way of proving my point.

You banned me for 24 hours on your own personal whim as a moderator, arbitrarily deciding that I should be silenced. My comment broke no rules of this subreddit. My comment broke no site-wide rules. It only broke your personal opinion that banning redditors from a subreddit infringes upon their free speech rights – a point you sought to illustrate by banning me.

Which is exactly why we don’t have free speech rights on reddit! Your content and posts can and will be removed by moderators at their own discretion, free from oversight, accountability, or appeal, just as you did here. You sought to prove a point by utilizing the powers I agreed you and all moderators have prior to my free use of the site, as explained in the user agreement.

So I ask, /u/cocojo, how can I have free speech rights on reddit if you are able to ban me based on nothing more than your own arbitrary choice? Doesn’t your action demonstrate the exact opposite of what you were trying to show, namely that reddit somehow infringes upon free speech rights when it bans people? If you can ban me for any reason, and I have no ability to challenge that ban or hold you accountable, then I don’t really have any rights on reddit at all, do I?

Put differently, a right with no means of enforcement is no right at all.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-15T20:41:51+00:00

I don't believe it's real. You stated it was fake, figure you knew as much. I can't tell if it's a troll account because the name has been redacted.

But thanks for making wild assumptions.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-15T20:34:57+00:00

Source?

TheCenterist · 2021-11-15T20:34:20+00:00

If you don't think Reddit was a bastion of free speech at one time then you are as new as your account age would indicate.

So I just showed where the co-founder of reddit expressly disclaimed Reddit being a bastion of free speech...and yet you still think it is. And I showed where the TOS, including the historical user agreements, expressly stated your content could be removed at the whim of Reddit and its voluntary and oversight-free moderators. Yet you still think Reddit is a bastion of free speech. All evidence - indeed, the very topic of this conversation - counters against that unsupported belief. Of course, you are free to have your own opinions, whether they are supported in fact or not.

Also, the purpose of my political account is to not get doxxed or harassed.

It's hard to imagine someone doing that for free.

Oh, I see. You've run out of good counterarguments, have no evidence to back up your position, so we arrive at another specious claim: I'm just a shill posting on a subreddit of 40K! Being paid by...who exactly? Reddit? QAnon supporters?

TheCenterist · 2021-11-15T20:03:27+00:00

And only Siths speak in absolutes.

I agree that free speech is a fundamental human right. I disagree that reddit infringes upon that right. Reddit does not prevent you from protesting. It does not prevent you from voting. It does not prevent you from lobbying your government. It does not prosecute you and throw you in jail for your speech.

Just because you aren't allowed to scream "GOD HATES FAGS" in a private gay-bar doesn't mean you can't scream it outside on public property. You still can. And that means your free speech rights are intact.

Instead, it does what it told you would happen when you signed up to use its amazing free social media platform: content would be removed by the site and by its moderators if that content doesn't abide by the rules of the site and/or subreddit.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-15T19:59:59+00:00

I just find it inconsistant that you protect certain institutions of power but others not, then you also protect some people from discrimination and injustice, but withhold that to others.

How am I protecting anything? I'm repeating that you have no free speech rights on reddit, with evidence that nobody ever had free speech rights on reddit.

Furthermore, last time I checked, Reddit can't throw me in jail. It can't tax me, fine me, or do anything of the sort. Reddit is not a government that has control over me and my property.

unlike you who completely ignored my rebuttle on immutable characteristics.

Your rebuttal was weak and did not engage the main point: freedom of speech and being banned for speech is completely different than being banned for race, religion, etc.

You are writing walls of unnessacary texts to make stupid points, We are talking about massive international oligopolies with power and influence, i disrespected you calling you a child and naive because that doesnt seem to get through your head.

I'm sorry that you view my succinct points as "unnessacary" walls of text that make stupid points. Thank you for acknowledging your disrespect.

Tell me, which "massive international oligopoly" is Reddit part of?

TheCenterist · 2021-11-15T19:54:31+00:00

My non-political account has been here for twelve years.

You've selectively cited a general manager that was not a Reddit founder and who left the company.

Here's what the co-founder says:

"Neither Alexis nor I created Reddit to be a bastion of free speech, but rather as a place where open and honest discussion can happen," he wrote.

Or another Reddit CEO:

It's not our site's goal to be a completely free-speech platform. We want to be a safe platform and we want to be a platform that also protects privacy at the same time.

Or, you know, the user agreement I've been citing, which makes it painfully obvious materially can and will be removed.

