Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Law and Crime)   Laura Loomer's "censorship" claims against Apple, Google, Facebook, and Twitter "do not warrant a published opinion." Oh, SNAP   (lawandcrime.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Sherman Antitrust Act, United States Constitution, Supreme Court of the United States, Pleading, federal court, Due process, Freedom Watch, Clayton Antitrust Act  
•       •       •

4906 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 May 2020 at 12:42 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



122 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-05-27 9:03:40 PM  
I am sure that won't spawn an elaborate conspiracy wherein the Deep State has converted Federal judges through a vast network of launderers that spike their detergents with mind control drugs, and that she now fears for her life from sex dungeon pizza delivery assassins, to stop her signal from reaching The People...
 
2020-05-27 9:05:57 PM  
Twitter? The one that lets Trump say whatever the hell he wants no matter how offensive?

Facebook? The one that gladly hosts racist nazis

Google? The one that censors stuff for the conservative leadership of China?

Apple? Apple? Jeez.
 
2020-05-27 9:50:20 PM  
Suck it Looner and Klanman.
 
2020-05-27 10:24:47 PM  
Perhaps Todd should give Laura noogies by getting her in a headlock and knocking her on the top of the head, then make fun of her flat chest, looking down her shirt to see whether there are "any new developments"
 
2020-05-28 12:27:39 AM  
Hope she brought a diaper this time for when she pissed her pants in rage.
 
2020-05-28 12:30:53 AM  
Trump neither, other that to point out the President doesn't understand the First Amendment. Even. A. Little.
 
2020-05-28 12:43:54 AM  
OK Loomer
 
2020-05-28 12:46:50 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-28 12:47:54 AM  
imgs.xkcd.comView Full Size
 
2020-05-28 12:47:59 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-28 12:49:57 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-28 12:50:40 AM  
Quick Trumpin, to the TurtleCave to confirm another dozen federal justices!

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-28 12:51:34 AM  

Excelsior: [imgs.xkcd.com image 566x577]


When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.
 
2020-05-28 12:54:55 AM  
edmo: Twitter? The one that lets Trump say whatever the hell he wants no matter how offensive?

Facebook? The one that gladly hosts racist nazis and recommends ones they feel best suit your needs.

Google? The one that censors stuff for the conservative leadership of China?

Apple? Apple? Jeez.

FTFY
 
2020-05-28 12:56:16 AM  

OgreMagi: Excelsior: [imgs.xkcd.com image 566x577]

When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.


Except none of these are monopolies.

There's no law against being a large corporation.
 
2020-05-28 12:57:01 AM  
Ultimately, if they feel that Twitter is unfairly suppressing conservative views, there is a simple solution:

Make your own social media platform that doesn't. Best of luck to you if you try.
 
2020-05-28 12:58:23 AM  

OgreMagi: Excelsior: [imgs.xkcd.com image 566x577]

When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.


Since when were social media services the only means of communication?

Talking still exists. Phones still exist. Shouting in a public place still exists. TV still exists. Twitter doesn't hold a monopoly on anything, and there are in fact other platforms in existence that try to be similar to Twitter.
 
2020-05-28 1:01:02 AM  

Nuclear Monk: edmo: Twitter? The one that lets Trump say whatever the hell he wants no matter how offensive?

Facebook? The one that gladly hosts racist nazis and recommends ones they feel best suit your needs.

Google? The one that censors stuff for the conservative leadership of China?

Apple? Apple? Jeez.

FTFY


Well, I'm going to sue Facebook then, they seem to only serve the far right, how's an all-in Stalinist supposed to find fun yet brutal Facebook buddies?

How?

Asking for a friend, who is not named Trotsky.  Cuz Stalin had him whacked off.

Heheh  Trotsky.
 
2020-05-28 1:02:14 AM  
Larry Klayman. If you want a lawsuit to fail, just call Larry. He's the Donald Trump of lawyers.
 
2020-05-28 1:02:51 AM  
Poo flung far and wide.  And it didn't stick.  Bless her heart
 
2020-05-28 1:08:40 AM  

OgreMagi: Excelsior: [imgs.xkcd.com image 566x577]

When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.


So is it a monopoly, or is it a Conspiracy of different actors?  Either way, dumbs.  Should be permabanned.
 
