| David Schmudde via nettime-l on Sat, 12 Oct 2024 09:13:27 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the campaign |
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: d@schmud.de t: @dschmudde > On Oct 11, 2024, at 22:31, nettime-l-request@lists.nettime.org wrote: > > Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to > nettime-l@lists.nettime.org > > 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 > nettime-l-request@lists.nettime.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org > > 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 <harv@subsignal.org> > To: nettime-l@lists.nettime.org > Subject: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: <69681868-8acd-4858-b4aa-9d30a385c25a@subsignal.org> > 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 <fneyrat@gmail.com> > To: "<nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets" > <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org> > Subject: Re: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: > <CABB5BS2fU9snShW_68Z_+GOxA_1YRxZJDD2J55LC6Nv8OODNZA@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 < >> nettime-l@lists.nettime.org> 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: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org >> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 23:11:15 +1000 > From: Cade Diehm <cade@newdesigncongress.org> > To: nettime-l@lists.nettime.org > Subject: Re: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: > <78af6084-8070-4c6c-85b4-cd65790aa350@newdesigncongress.org> > 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 <akshay@khobraga.de> > To: "<nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets" > <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org> > Subject: Re: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: <9CF28D1F-9955-4974-9A93-406B2C1B8551@khobraga.de> > 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 <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org> 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: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:30:20 -0400 > From: Keith Sanborn <mrzero@panix.com> > To: "<nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets" > <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org> > Subject: Re: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: <ECFAAF1B-0097-40F6-BC57-6D57D3E568BF@panix.com> > 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 <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org> 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: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org > > > ------------------------------ > > 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: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org > > > ------------------------------ > > 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: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org