Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/17 22:36:20
Subject: Re:Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Stormblade
SpaceCoast
|
Yesterday I warned that as soon as the mob was appeased they would just choose a new target to aim their pitchforks. I didn't expect to be proven right so dang fast.
With regards to where you're trying to draw a thin line. A little bit of politics is like a little bit pregnant, neither is ever really true.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/17 23:04:26
Subject: Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos
|
It's been 14 years and people still don't understand (or perhaps pretend not to understand) the "ban" on politics. It's actually not a general ban, it's a specific rule in the OT forum, which is, not coincidentally, the only place you can post any discussions of things not related to miniatures, gaming, or nerd culture. Political discussion in non-OT topics was never allowed, unless it was on topic to the thread. It's not like back in the day I could just post on a random thread about how to strip miniatures a diatribe about taxation. it would have been off topic and pruned. Further, most poltical discussions became flame wars, and nobody want to moderate flame wars. so, simply put, end the flame wars at the root. So, let's recap: posts that are not on topic for a threads are against the rules, and posts that simply deal with politics cannot be created in the OT forum. That's it. Is a miniature creatures political views "off topic?" Based on this thread, it seems to depend pretty heavily on the poster's political persuasion. I'd argue that Dakka's view of "staying on topic" is fairly lenient, so, sure, I don't see how you can really make a good faith argument that it's not. As a consumer, if I'm buying space Wehrmacht, it might be relevant to me what kind of leanings the guy I'm buying from has. I can see it mattering, is all I'm saying.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/17 23:05:34
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/17 23:29:24
Subject: Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?
|
There will always be people who, when presented with any sort of rule or guideline, will do everything they can to push the line to see just what they can get away with it. This is a forum full of rules lawyers, after all. Then there's just the people who can't keep their metaphorical political dick in their pants and feel the need to whip it out and wave it around for all to see every single chance they get.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/17 23:29:37
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/17 23:31:34
Subject: Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
My post was a direct response to another post. I echoed the tone and word choices of that other post. If it was deleted*, then my post’s context is gone. Please let me know if that is the case and I will edit my post to reduce it somewhat.
*I have not gone back to check, and don’t plan to.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/17 23:32:05
Subject: Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos
|
Tannhauser42 wrote:Then there's just the people who can't keep their metaphorical political dick in their pants and feel the need to whip it out and wave it around for all to see every single chance they get.
well, if it's the only kind they get to pull out, I guess I understand the urge.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/17 23:38:27
Subject: Re:Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Stormblade
SpaceCoast
|
The Irony it burns.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/17 23:58:33
Subject: Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
The New Miss Macross!
|
That "fine line" is looking more and more like a field of mud in the original thread.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/18 00:13:01
Subject: Re:Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Stormblade
SpaceCoast
|
Its totally awesome when those who want to use corporations and government to shut down other's speech accuse their opponents of being fascist.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/18 00:43:47
Subject: Re:Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot
|
Jerram wrote:Its totally awesome when those who want to use corporations and government to shut down other's speech accuse their opponents of being fascist.
It's totally awesome that people don't understand the basic concept that freedom of speech does not mean that a corporation is obligated to provide a platform for you to speak from and an audience to listen to your speech. FB, Dakka, etc, choosing to delete posts or ban users is not a freedom of speech issue.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/18 00:55:08
Subject: Re:Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Stormblade
SpaceCoast
|
What do they teach you kids these days. Freedom of speech as a concept is bigger than the first amendment. Go read some of the writings of Mill. And yes corporations that can control the public discourse are absolutely a threat to freedom of speech even if not violating the first amendment. When those corporations are banning speech at the behest of the US government it also becomes a 1st amendment issue.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/18 01:01:52
Subject: Re:Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot
|
Jerram wrote:What do they teach you kids these days. Freedom of speech as a concept is bigger than the first amendment. Go read some of the writings of Mill. And yes corporations that can control the public discourse are absolutely a threat to freedom of speech even if not violating the first amendment. When those corporations are banning speech at the behest of the US government it also becomes a 1st amendment issue.