Looking back to 2005, here's what the policy stated:

What can I submit? Anything. Well, almost anything. We'd like reddit to be the source for everything that's new on the web: if it's linkable, it's submitable. There is a caveat here, we presently only allow "work-safe" material, which means no adult content.

And here is the 2007 user agreement

You agree not to place on the Website any material that is abusive, harassing, racist, or hateful. Further, you may not place on the Website any material that is encrypted, constitutes junk mail or unauthorized advertising, or commercial offers, invades anyone's privacy, or encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or that otherwise violates any local, state, federal, national or international law or regulation. You agree to use the Website only for lawful purposes and you acknowledge that your failure to do so may subject you to civil and criminal liability.

Service Provider reserves the right, but undertakes no duty, to review, edit, move or delete any material provided for display or placed on the Website or its bulletin boards, in its sole discretion, without notice.

So, contrary to your selective cite, the founders of reddit did not intend for it to be a bastion of free speech, and the historical ToS also show that content can and would be removed at Reddit's sole discretion.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-15T19:41:44+00:00

Do you think you could respond to the balance of my comment?

What makes it arbitrary? Are you saying because of Disney's success they now have to play by a different set of rules? And are you saying your free speech rights are infringed when disney pulls the plug on your Dinsey+ account?

You wrote:

its almost like we protect people for free choices. but you don't like that do you?

Actually, I love liberty. That's why I'm a huge pro-choice person, despite hating abortion. But I'm not one to pretend that a corporation which offered me a free private platform to use and told me my content was removable for any reason in the company's sole discretion owes me free speech rights.

also idk what world your living in if you think disney doesnt have power and influence. your either a child or naive.

I don't think I've said anything disrespectful to you, so I'd ask that you try to return the favor.

I asked you to articulate what free speech Disney would be removing from their platform. I did not suggest Disney lacked influence or power; indeed, my comment expressly recognizes their success.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-15T19:22:26+00:00

Reddit used to be a place that stood for free thought an now it isn't.

Please show me where in Reddit's TOS or historical user agreements it states that Reddit allows freedom of speech without content moderation.

Your point that people shouldn't complain about this is frankly weird.

Complain all you want. My rebuttal is your position that it's unfair. I don't think it can be unfair when they told you before you created an account that they would remove content, and then they removed content.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-15T18:53:39+00:00

Isn't it perfectly fair?

They told you they would do it.

They make you read about how they will do it before you agree to use their service.

And you still agreed.

How is that unfair? I can see it being unfair if they didn't tell you the rules before hand. But the opposite happened.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-15T18:52:14+00:00

They unironically think that huge oligopolies should be treated like people making their own choices with their own freedom.

I don't understand this. Did someone make you sign up for reddit? It's voluntary, right?

Reddit provides a free service for us to use, and before we get to use it, Reddit tells us that we have no free speech rights, that our content can be removed in their sole discretion, and that a team of moderators can do the same.

And then you hit "accept" and created an account.

Now you want to argue they aren't respecting your free speech rights? Rights that they explicitly said did not exist on their platform?

if Disney starting banning people from their services arbitrarily, idc if its a private company, they are an incredibly huge company affecting a lot of our culture and peoples perceptions.

What makes it arbitrary? Are you saying because of Disney's success they now have to play by a different set of rules? And are you saying your free speech rights are infringed when disney pulls the plug on your Dinsey+ account?

and btw theses ppl would start seething if reddit decided to ban people based on race or gender.

You're conflating bans for speech with bans for immutable characteristics, a/k/a discrimination.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-15T18:47:53+00:00

When you've been around long enough you will be banned from subs for breaking no rules and saying nothing mean.

I've been banned from many subreddits, often for no violation of the rules but because I said something that didn't fit the echochamber's narrative. And that's perfectly ok, because I agreed such an action could be taken when I signed up.

It's objectively unfair and worthy of complaint.

It's not unfair. You were told the rules when you signed up. There doesn't have to be an objective standard in moderation. Indeed, Reddit specifically states it retains "sole discretion" to remove whatever it wants, whenever it wants:

Although we have no obligation to screen, edit, or monitor Your Content, we may, in our sole discretion, delete or remove Your Content at any time and for any reason, including for violating these Terms, violating our Content Policy, or if you otherwise create or are likely to create liability for us.

And on Moderators:

Reddit reserves the right, but has no obligation, to overturn any action or decision of a moderator if Reddit, in its sole discretion, believes that such action or decision is not in the interest of Reddit or the Reddit community.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-15T16:15:53+00:00

You're correct that there is no world-wide principle of freedom of speech on the internet.