2020-05-28 1:11:41 AM  
But but...  I WANT to spew my garbage on THEIR platforms!!

How dare they apply their bullshiat 'Rules and Conditions of Use' (that I didn't bother to read or understand) to stop ME from spreading MY MESSAGE to the PEOPLE!!

They NEED this information!  How DARE they censor ME!!
 
2020-05-28 1:12:53 AM  
"But because they have failed to tie these concerns to colorable legal claims, the Court must dismiss their Amended Complaint."

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-28 1:13:41 AM  

OgreMagi: Excelsior: [imgs.xkcd.com image 566x577]

When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.


True!

However it is irrelevant.

For example, right now we are communicating on Fark, which is neither owned by Twitter, Google and Facebook, nor is it owned by Apple.

Fark is just one of the many examples of methods of communication not served by those four.
 
2020-05-28 1:14:39 AM  

abhorrent1: [Fark user image image 262x395]


Are you saying Robert Z'dar looks like Loomer?  That's just mean.
 
2020-05-28 1:16:03 AM  
If we all lived alone on islands strung together by Google's Coconut and String service, then yeah. Censorship by Google might be held to a greater standard.
 
2020-05-28 1:17:02 AM  

vudukungfu: Perhaps Todd should give Laura noogies by getting her in a headlock and knocking her on the top of the head, then make fun of her flat chest, looking down her shirt to see whether there are "any new developments"


Knock it off, Todd!
 
2020-05-28 1:17:10 AM  

OgreMagi: Excelsior: [imgs.xkcd.com image 566x577]

When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.


Err... four different competing platforms, each of which have their own twist of social media, were sued.  And these are just the BIG four.  I can probably think of another dozen off the top of my head without resorting to internet research, and I don't USE social media.

And that is restricted to simply digital platforms.

So ...  where is the monopoly?
 
jvl [BareFark]
2020-05-28 1:17:46 AM  

OgreMagi: When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.


(a) Wrong, none of those are monopolies.

(b) Wrong. Section 230 explicitly permits and encourages folks like Twitbook and Fark to moderate user-written content without making them responsible for un-moderated content.  (Yes, that is exactly the opposite of what right-wing trolls will tell you)

(c) Wrong. There is no "unless you are a monopoly" exception to the First Amendment. (Requiring someone to publish someone else's speech not permitted under the First)
 
2020-05-28 1:23:36 AM  

Massively Multiplayer Addict: Since when were social media services the only means of communication?


If you want to post a video and hope for any reasonable distribution, you only have one real choice, youtube (google).  They have a history of censorship, and I'm not referring to blocking nazi videos.  For example, just yesterday it was revealed that any comments that referred to 五毛党 or "Fifty Cent Party", would automatically get deleted.  I even tested it and made a post with the banned phrase, both in Chinese and English, on a video about a CCP aircraft carrier.  Within a minute my post disappeared.  My posting history indicated I had never made the post.  Youtube blamed it on a program error.  I (and many others) call bullshiat.  They have since stopped auto-deleting posts with that phrase, but you have to wonder what other phrases will trigger a deletion.

Twitter also has a history of censorship.  They have a history of banning tweets that differ from their personal political preferences while ignoring flagrant violations by those that fit their personal narrative.
 
2020-05-28 1:24:28 AM  

jvl: OgreMagi: When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.

(a) Wrong, none of those are monopolies.

(b) Wrong. Section 230 explicitly permits and encourages folks like Twitbook and Fark to moderate user-written content without making them responsible for un-moderated content.  (Yes, that is exactly the opposite of what right-wing trolls will tell you)

(c) Wrong. There is no "unless you are a monopoly" exception to the First Amendment. (Requiring someone to publish someone else's speech not permitted under the First)


Well, just to play devil's advocate,  when companies do achieve true monopolies over their respective 'area', there can be a significant amount of government oversight (hell, look how far the US and EU governments have their hands up the asses of the companies listed in the suit, and they are not considered monopolies).

That could allow a loophole there for a court challenge, but you would have to prove it was a monopoly, and that their polo ies were directlyinfluenced by the government.
 
2020-05-28 1:25:51 AM  

OgreMagi: Massively Multiplayer Addict: Since when were social media services the only means of communication?

