[ImPostingOnHN]

Sounds a bit conspiratorial, so not worth clicking, but in any case, there's enough "both sides!!1"-style equivocating on the net, and I'm not really interested in engaging with that sort of low-effort distraction on HN. Have a good one!

[wmidwestranger]

As conspiratorial as an article published on the Microsoft Network by "Russell A. Berman (born May 14, 1950) ... an American academic and professor specializing in German studies and Comparative literature."[0] can be?

Have a good one either way! Certainly, no reason to quarrel when, orientation ignored, we're overwhelmingly in similar circumstances.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Berman

[ImPostingOnHN]

Your post was the part conspiratorial and vague ("the game is fixed"), so not worth clicking the link. What good would it do? The post seems unrelated to the topic, which is republican government efforts to compel speech in order to make sure the next insurrection is successful. Based on the 1 cryptic sentence you provided before linking out, I'm guessing the link is similarly unrelated. Hence: not worth the click.

In any case, there's enough "both sides!!1"-style equivocating on the net, and I'm not really interested in engaging with that sort of low-effort distraction on HN. Have a good one!

[wmidwestranger]

> Your post was the part conspiratorial and vague ("the game is fixed"), so not worth clicking the link.

Apologies for not documenting the link, and I don't mind if you check it or not. I think it's unfair to say "the game is fixed" is conspiratorial, that is a fair criticism of the system we have when the DNC, and I'm sure the Republicans would be willing, to propose that, as Newsweek reported:

> The most recent court hearing on the case was held on April 25, during which the DNC reportedly argued that the organization's neutrality among Democratic campaigns during the primaries was merely a "political promise," and therefore it had no legal obligations to remain impartial throughout the process.[0]

and Salon:

> The DNC is advancing the argument that any claims to be neutral and fair to all candidates were nothing but “political promises” and are unenforceable by law. They claim that there was no expectation that they would actually be evenhanded in their treatment of Sanders and Clinton. They have made this case despite the fact that many in DNC leadership made claims of fairness when Sanders supporters clamored for accountability during and after the primary.[1]

---

> Based on the 1 cryptic sentence you provided before linking out, I'm guessing the link is similarly unrelated.

Well its an article about how the Democrats may form their own certification interruption if Trump wins and my assumption, which is not a judgement, is that given what I know, you would be more supportive of that than the event you mentioned. I think they're both childish but that doesn't mean you can't appreciate the possibility.

The relation between my comments and the article is that the summer of love, Jan. 6th, and the pandemic brought about previously unseen levels of censorship and propaganda on the internet. The powers that brought these about are apparently above the letter of the law because section 230 protections depend on acting as a common carrier, while the level of interference and integration of former natsec officers into media companies suggests the government is acting unconstitutionally through private companies.

> which is republican government efforts to compel speech in order to make sure the next insurrection is successful.

You say that as if corporations are people and that people cannot be trusted to be the judge of information and decide their own politics, which is a possible political position but not a statement of fact. Certainly corporations can editorialize and manage their content but can they do that and _still_ be protected by Section 230 or are they only protected otherwise?

Now this was a somewhat higher-effort distraction and I hope you have a good one too.

0: https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-rigged-hillary-clint...

1: https://www.salon.com/2017/05/13/the-dncs-elephant-in-the-ro...

[ImPostingOnHN]

This post also seems mostly-unrelated to the topic, which is republican government efforts to compel speech in order to make sure the next insurrection is successful. Only the last part is relevant, so Ill respond to that:

> You say that as if corporations are people

The discussion here is whether republican government officials can compel me to speak because I own or operate a company (corporation or not), or because I volunteer to moderate a subreddit, or because I am an operator of an IRC channel, or otherwise operate some sort of online service on which people can post to each other. Which is what they're trying to do now.

Honestly, I challenge you to stay on topic without mentioning the Democratic party. They aren't the ones who passed this law. Republicans are. False equivalencies like this:

> Democrats may form their own certification interruption

...aren't relevant, especially when we're discussing the violent, deadly insurrection perpetrated by republicans, not a "certification interruption", which seems to be a term coined just now.

[dang]

Could you please stop posting flamewar comments? We had to ask you this just recently.

Please especially avoid tit-for-tat spats like this one. They're not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[wmidwestranger]

Sorry, you had spent some ink saying I was being conspiratorial rather than brief.

Here again, you say:

> The discussion here is whether republican government officials can compel me to speak because I own or operate a company (corporation or not), or because I volunteer to moderate a subreddit, or because I am an operator of an IRC channel, or otherwise operate some sort of online service on which people can post to each other.

But the 5th circuit points out, correctly in my opinion, that circumstantially conveying the message of a user in an open platform with privileges regarding liability is not compelled speech:

> The Fifth Circuit noted in its decision that the First Amendment protects the “‘right to refrain from speaking,’” and publishers cannot be compelled to publish specific articles or viewpoints. Yet the Fifth Circuit did not recognize “editorial discretion”—the right of private organizations to control the dissemination of third-party content—as an independent right. Instead, the Fifth Circuit explained that such discretion arises only where a law compels or restricts the speech of the private party itself—whereas the Texas law concerns not platforms’ own speech, but how platforms treat users' speech.

These platforms benefit from section 230, they can abandon that, accept responsibility as publishers, and do whatever they want outside some other asinine law controlling free expression.

...

I'm struck by how your stance seems to perfectly reflect a belief in guilt by association or representation since you're suggesting that it is as if the message was your own were you to moderate the forum, etc. and disagreeable content was outside your power to prevent.

I think it's a shame that there are so many angry and easily influenced people out there but the root causes aren't the mean words on the internets from other actual humans, as sad as that may also be.

[dang]

Could you please not post flamewar comments?

Please especially avoid tit-for-tat spats like this one. They're not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html