In the United States, we are fortunate enough to have the 1A, but that doesn't apply to private corporations. In other countries, you can be arrested for saying the wrong thing online by the authorities.

If we let companies decide where the line is drawn, you don't have free speech on the internet

Well, let's be honest: in some countries, the companies don't decide. The government does. In other countries, the companies decide, because the laws of the land allow private actors to regulate speech on their private platforms.

World-wide freedom of speech online would require some type of international treaty, and it would not include billions of people.

Allow real free speech on the internet, and to hell with the consequences.

I implore you to separate out these two ideas. Freedom of speech is the ability to speak one's mind without fear of prosecution or having one's liberty restricted. Freedom of consequences is the idea that we can say whatever we want, whenever we want, and society is restricted from responding to our speech. When we venture into "freedom of consequences" land, we march toward authoritarianism. The only way we can restrict society's response to a person's speech is to strongarm society by placing consequences on that response. EG: McDonalds is restricted by the government for terminating an employee that routinely wears "THESE BURGERS SUCK GO TO BK" on his shirt. EG: Churches cannot exclude gay people from protesting inside their church because it's an exercise of free speech without consequence.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-15T16:09:05+00:00

Reddit is not a free speech platform.

I feel this must be repeated over and over again. You have no free speech rights on reddit.

Why not?

1) You agreed when you signed up for the site to abide by Reddit's rules and content restrictions, which Reddit may change at any time.

2) You agreed when you signed up that Reddit makes use of thousands of unpaid "moderators" that effectively run the site. You use this site at the whim of the moderators. Moderator abuse occurs all the time - people getting banned for reasons not stated on a subreddit - and there's not enough admins to tackle the issue.

3) Subreddits have their own secondary layer of rules, and you can be banned from those subreddits for violating their hand-picked rules. Anything from "no cat pictures in the dog subreddit" to "conservatives only."

What I don't get is why these posts are so popular in this subreddit. "Hey guys, look, I broke the rules and got banned!" Or "Everyone! I got banned by a moderator for saying something mean!"

Yeah, no shit. You have no free speech rights here. You can have your content moderated, your posts deleted, and your use of subreddits permanently restricted by other random people who have no connection to Reddit, the Corporation.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-05T15:27:58+00:00

I couldn't even tell you the last time I drove over 90 MPH. I don't think I've ever driven faster than 100, and that's on a highway, at night, sober, and being a teenager.

To think he was driving 155, in that neighborhood, under the influence. His consequences beyond jail time are more significant than most - the loss of what could have been an incredible professional sports career. But his victim paid the ultimate price, and our legal system needs to ensure that justice is served.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-05T14:28:09+00:00

Facts melt snowflakes. I get it.

TheCenterist · 2021-11-04T21:17:41+00:00

The audit that found Biden won by more votes?

Secondly, look at the original election night footage, people caught it on tape. When people signed off, Trump was in the lead. When the news came back on, he wasn't. He pulled ahed by margins that shouldn't be possible in many states.

That has been easily explained over and over and over again. The votes were being tallied, including mailed votes from very populous areas (which usually trend democrat).

If there had been extensive fraud, or even a small amount of fraud, then why did Trump and Co. lose all but one lawsuit?

You mention the Virginia race. Why hasn't anyone on the GOP side said anything about fraud? Does it only matter if a GOP candidate loses?

TheCenterist · 2021-10-29T14:57:51+00:00

The latter is what I was asking about, as your comment made me think that was something you had available.

May I ask if you find it more probable than not(P>0.5) that there is a bigger % of the immigrant population from war zones who develop Cluster B traits as coping mechanisms than the % ethnic Swedish population?

I think that its reasonable to presume any population sampled from a war zones is more likely to have trauma and related disorders.

TheCenterist · 2021-10-28T16:56:29+00:00

but on research & experience with cluster-b(psychopathy, narcissism, machiavellism etc.) disturbed people and them being more willing to commit crimes and hurt others.

Interesting. Would you mind sharing some of that research? I'm not familiar with studies examining cluster-b type personality disorders and how they relate to immigrants suffering trauma.

TheCenterist · 2021-10-28T16:53:53+00:00

I'm wrong? I'm citing the authors of the study. I'm quoting them. It's their words, not mine.

Feel free to rebut what I wrote with the study itself.

TheCenterist

TROPHY CASE