Purges on social media sites

Being held liable for content that's posted on their platform. ARRSE would be in trouble if you libelled someone on here but Twitter wouldn't if you did it on there. They have this under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US as they are deemed as a platform if they dont exert any editorial control over the content (e.g deleting content which the owners don't agree with). If you want that protection you have to remain impartial, if you want to take a position you lose the protection and have to moderate accordingly.
That still doesn’t say that they have to allow completely free speech.

A US piece of legislation does not apply in the UK. It doesn’t allow for comments in the US that breach the law in terms of racism, as an example. All it means that (in the US) they can’t be sued if someone libels someone or similar. There is no similar provision in UK law that I’ve seen. They’re still at liberty to allow or not allow content as they see fit as it’s a privately owned company.
 
I would suggest that anyone who doesn't understand why these purges are happening or there is no such thing as a XRW haven't spent a lot of time reading the comment sections on fb, twitter, YouTube et al.

Both sides are spitting out death threats, inciting violence, racist vitriol, conspiracy theories, and bullshit against the 'other' side and both sides are getting purged.

The threat of U.S lawsuits against these companies for not allowing 'free speech' for all of the reasons stated above caused this and not because people think it's a 'leftie' organized purge.
 
But if they are taking positions on things, they are no longer common carriers, they are taking an editorial stance, they are publishers
They are not just publishers but distributers too, each of which is a status that they have all relied upon denying in order to:
a/. generate massive profits.
b/. pay little or no tax where these profits are generated.
c/. deny any responsibility for content published and distributed being a (yet to be truly legally defined in pretty much every state where they can be accessed) 'platform' woteva de f dat mean, innit?
d/. continue to generate massive profits built on lies, deceit, cat videos and stupid Russian knobs blowing themselves up (along with the ropey and insidious pseudo political sh*te).


Sent from my karzi while losing several pounds
 
The flipside being that BT and the posties deliver content to individuals, they don't broadcast the content of calls/letters for everyone to hear/read.

A vastly different scenario. BT and the Post Office (should both still be the GPO but, heh.) are not distributors of publications but of communication from whomesoever or whichsoever to individuals and not content for access to the public at large.
 
Last edited:
The flipside being that BT and the posties deliver content to individuals, they don't broadcast the content of calls/letters for everyone to hear/read.

Trying to police 21st century tech with 20th century laws and attitudes is not going to end well, the same as the argument over whether downloading films, games etc. is theft. You can argue it is theft as the person involved has obtained something they have not paid for. You can also argue that it is not theft as no one has been deprived of any property.
You can argue that but intellectual property legislation in pretty much every state (barring China of course) would put your arse in a sling. The same with copyright, trademark, etc. Stealing something that is not necessarily a physical entity still gets you f*cked.


Sent from my karzi while losing several pounds
 
You can argue that but intellectual property legislation in pretty much every state (barring China of course) would put your arse in a sling. The same with copyright, trademark, etc. Stealing something that is not necessarily a physical entity still gets you f*cked.
Yes but copyright laws were written for printed materials and, generally speaking, have not kept pace with the development of technology. To copy a book with a printing press would require reading the whole thing, typesetting every word, printing and binding etc. which doing for an individual is not practical. Copying a book without a press would require writing the book out word for word, samizdat style. It's the reason why libraries became popular (although that's another philosophical theft of royalties from authors).

If I download a copy of a CD via the internet I have not paid for you would presumably call that theft, despite me not depriving anyone else of any property (that is, the owners of the CD are unaffected whether I download the music or not).

What if I borrow the CD from a mate and save a copy to my computer / ipod? This time someone has paid for the music but I still have my copy that the copyright owner has not been paid for.

What if I wait until the songs are played on the radio and record a copy directly?

Is there any moral difference between someone torrenting a film, watching and then deleting it compared to borrowing the DVD from a friend, watching and returning it? In both cases someone has watched intellectual property they have not paid for but I don't think anyone would class borrowing a film from a mate as theft.

I'm trying to make the point that the law on theft is largely based on the idea that a thief acquires property by depriving the owner of property ie. after the theft the thief has a car and the owner does not. That does not translate well to online distribution where, to continue the metaphor, after the 'theft' both the thief and the owner have a car each. If the owner still has their car undamaged and is unaware anything has happened, has a theft actually taken place?

I see the same thing with the issues on censorship. In the era of print you were either a distributor like the posties who have no input in the content they transfer or a publisher with editorial control (newspapers, book publisher etc.). Online platforms fit both definitions in some ways and not others. Trying to manage that with laws not designed for the situation is going to lead to differing interpretations of what is allowed. That's what I was getting at.
 
Last edited:
The flipside being that BT and the posties deliver content to individuals, they don't broadcast the content of calls/letters for everyone to hear/read.
Apologies, I misread & misunderstood this bit. On re-reading, regarding this particular point, we are in agreement.
I am a nob and have been aware of that fact for many years.




Sent from my karzi while losing several pounds
 
Theft of intellectual property, no matter how simple and widespread it may be, is still theft of intellectual property and whomsoever has trademarked, patented or copyrighted protection of such has the right in law to pursue restitution for whichever scenario (I will not begin to make a list for such as I would be here all night regarding UK law without touching the shower of **** that is US legislation as many nobs will crow "Wot about X, wot about Y?"


Sent from my karzi while losing several pounds
 

endure

GCM
You can argue that but intellectual property legislation in pretty much every state (barring China of course) would put your arse in a sling. The same with copyright, trademark, etc. Stealing something that is not necessarily a physical entity still gets you f*cked.


Sent from my karzi while losing several pounds
Eem, copyright and trademarks are intectual property.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
I was thinking more globally than about the UK. Steve Bannon and Breitbart are obvious examples.
they are not XRW though. unless you are the type who thinks all brexit voters are right wing racist xenpohobic bigots.
 
That still doesn’t say that they have to allow completely free speech.

A US piece of legislation does not apply in the UK. It doesn’t allow for comments in the US that breach the law in terms of racism, as an example. All it means that (in the US) they can’t be sued if someone libels someone or similar. There is no similar provision in UK law that I’ve seen. They’re still at liberty to allow or not allow content as they see fit as it’s a privately owned company.
Not going to get into the larger part of the argument of what is legal or illegal to provide or deny, but it may interest you to know that this particular "UK" website resides on a "US" company's server in California, and would therefore be subject to both US and California statues, whatever they may be.
 
Top