Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
Yes, I drink quite frequently myself. I intend them as a kind of illustrative example, not necessarily to be taken literally. They are the pointing finger, not the moon.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I don't agree. To more fully lay out a theory of when I think it's appropriate to say something like "A got B drunk" I think of A taking some action that overcomes B's own intentions about how drunk to get to cause B to become much more intoxicated than they intended. The scene in North by Northwest you link obviously involves overcoming someone's intentions by force but I think it can also be done by fraud. Sure, if your martini has an extra shot worth of Vermouth in it or whatever I wouldn't call that enough by itself. But I think spiking an otherwise non-alcoholic drink or mixing less alcoholic drinks (like beer) with more alcoholic ones (like whiskey) without the knowledge or consent of the subject can rise to a similar level.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
Not sure I agree. I can imagine a scenario where it would be sensible to describe A as having gotten B drunk, or drugged them with alcohol. An obvious example would be A adding some more potent alcohol to B's drink without B's knowledge or consent.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I think the problem is you're envisioning "drugging" someone as requiring use of, like, rohypnol or other illicit drugs. I would be willing to bet that, in California, "getting someone so drunk they lose consciousness" counts as "drugging."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
Predicting you'll be arrested is not generally admission of guilt to a crime. You can be wrong, after all! Also note how Epps caveats his comments with "peacefully" immediately after the "We need to go into the Capitol" part. 18 USC 2102(a) requires the riot in question involve violence or threats of violence. Calling for entering the Capitol peacefully would seem to be the opposite of that. I've never been a federal prosecutor but I wouldn't love bringing charges under 18 USC 2101 just on the basis of what's in the video. As @huadpe notes in a parallel comment the speech would also have to pass the test from Brandenburg v. Ohio (and apparently nobody has been charged with incitement). I am not sure speech the previous night for violence the following day is sufficiently "imminent" under Brandenburg.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
It is a very minor charge. Now granted, Epps did not enter the Capitol himself - but his open agitation of the attack nonetheless seems to me like it should constitute a significantly more serious offence, such as incitement to riot.
IANAL but it seems like 18 USC 2101 could be appropriate. Although 18 USC 2102(b) provides:
As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
So it probably depends pretty specifically on what Epps said and what the feds could convince a jury of. Was Epps urging or instigating others to commit or threaten violence? Or was he merely advocating an idea or expressing a belief that didn't necessarily entail violent acts?
Speaking of which, it's very odd that he did not go into the Capitol himself, given that he loudly and repeatedly urged others to.
The article notes there were a few others who went to the Capitol but didn't go inside. Do we have any information on what they were charged with? Might be a useful point of comparison.
Also the article you linked to references another NYT article from yesterday, when the charging was originally announced, and says:
Mr. Epps was also interviewed by the F.B.I. and was removed from the bureau’s list of suspects wanted in connection with the Capitol attack in the summer of 2021. “That should have been the end of the matter for Epps,” his lawyer wrote in the complaint against Fox.
I almost wonder if the FBI considered his conduct too minor to charge in summer 2021 and maybe lost track of his case in the interim since he wasn't on their list anymore? Then, Epps was back in the news with his interview and lawsuit so they decided they should get around to charging him? Given the harassment it sounds like he faced maybe he wanted to be charged to try and put rumors of his being a fed to bed? I might rather spend some time in jail or on probation than be inundated with conspiracy theory driven death threats!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
And this dichotomy is exactly what I'm criticizing. Masnick's entire shtick is to prevaricate between officially state-driven things that could be anywhere near the First Amendment whenever the censorship is something he opposes (see this) no matter how regulated speech is in that sphere otherwise, and then raising incredibly exacting standards for what counts as government action when it's something he doesn't care about (see for example this post conflating double-digit legal demands with the literally thousands of 'unofficial requests' from the government.).
I don't know how to tell you this but there's a difference between a government passing a law imposing criminal or civil penalties on someone and them clicking the equivalent of a Super Report button. The article specifically notes that Twitter did not comply with a majority of the government's unofficial requests. Twitter was (and is) free to ignore unofficial requests from the government. The doctors in the first article would not be free to disregard the government's prohibition on discussing certain topics with patients. The two things are different in very important ways.
Which is funny, because you'd think that people would be at least somewhat opposed to slurs that touched on them, and instead Twitter and Advertisers supposedly found tweeting "Learn To Code" at a handful of bargain-basement 'journalists' worse than having ads sandwiched between "KillAllMen" and photoshopped decapitations of a certain politician. And it was always like that.
