Cade rightly points out that these algorithms are a direct violation of Section 230 protections by the letter of the law. It’s absolutely editorializing.
That seems compatible with Cade’s latter point: > A digitalised democracy mustevolve beyond the infantile technolibertariancore > EFF understanding of free speech, where the platform and its designed > constraints and rules are invisible to the demands of a free press. Section 230 comes from this era and is simply not enforced. And there is no reason that the EU - or any other governing body- needs to abide by Section 230. Even better - the laws that deal with liability are time-tested. While incredibly imperfect, there is at least a judicial precedent to work from rather than inventing new ways to make the internet “safe.” /Davif -- w: http://schmud.de e: [email protected] t: @dschmudde > On Oct 11, 2024, at 22:31, [email protected] wrote: > > Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.servus.at/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the campaign > (Harv Stanic Staalman) > 2. Re: Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the campaign > (Fr?d?ric Neyrat) > 3. Re: Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the campaign > (Cade Diehm) > 4. Re: Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the campaign > (Akshay Khobragade) > 5. Re: Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the campaign > (Keith Sanborn) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 10:55:31 +0200 (GMT+02:00) > From: Harv Stanic Staalman <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Oh, how democratic and advanced. Asking for a censorship in a 21st century, > after 40 years of fighting for internet freedoms certainly brings memories of > the > //Reichsministerium//// f?r Volksaufkl?rung und Propaganda//. > I wonder which EU funding scheme sponsors this? > Geert should know better. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 07:48:37 -0500 > From: Fr?d?ric Neyrat <[email protected]> > To: "<nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: > <cabb5bs2fu9snshw_68z_+goxa_1yrxzjdd2j55lc6nv8ood...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Thank you Geert, yes we need to ban what destroys our lives, our psyches (a > question of courage and politics), the internet is dead and we follow it > into its death - it's time to create an externet > > in solidarity, > > Fr?d?ric > __________________________________ > ________________ Website: Atopies <https://atoposophie.wordpress.com/> > _______ ALienstagram <https://www.instagram.com/alienocene/> > > >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 7:34?AM Harv Stanic Staalman via nettime-l < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Oh, how democratic and advanced. Asking for a censorship in a 21st >> century, after 40 years of fighting for internet freedoms certainly brings >> memories of the >> //Reichsministerium//// f?r Volksaufkl?rung und Propaganda//. >> I wonder which EU funding scheme sponsors this? >> Geert should know better. >> -- >> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: https://www.nettime.org >> # contact: [email protected] >> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 23:11:15 +1000 > From: Cade Diehm <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hi nettime, > > In the years to come, the digital rights community will need to answer > for the conflation of free speech of a democratic society with the > formats and operations of the private platforms for which we interact on. > > Indeed, the US-borne legal stance enshrined by Section 230 ? that the > platform is (within reason) not broadly responsible for the content of > what its users post ? is something that should be heeded by the wider > democratic world. But what continues to be missed is the interface as it > relates to speech: the editorialised algorithmic timeline, the scaffolds > that dictate and shape platform speech (be it short form video, 200 > characters, or pictures with filters), or what one must give up in order > to participate. > > Turns out, all of these properties are just as important in the context > of speech, and how they shape what is said, who gets to say it, and how > they say it. And yet, beyond meandering gestures towards > interoperability by the EU, or the endless protest by NGOs against > endless social-media accelerated genocides, we widely continue to equate > the platform with the speech. The two could not be further from each other. > > Put simply, the democratic enshrinement of free speech is the cloak that > has successfully kept these controllers of discourse firmly in the seats > of power. That has been the mantra, to attack the platform is to attack > speech itself, what a convenient reality for these now-juggernaughts! > > Forgive me, but in 2024 this kind of free speech discourse rings as > hollow as Musks' facile speech absolutism. A digitalised democracy must > evolve beyond the infantile technolibertariancore EFF understanding of > free speech, where the platform and its designed constraints and rules > are invisible to the demands of a free press. There is a very real > accelerationist attack underway that leverages this very flaw in the 30+ > years of digital discourse, driven by a flaw we have all perpetuated to > varying degrees. Killing a platform for being run by a Epstein-adjacent > hyper-criminal who once flashed a woman on an aeroplane and then offered > to buy her a horse is not the same as kicking in the doors of citizens > who post on the platform owned by?Epstein-adjacent hyper-criminal who > once flashed a woman on an aeroplane and then offered to buy her a > horse. Frankly I'm tired of the claims that these are one and the same. > > I am not an authoritarian, I don't give a fuck about the Nazis on X. > What I care about is that, after 40 years of fighting for internet > freedoms, the Nazis are now freely flowing into the timelines of > everyone you care about. To continue to parrot this 20th century idea of > free speech without considering the infrastructure actor is to be in > denial as this information warfare submerges us. It is exactly the > belief here, cloaking the corpo platform in the dream of the democratic > voice, that has kept us from the nuance needed to navigate these > pathetic implementations of mass media we are still just beginning to > grapple with. > > Thanks for reading. > > Cade > > ~ > > Founder, New Design Congress > https://newdesigncongress.org/en/join > >> On 11.10.24 18:55, Harv Stanic Staalman via nettime-l wrote: >> Oh, how democratic and advanced. Asking for a censorship in a 21st century, >> after 40 years of fighting for internet freedoms certainly brings memories >> of the >> //Reichsministerium//// f?r Volksaufkl?rung und Propaganda//. >> I wonder which EU funding scheme sponsors this? >> Geert should know better. