TheAntiRadical

Refuting radicalism. By all its names. To replace the foundations of society is neither safe nor wise. Change must be constructive not destructive.

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

Anti-Radical means opposing all the radical ideologies on all sides, including:

Totalitarianism
Anarchy
Market Absolutism
Communism/Socialism
Ethno-statism
Theocracy
Science Denial
Social Darwinism
Fascism
Collectivism
Neo-Feudalism
All forms of Terrorism
Doomsday movements

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

Ok tell me more

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@cvaldary BLM the organization was founded by the people who coined BLM the hashtag. They're quite related.

The slogan spread far beyond its creators' control, with mixed consequences. It brought them a lot of money and influence but they're no longer able to speak for the movement.

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@imjustsaying714 @UROCKlive1 @HawaiiDelilah @lindseyvonn We live in a delusional world where people see things that aren't there, and then judge you for what they see.

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@rasmansa To be fair, there *is* a social constructivist version of immutable racial essence too.

It's all lies.

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@TheRocsWorld It's the economic punishment that bothers me. Going after jobs etc.

I think the law has something to do with the level of cowardice employers show to a mob, which is often small, usually not able to get a boycott going on their own, but gets amplified to a shocking level.

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@karischoonbee @hollymathnerd Because the responsible party was not able to find her before the FBI did?

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@mickel_ans @BerniceKing @MichaelDTubbs @AndrewYang UBI was proposed originally by Thomas Payne, of all people. It is emphatically not Socialist (that is, not from the 19th centiry political philosophy bearing that name).

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@darrell_patrick @mickel_ans @BerniceKing @MichaelDTubbs @AndrewYang No he wasn't. He was religious. To the extent that he advocated Socialism, it was of the type that Marx condemned in communist manifesto.

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@FlorbFnarb @euphoric_gore @HeWasntJogging That is literally legally false. There are plenty of messageboards that are in moderated mode where nobody's posts are visible until a mod approves them and they *ARE* protected by the 1996 act.

I hear that's how you think it should be. I am telling you that is not current law.

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@FlorbFnarb @euphoric_gore @HeWasntJogging "restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious,
filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objection-
able, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"

They outsourced censorship!

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@FlorbFnarb @euphoric_gore @HeWasntJogging So a different set of rules applies to websites than ever applied to publishers & distributors before. They get special treatment - their own special set of rules - i.e. privilege (from "privi lege" - private law).

The act goes further with immunity for efforts to...

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@FlorbFnarb @euphoric_gore @HeWasntJogging With no explicit call to action, there is no crime. There is only civil liability. But if the platform has immunity too then you can't do anything.

Immunity is a privilege. Why give it to someone who offers the general public nothing because all they do is advance their faction?

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@FlorbFnarb @euphoric_gore @HeWasntJogging filters

You could start a platform called FashTube with anonymous uploads and curate it to take down any posts that aren't sufficiently fascistic. No before-the-fact moderation, no content created by you, but all fascist. Lots of doxxing. Should that be protected from liability?

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@FlorbFnarb @euphoric_gore @HeWasntJogging I told you I don't advocate a surrender of control. Why are you repeating that?

Legal liability for defamation is not government control. It is a protection for the rights of the defamed. I don't get to spread malicious lies about you, for example.

Consider what we can do with/

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@FlorbFnarb @euphoric_gore @HeWasntJogging Platform behavior means forbearance not surrender of control. Takedown/block/filter only when the law compels it. Like a phone company.

Don't you think that behavior pattern should be promoted? It's in the public interest for open platforms to exist.

Why protect selective ones?

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@FlorbFnarb @euphoric_gore @HeWasntJogging Eh? I said videos not comments.

There are before-the-fact filters on video uploads. But that isn't the point. I'm saying publisher and platform should have different legal status, and the distinction should be whether they control the content at all. Immunity only for platforms.

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@FlorbFnarb @euphoric_gore @HeWasntJogging .. it follows they should be responsible for everything in the videos that they choose to allow.

[TheAntiRadical @TheAntiRadical]

@FlorbFnarb @euphoric_gore @HeWasntJogging Curating what goes on your site should mean you're responsible for what is on your platform. Because if you control a thing, you are responsible for it.

Sites should only be immune from responsibility for that which they do not curate.

Youtube curates all their videos, so....