Have you been on Twitter? Why would I think that? I'm sorry that advertisers and Twitter users don't share your ratings of what things are bad but their opinions are the ones that matter for Twitter's continued viability as a business.
Indeed, and he quickly papered over any potential problem by giving his friends at Twitter the most charitable possible explanations and possible facts, and then when those assumptions came false retreated time and time again, often in hilariously misleading ways. That link rests heavily on people not finding yet that any evidence of government pressure, and then despite all of the later releases his information since his comments never quite get around to revisiting the matter except to provide increasingly circumscribed reasons This Does Count.
I mean, yea. It's important that if you're going to allege the government pressured Twitter about the laptop story and that was the cause of their suppression people are going to want, like, evidence. So far none has been forthcoming. The best I've seen is some general warnings to Twitter about possible disinformation regarding Joe/Hunter from Russia.
((I don't think Musk will actually bring this case, or be successful if he does, and it's certainly not a multi-billion and maybe not even multi-million dollar tort. But that's more because it'd be worth pennies on the legal fee dollar even in the off chance he wins, and the standards for when a claim is an opinion of undisclosed facts or where it's just an opinion mumblemumble are an absolute mess. In addition to the obvious reputational risks.))
I think the ADL's problem with Musk becomes much more obvious phrased as "He made frivolous threats they had committed torts against him."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
Citation that their ads will be equally effective? That there would be no difference in user base under various moderation schemes?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
When Masnick is discussing Twitter protecting people's first amendment rights he doesn't mean they didn't ban people (because banning people doesn't implicate their first amendment rights) he means they resisted subpoenas from the government demanding they de-anonymize it's critics, which does implicate their first amendment rights.
The criticism of pre-Musk Twitter was never that it banned CSAM or followed copyright law, Masnick knows that, you know that, I know that, the dog knows that.
Yes, the point of the article is that very few of the people who talk about being a "free speech platform" have any idea that there's tons of stuff they are going to be legally obliged to moderate. The piece is not about responding to criticisms of Twitter, it's about the specific convergent evolution of social media moderation policies as the first paragraph makes clear:
It’s kind of a rite of passage for any new social media network. They show up, insist that they’re the “platform for free speech” without quite understanding what that actually means, and then they quickly discover a whole bunch of fairly fundamental ideas, institute a bunch of rapid (often sloppy) changes… and in the end, they basically all end up in the same general vicinity, with just a few small differences on the margin. Look, I went through it myself. In the early days I insisted that sites shouldn’t do any moderation at all, including my own. But I learned. As did Parler, Gettr, Truth Social and lots of others.
The actual criticisms are either glossed over ("level three" is hilariously short) or not engaged with at all (the godsdamned FBI called them and told them repeatedly not to run stories about Hunter Biden's laptop, while knowing that Hunter Biden's laptop had been out there, and I notice Masnick seems to have missed any mention about it).
What further elaboration is required? It turns out people don't like to spend time on a site where they are regularly called slurs! Advertisers think it damages their brand when their advertisements appear next to hate speech. Is this concept complicated? Masnick, in fact, has a whole article about Twitter and Hunter Biden's laptop.
Quite a lot of those "legal, financial, and social pressures" are just shared ideological capture, or only taken seriously because of shared ideological capture. There could be a plausible argument otherwise if pre-Musk Twitter's censorship focused on commonly-agreed slurs or clear falsity or other bad behaviors, but in practice for all that Twitter moderation had also always been arbitrary and inconsistent, it overwhelmingly ended up in a left-wing mode, encouraged and legitimized by a fairly small number of (overwhelmingly left-wing) partners that promoted these standards to both Twitter and its advertisers (and sometimes regulators!).
I don't even know how to respond to the implication that legal or financial pressures are due to shared ideological capture. If your primary revenue stream is from people advertising on your platform then it's important for the survival of your business in a non-ideological way that they continue to do that. You are somewhat at the whim of what advertisers like and want. Similar advertisers only want to advertise on your platform because they believe they can reach users who will buy things. If users abandon your platform en masse that is also bad for your business, so you are somewhat beholden to the desires of users, whatever your ideology. Legal pressure even more so! I guess X could stop reporting CSAM or responding to DMCA takedowns, but the end result would definitely be the end of their business! How is ideological capture related at all? Sure some social pressure and its response may be due to shared ideological capture, I acknowledge as much in another comment.