If you want to post a video and hope for any reasonable distribution, you only have one real choice, youtube (google).  They have a history of censorship, and I'm not referring to blocking nazi videos.  For example, just yesterday it was revealed that any comments that referred to 五毛党 or "Fifty Cent Party", would automatically get deleted.  I even tested it and made a post with the banned phrase, both in Chinese and English, on a video about a CCP aircraft carrier.  Within a minute my post disappeared.  My posting history indicated I had never made the post.  Youtube blamed it on a program error.  I (and many others) call bullshiat.  They have since stopped auto-deleting posts with that phrase, but you have to wonder what other phrases will trigger a deletion.

Twitter also has a history of censorship.  They have a history of banning tweets that differ from their personal political preferences while ignoring flagrant violations by those that fit their personal narrative.


You may not like the other options, but they exist.  The fact that one company has market dominance does not equal monopoly.
 
2020-05-28 1:29:27 AM  

OgreMagi: Massively Multiplayer Addict: Since when were social media services the only means of communication?

If you want to post a video and hope for any reasonable distribution, you only have one real choice, youtube (google).  They have a history of censorship, and I'm not referring to blocking nazi videos.  For example, just yesterday it was revealed that any comments that referred to 五毛党 or "Fifty Cent Party", would automatically get deleted.  I even tested it and made a post with the banned phrase, both in Chinese and English, on a video about a CCP aircraft carrier.  Within a minute my post disappeared.  My posting history indicated I had never made the post.  Youtube blamed it on a program error.  I (and many others) call bullshiat.  They have since stopped auto-deleting posts with that phrase, but you have to wonder what other phrases will trigger a deletion.

Twitter also has a history of censorship.  They have a history of banning tweets that differ from their personal political preferences while ignoring flagrant violations by those that fit their personal narrative.


Also not true.

You could buy a TV ad. You could post it on LiveLeak. Hell you could post it on PornHub. You could build your own website. You could save it on Mega and give people links to it.

Regardless of all of that, unless Google comes and cuts your vocal cords out and removes your fingers if you don't post your communication as a video, video distribution is nowhere near the "only means of communication".
 
2020-05-28 1:29:36 AM  

Massively Multiplayer Addict: Ultimately, if they feel that Twitter is unfairly suppressing conservative views, there is a simple solution:

Make your own social media platform that doesn't. Best of luck to you if you try.


They did exactly this with Conservapedia and Faithbook. At least Faithbook sounds like you're saying Facebook, but with a lisp.
 
2020-05-28 1:31:15 AM  
Idiots clog American toilets and want to sue.  Really, pack the courts with conservatives and swim.
 
2020-05-28 1:32:22 AM  

OgreMagi: Massively Multiplayer Addict: Since when were social media services the only means of communication?

If you want to post a video and hope for any reasonable distribution, you only have one real choice, youtube (google).  They have a history of censorship, and I'm not referring to blocking nazi videos.  For example, just yesterday it was revealed that any comments that referred to 五毛党 or "Fifty Cent Party", would automatically get deleted.  I even tested it and made a post with the banned phrase, both in Chinese and English, on a video about a CCP aircraft carrier.  Within a minute my post disappeared.  My posting history indicated I had never made the post.  Youtube blamed it on a program error.  I (and many others) call bullshiat.  They have since stopped auto-deleting posts with that phrase, but you have to wonder what other phrases will trigger a deletion.

Twitter also has a history of censorship.  They have a history of banning tweets that differ from their personal political preferences while ignoring flagrant violations by those that fit their personal narrative.


... and there is a difference between violating their Code of Conduct and Rights and Usage, and censorship... keep that in mind.

YOU may call it censorship...  they call it 'Ah hell, not this shiat again' to the point it's autodetected and nuked.
 
2020-05-28 1:36:02 AM  

OgreMagi: Excelsior: [imgs.xkcd.com image 566x577]

When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.


He communicated, using a means of communication not controlled by a monopoly.
 
2020-05-28 1:37:20 AM  

jvl: OgreMagi: When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.

(a) Wrong, none of those are monopolies.

