Achim Warner

I argued with people and got put on weird lists and got blocked.

Also, I was right

I've abandoned this account. I'm back under my real name

I'm telling everybody over there the only obvious suspect is Elon and they all think I'm crazy

People tried really hard to run End Wokeness off BlueSky but we are so blessed we get these screencaps

your argument lacks a basis

Yikes! what a blunder… my legal team is going to kill me! this sets us back at least decade.

Temporarily it could suck, but market incentives could force people to create better solutions like using third parties (who aren’t allowed to get ad revenue) for curation, which might reduce some of the perverse incentives that currently exist.

In which someone takes some time to provide thoughtful answers to my 230 questions instead of the usual platitudes

Ok so even if the process of maximizing ad revenue goes through a data gathering process which exposes vulnerable teens to bullies in order to get the largest informational gain, the platform is not responsible for the bullies.

Is the process of gathering data easier to regulate?

That’s some gainz.

If I’m 5 antisemitic today I could 1.3 million antisemitic in a few days. Remarkable!

Thanks, I appreciate this.

My uneducated claim is that at the end of the day, X is selling ads, not expressing their own political or religious beliefs, so doesn’t qualify for highest protection.

I’m curious about test 2. Would say 100,000 teen suicides traced to a social media app suffice?

How does this square with not allowing cigarette ad?

Ok so if the government somehow nationalized part of the internet infrastructure… could they make more restrictive laws about what it can be used for?

Expanding is funny word as it’s against moving targets. Nobody (at least, left of DeSantis) is proposing the government restrict pamphlets or newspapers or blogs

OK indulge my hypothetical law :

——
Any corporation, which

a) shares a million pieces of content per day
b) earns ad revenue
c) collects private data from users
d) uses said private user data in an algorithmic feed

is not protected under section 230.
___

Does this violate 1A?

that government should never curtail speech ever is an ideology

The chrysalis metaphor was a bit unduly forthright

an ad for "unsellable nft art" saying "we buy your worthless jpgs. you harvest the losses." and "instant liquidity for your digital "art""

This is one of the few times I've wanted to click on a hellsite ad out of sheer curiosity, because: what

What is happening here

Why would this be a thing (also how)

"art" in quotes is a nice touch

This is brilliant I'm a little jealous of this clever idea. I'll bet you can even sell parts of the NFT over time to maximize the impact of your loss

I guess we're not ready for the real conversation. I'm less concerned about cultural grievance book banning and more about a situation where all newpapers are owned by Gannett, and other platforms are enshittified so that 99% of our news and information is filtered through some Altman/Musk run LLM

Yes, the New York Times has existed since 1851 thanks to section 230

sigh.... is there like a "remind me in" bot here? I'd like to revisit in 20 years when Sam Altman is filtering everything

We're talking about 230 though, right?

Maybe I could use more education here, but does strengthening the requirement for 230 protection run into 1A issues?

Not having 230 at all wasn't a violation of 1A

OK Rick Perry

Yes, indeed, and I think the bigger point here is that we are hurtling towards a situation where we get most of our information through curated algorithms and it will become a matter of the survival of liberal democracy to revisit how broadly 1A is interpreted. This will be needed.

So how are laws against advertising cigarettes on TV legal? ... serious question.

this one is the wurst

I making a claim that taking a data set of people whose data profiles make them appear like gambling addicts and handing this over to a online gambling platform in exchange for money should not be "speech"

Very good - we're not talking about speech, we're talking about selling attention.

Otherwise we just get into this conduct is speech nonsense

Yes, this. It think there are basic safeguards that could be identified and implemented.

You can't advertise cigarettes on TV. Who decided this?