The ADL is Musk's current focus, simply because (he alleges) that they've directly contacted his advertising partners before he even took ownership and a lot of what he's described (if true!) is very close to playing bingo with tortuous interference with contract.
What is the tort the ADL committed to constitute the "tortious" part of tortious interference? I am pretty sure they're his foe now because he goes around promoting open anti-semites like Keith Woods.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
But these "social pressures", aren't they also a form of ideological capture among the institutions that exert said pressure on social media platforms?
Undoubtedly some of the social pressure on social media platforms come from institutions ideologically captured by Democrats, but hardly all of it.
top university faculty
judiciary
As of Jan 2021 the federal judiciary was actually majority appointed by Republicans although only slightly and this has probably reversed since. On the other hand, SCOTUS has been majority Republican appointed since, like, the 1960's
Overall, in the 54 years since Nixon first took office, there have been 20 confirmed appointments to the court, counting chiefs and associate justices. Republican presidents have had 15 of them, Democratic presidents just five.
media
This obviously depends on the media entity. NYT or CNN? Sure. Fox News or OANN? Definitely not.
big tech
federal govt employees
Are probably more split than you suppose, especially with respect to the Senate.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
All I can think of is TechDirt's Content Moderation Learning Curve. The convergence of large social media platforms on similar content moderation rules is less due to shared ideological capture than a combination of legal, financial, and social pressures all pointing in a similar direction.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I don't understand what the relevance of the number of false accusations in expectation is. Surely accusations are true or false because of facts in the world, not dubious statistical expectation. If we want to determine if the accusations are true or false we should examine the facts of the accusations themselves. At least one of them appears to have a great deal of contemporaneous corroborating evidence. Or did a woman go to a Rape Crisis Center and spend 5 months in therapy so that, a decade later, her false accusation would appear more credible?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
But this rule doesn't require you to "tell the government everything about [your] finances." It just requires companies to tell the government what natural persons ultimately own and operate them. Why shouldn't the government be able to get this information?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
What is the objectionable Step 2 that this regulation makes much more likely to occur?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
A post long on assertion and short on reason or evidence.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
So it sounds like your objection is to some hypothetical Step 2, rather than this actual policy.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
Ok, why is it unreasonable for the government to want to know what natural persons are benefiting from their grant of limited liability?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
How is it virtually impossible to operate a business without a limited liability corporate structure? Many businesses in the United States are sole proprietorships which do not have limited liability.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
It seems fine to me. If you want to enjoy the legal benefits of limited liability or operating as a corporation rather than a natural person the government wants to know to whom those benefits are actually accruing. Incorporation and limited liability are ultimately creations of the government. What's the counter argument? That there's a natural right to be able to operate a legally distinct entity in a way that shields you from liability of that entity's operations? I'm skeptical.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I feel like professional sports is an obvious one. There's really only one employer per-sport (NHL, NFL, etc). There are individual teams within that but the org has a lot of control over how people are allowed to move between teams and so on. It's probably as close to a literal monopoly as one can get.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
You say this is a country thing but I'm pretty sure Google is a pretty large outlier on this. I work for and we definitely don't have fully stocked kitchens and free fancy lunches.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I think it depends on the ratio of employees to employers. Sure those employees have hundreds of thousands of potential employers, but those hundreds of thousands of employers have (tens of?) millions of potential employees.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
Sure, it's possible that working conditions would have gotten better anyway.
As to Google I think that's more to do with the nature of software engineering as a profession. There is not nearly as much potential for harm compared to someone working a mining job or with heavy machinery or similar.
I recommend Foldable Ideas video on NFTs. If you're familiar with (or don't care about) the history of crypto and tokens more generally you can probably skip to Section 4 (~39:00), though I recommend watching the whole thing.
On the buyer side, NFTs were an example of what finance calls greater fool theory. The basic idea is you can get people to pay irrational prices for something as long as they are convinced they will be able to sell that thing to someone else (the "greater fool") for a profit. People didn't buy NFTs because they (necessarily) believed in the value proposition of an NFT at some particular price point, but because it would be a profitable investment due to an appreciation in value. Wash trading, for example, is a way a particular seller might manufacture a history of an NFT increasing in value before selling it to someone else, who hopes to see a continued pattern of increase in value. The technical aspects of NFTs and blockchain function in a primarily obfuscatory capacity. To give people some tech jargon for why their investment will appreciate that they fundamentally do not understand. A demonstration that Eulering is alive and well.
More options
Context Copy link