(b) Wrong. Section 230 explicitly permits and encourages folks like Twitbook and Fark to moderate user-written content without making them responsible for un-moderated content.  (Yes, that is exactly the opposite of what right-wing trolls will tell you)

(c) Wrong. There is no "unless you are a monopoly" exception to the First Amendment. (Requiring someone to publish someone else's speech not permitted under the First)


a) They have effective monopolies in their particular fields, well, maybe not Apple.
b) They aren't unmoderated.  They ban accounts all the time for their content.  It's not the moderation that is the issue.  People are claiming the moderation is arbitrary and unfair.
c) This is not an exception to the 1st Amendment.  It is the application of the 1st Amendment.  The Supreme Court supports this in rulings.  Calling it a "marketplace of ideas".  This is why cable companies, which are usually monopolies, must carry a certain amount of local stations despite them having tiny audiences.
 
2020-05-28 1:40:45 AM  

OgreMagi: Excelsior: [imgs.xkcd.com image 566x577]

When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.


Fark user imageView Full Size


only?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-28 1:42:14 AM  

OgreMagi: jvl: OgreMagi: When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.

(a) Wrong, none of those are monopolies.

(b) Wrong. Section 230 explicitly permits and encourages folks like Twitbook and Fark to moderate user-written content without making them responsible for un-moderated content.  (Yes, that is exactly the opposite of what right-wing trolls will tell you)

(c) Wrong. There is no "unless you are a monopoly" exception to the First Amendment. (Requiring someone to publish someone else's speech not permitted under the First)

a) They have effective monopolies in their particular fields, well, maybe not Apple.
b) They aren't unmoderated.  They ban accounts all the time for their content.  It's not the moderation that is the issue.  People are claiming the moderation is arbitrary and unfair.
c) This is not an exception to the 1st Amendment.  It is the application of the 1st Amendment.  The Supreme Court supports this in rulings.  Calling it a "marketplace of ideas".  This is why cable companies, which are usually monopolies, must carry a certain amount of local stations despite them having tiny audiences.


Can you define, "their particular fields". As far as I can see, the scope would have to be pretty narrow for it to be a monopoly in their field. So narrow that almost anyone could be considered a monopoly in their field.

I mean, I'm the only one who knows the admin password for the router, if I set up a proxy and started censoring videos in my house, do I now have a monopoly on video distribution and my girlfriend could sue me as a government actor?
 
2020-05-28 1:42:32 AM  

Nuclear Monk: edmo: Twitter? The one that lets Trump say whatever the hell he wants no matter how offensive?

Facebook? The one that gladly hosts racist nazis and recommends ones they feel best suit your needs.

Google? The one that censors stuff for the conservative leadership of China?

Apple? Apple? Jeez.

FTFY


It's true! Just the other day I was trying to decide between Aryan Brotherhood, Brotherhood of Aryans, Brother Aryans from the Hood, and Hooded Aryan Brothers. If it weren't for their recommendations, I might have accidentally gone to a lynching when what I really wanted was to burn a cross or two.
 
2020-05-28 1:43:23 AM  

Massively Multiplayer Addict: Ultimately, if they feel that Twitter is unfairly suppressing conservative views, there is a simple solution:

Make your own social media platform that doesn't. Best of luck to you if you try.


They have one, it's called gab. They've tried many times but typically fail.

They have been banned from PayPayl, Microsoft, Apple, GoDaddy, Joyent, Stripe and more for blatant perpetuation racism, violence, hate speech, antisemitism and other things like supporting Robert Bowers, the guy who killed 11 people at the Tree of Light synagogue in Pittsburgh.

You know who they blame for being banned? "The left" and their "digital censorship"
 
2020-05-28 1:44:03 AM  

GrogSmash: ... and there is a difference between violating their Code of Conduct and Rights and Usage, and censorship... keep that in mind.


Twitter has been accused of using their code of conduct in an arbitrary fashion to censor different views.  They'll completely lock an account, then demand the offending post be removed, but fail to say which post was in violation or even how it was in violation.  So now you end up in a guessing game to figure out which relatively benign post was the culprit.  Meanwhile, extremist on the other end of the political spectrum have made death threats without repercussions, which are most definitely a violation of the code of conduct.

If you are going to implement a code of conduct, then you need to make it clear what that code is, and you must apply it evenly to everyone.  I have nothing against them banning hateful posts.  The problem is, some people's definition of "hateful" is anything they disagree with.  Give those people access to the ban-hammer and you are guaranteed to get censorship.
 
2020-05-28 1:44:30 AM  

GrogSmash: OgreMagi: Excelsior: [imgs.xkcd.com image 566x577]

When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.