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 00:00:49 +0530 > From: Akshay Khobragade <[email protected]> > To: "<nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > I concur hard with Harv. Wouldn?t want to look at such a ban in retrospect > and regret taking an easy way out. > > ?What would Gandhi do?? ? As much as I understand of the Indian independence > struggles of the previous century, Gandhi?s focus on nonviolence, when all > the brits ever did was violently suppress and jail whoever opposed, was to > never validate the behavior of the other side. Otherwise it entails a > perpetual fight where the deciding factors become strength in numbers, not > strength in morals and ideas. > > Instead of the ban, rather focus on building the utopia that cares for > everyone. Even the other side. > > Fostering healthy communication, pulling the crowd into a better place, > instead of sloshing everyone around with bans, will be sustainable. > > Lets not feed them the hate they depend on. > > ? Akshay > > >> On 11 Oct 2024, at 14:25, Harv Stanic Staalman via nettime-l >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Oh, how democratic and advanced. Asking for a censorship in a 21st century, >> after 40 years of fighting for internet freedoms certainly brings memories >> of the >> //Reichsministerium//// f?r Volksaufkl?rung und Propaganda//. >> I wonder which EU funding scheme sponsors this? >> Geert should know better. >> -- >> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: https://www.nettime.org >> # contact: [email protected] > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:30:20 -0400 > From: Keith Sanborn <[email protected]> > To: "<nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Musk is a fascist who promotes damaging lies and amplifies them. X is a > vehicle for much damaging of the public sphere. I guess you must really love > them nazis! Trying to defend them by standards they wd never adhere to. J D > Vance made the same point about Trump?s damaging claims he won the 2020 > election. All in the name of ?free speech.? This is the moral equivalent of > yelling fire in a crowded theater. And Musk is a repeat offender. That is not > free speech but something akin to linguistic terrorism. > >> On Oct 11, 2024, at 9:12?AM, Cade Diehm via nettime-l >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> ?Hi nettime, >> >> In the years to come, the digital rights community will need to answer for >> the conflation of free speech of a democratic society with the formats and >> operations of the private platforms for which we interact on. >> >> Indeed, the US-borne legal stance enshrined by Section 230 ? that the >> platform is (within reason) not broadly responsible for the content of what >> its users post ? is something that should be heeded by the wider democratic >> world. But what continues to be missed is the interface as it relates to >> speech: the editorialised algorithmic timeline, the scaffolds that dictate >> and shape platform speech (be it short form video, 200 characters, or >> pictures with filters), or what one must give up in order to participate. >> >> Turns out, all of these properties are just as important in the context of >> speech, and how they shape what is said, who gets to say it, and how they >> say it. And yet, beyond meandering gestures towards interoperability by the >> EU, or the endless protest by NGOs against endless social-media accelerated >> genocides, we widely continue to equate the platform with the speech. The >> two could not be further from each other. >> >> Put simply, the democratic enshrinement of free speech is the cloak that has >> successfully kept these controllers of discourse firmly in the seats of >> power. That has been the mantra, to attack the platform is to attack speech >> itself, what a convenient reality for these now-juggernaughts! >> >> Forgive me, but in 2024 this kind of free speech discourse rings as hollow >> as Musks' facile speech absolutism. A digitalised democracy must evolve >> beyond the infantile technolibertariancore EFF understanding of free speech, >> where the platform and its designed constraints and rules are invisible to >> the demands of a free press. There is a very real accelerationist attack >> underway that leverages this very flaw in the 30+ years of digital >> discourse, driven by a flaw we have all perpetuated to varying degrees. >> Killing a platform for being run by a Epstein-adjacent hyper-criminal who >> once flashed a woman on an aeroplane and then offered to buy her a horse is >> not the same as kicking in the doors of citizens who post on the platform >> owned by Epstein-adjacent hyper-criminal who once flashed a woman on an >> aeroplane and then offered to buy her a horse. Frankly I'm tired of the >> claims that these are one and the same. >> >> I am not an authoritarian, I don't give a fuck about the Nazis on X. What I >> care about is that, after 40 years of fighting for internet freedoms, the >> Nazis are now freely flowing into the timelines of everyone you care about. >> To continue to parrot this 20th century idea of free speech without >> considering the infrastructure actor is to be in denial as this information >> warfare submerges us. It is exactly the belief here, cloaking the corpo >> platform in the dream of the democratic voice, that has kept us from the >> nuance needed to navigate these pathetic implementations of mass media we >> are still just beginning to grapple with. >> >> Thanks for reading. >> >> Cade >> >> ~ >> >> Founder, New Design Congress >> https://newdesigncongress.org/en/join >> >>>> On 11.10.24 18:55, Harv Stanic Staalman via nettime-l wrote: >>> Oh, how democratic and advanced. Asking for a censorship in a 21st century, >>> after 40 years of fighting for internet freedoms certainly brings memories >>> of the >>> //Reichsministerium//// f?r Volksaufkl?rung und Propaganda//. >>> I wonder which EU funding scheme sponsors this? >>> Geert should know better. >> -- >> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: https://www.nettime.org >> # contact: [email protected] > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > -- > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: https://www.nettime.org > # contact: [email protected] > > > ------------------------------ > > End of nettime-l Digest, Vol 16, Issue 5 > **************************************** -- # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: https://www.nettime.org # contact: [email protected]