Err... four different competing platforms, each of which have their own twist of social media, were sued.  And these are just the BIG four.  I can probably think of another dozen off the top of my head without resorting to internet research, and I don't USE social media.

And that is restricted to simply digital platforms.

So ...  where is the monopoly?


I work for Apple and I don't recall us having a social media platform say that as a guy who worked in social from 2000-2010.

The only "anti" conservative thing I can remember in recent years is getting rid of Alex Jones podcast for hate speech but let his app stay.

Hell we let NRA Tv stay because of free speech and you can still get conservative drivel...

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-28 1:45:33 AM  

OgreMagi: jvl: OgreMagi: When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.

(a) Wrong, none of those are monopolies.

(b) Wrong. Section 230 explicitly permits and encourages folks like Twitbook and Fark to moderate user-written content without making them responsible for un-moderated content.  (Yes, that is exactly the opposite of what right-wing trolls will tell you)

(c) Wrong. There is no "unless you are a monopoly" exception to the First Amendment. (Requiring someone to publish someone else's speech not permitted under the First)

a) They have effective monopolies in their particular fields, well, maybe not Apple.


Only if you define the field exceedingly narrow: "twitter has a monopoly on sharing text messages on the twitter platform!".   There are thousands of platforms and sites people use to communicate. Just because some have more users and better name recognition than others does not make them a monopoly.

b) They aren't unmoderated.  They ban accounts all the time for their content.  It's not the moderation that is the issue.  People are claiming the moderation is arbitrary and unfair.
1.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size



c) This is not an exception to the 1st Amendment.  It is the application of the 1st Amendment.  The Supreme Court supports this in rulings.  Calling it a "marketplace of ideas".  This is why cable companies, which are usually monopolies, must carry a certain amount of local stations despite them having tiny audiences.

Your local cable company IS a monopoly, in that they are the only company with the permit and authority to run TV cable along public roads straight into your house.  In the vast majority of cities, other companies are legally prohibited from offering the same service.

There is NOTHING that stops you from creating your own twitter clone today. you will have no problem finding a hosting company, you will have no problem offering and advertising the service, and your users will have no problem logging on and using your service.

It's not even remotely the same.
 
2020-05-28 1:46:00 AM  

OgreMagi: Excelsior: [imgs.xkcd.com image 566x577]

When the only means of communication is controlled by a monopoly, different rules apply and the protection of being a private business may not apply.


Dude, you're farkied Red 4.  And that's down from your peak of Red 2, cuz you've said some objectively insightful things recently.

Did you write that implication that a free market should be regulated with a straight face?

Because I'd give it two funnies if I could.
 
2020-05-28 1:46:40 AM  

Massively Multiplayer Addict: Ultimately, if they feel that Twitter is unfairly suppressing conservative views, there is a simple solution:

Make your own social media platform that doesn't. Best of luck to you if you try.


Have you never heard of Reaganbook?
 
2020-05-28 1:46:41 AM  
hollow-hill.comView Full Size
 
2020-05-28 1:47:29 AM  

OgreMagi: GrogSmash: ... and there is a difference between violating their Code of Conduct and Rights and Usage, and censorship... keep that in mind.

Twitter has been accused of using their code of conduct in an arbitrary fashion to censor different views.  They'll completely lock an account, then demand the offending post be removed, but fail to say which post was in violation or even how it was in violation.  So now you end up in a guessing game to figure out which relatively benign post was the culprit.  Meanwhile, extremist on the other end of the political spectrum have made death threats without repercussions, which are most definitely a violation of the code of conduct.

If you are going to implement a code of conduct, then you need to make it clear what that code is, and you must apply it evenly to everyone.  I have nothing against them banning hateful posts.  The problem is, some people's definition of "hateful" is anything they disagree with.  Give those people access to the ban-hammer and you are guaranteed to get censorship.


So? Don't use their platform.

And before you're like, waaaah, they're a monopoly:
Did you know, I don't actually have, nor have I ever had, a Twitter account. And I can still communicate! Crazy, huh?
 
2020-05-28 1:49:06 AM  

bughunter: Did you write that implication that a free market should be regulated with a straight face?


I love a free market.  Monopolies are the antithesis of a free market.
 
Displayed 50 of 122 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.