Could you cite where in the writings of Mill he says that a newspaper or book printer (the closest equivalent to modern media in his era) is obligated to publish material by anyone who wants to submit it? I'm having trouble finding that part.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/18 01:14:26
Subject: Re:Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Stormblade
SpaceCoast
|
Nice incredibly precise challenge that goes beyond what I said. I said companies that control the public discourse are threat to freedom of speech. Mill noted that the greatest threat to freedom of speech came not from the government but from the social tyranny of fellow citizens an yes since the people who run companies are not the government that makes them your fellow citizens. A company can do what it is legally allowed to do, that doesn't mean it isn't going against the concept of freedom of speech.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/18 01:15:36
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/18 01:30:35
Subject: Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
LordofHats wrote: insaniak wrote: LordofHats wrote:TLDR:
You can;
1) I will not support Lord of Hats' new model line. He mocks PETA on a regular basis and I care about the animals.
2) I don't really like PETA either so w/e. New models are lit.
You cannot;
1) But he's right to mock PETA on a regular basis. PETA is awful and they kill animals all the time!
2) If you're buying Hat's models because he mocks PETA then you mock PETA too!
Is that the right read here?
That's a fairly good summary, yes.
Seems like a straightforward line to me then.
I also just assumed it's fairly safe to mock PETA at this point because I haven't seen anyone who likes PETA in years XD
Heh... that actually funny! post exalted!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/18 01:31:21
Any resemblance of this post to written English is purely coincidental.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/18 01:31:50
Subject: Re:Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot
|
Jerram wrote:Nice incredibly precise challenge that goes beyond what I said.
It doesn't go beyond what you said. In your own words:
Its totally awesome when those who want to use corporations and government to shut down other's speech accuse their opponents of being fascist.
That is specifically a statement about private companies (equivalent to newspapers and book printers in Mill's era) deciding not to give a platform or an audience to something they don't wish to publish.
And no, those companies don't control the public discourse. You're always free to publish your speech on your own platform, the fact that people choose not to listen to you doesn't mean that you aren't able to speak. And if enough people decide they don't like what a particular corporation publishes that corporation will fade into irrelevancy as its audience disappears and there is nothing it can do to stop them from leaving. See Elmu's $45 billion demonstration of how to destroy a platform for a nice example.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/18 01:40:37
Subject: Re:Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Jerram wrote:Nice incredibly precise challenge that goes beyond what I said. I said companies that control the public discourse are threat to freedom of speech. Mill noted that the greatest threat to freedom of speech came not from the government but from the social tyranny of fellow citizens an yes since the people who run companies are not the government that makes them your fellow citizens. A company can do what it is legally allowed to do, that doesn't mean it isn't going against the concept of freedom of speech.
Agreed, AND it turns out that the US government via the FBI, the DOJ, and a few other had back door access to Twitter, a special communication line set up specifically for them to tell Twitter what posts to pull down, what content creators to ban. The IS a felony, the US government is not allowed to suppress speech, so they outsourced it. See reporting by 'Matt Taibbi twitter files' who, if you care about such things is firmly on the left.
The point being, people need to go to prison! its not even a question. The issue is proving 'who' in specific was sending in ban requests.
For those who do not know, the Constitution is not granting the people rights, its telling the government what rights they may not infringe upon. Automatically Appended Next Post: Aecus Decimus wrote:Jerram wrote:Its totally awesome when those who want to use corporations and government to shut down other's speech accuse their opponents of being fascist.
It's totally awesome that people don't understand the basic concept that freedom of speech does not mean that a corporation is obligated to provide a platform for you to speak from and an audience to listen to your speech. FB, Dakka, etc, choosing to delete posts or ban users is not a freedom of speech issue.
You a partially correct... A privet entity has the right to moderate its own boards, the issue with FB and others is they want to act as a publisher and a unhindered content provider, skirting section 230 in an attempt to do things they have no right doing, while keeping the protections gained by 230.
Furthermore the US government in Twitter and likely others has been interfering in ways that are criminal... Using third party platforms to control speech, which is a violation of the US constitution ans a felony.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/02/18 01:48:32
Any resemblance of this post to written English is purely coincidental.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/18 01:53:55
Subject: Re:Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
This is from the N&R thread, but commenting here where it's more appropriate (since I meant what I said about following insaniak's mod note instructions).
Jerram wrote:Aecus Decimus wrote:
Can you clarify what exactly you are referring to here? The only thing that could be considered censorship here has been a mod deleting posts for violating the politics ban and, while one can certainly object to their definition of what counts as "political", it is indisputable fact that posts both supporting and against OP have been deleted for that reason and OP is not at all being singled out for any attempt at silencing.
You have previously called for manufacturers to be banned from the site. Now you are continuously hounding a manufacture, based on established behavior hoping for one of two things. The manufacture gets tired of the BS and leaves or your side gets another thread locked again. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.....
Oh no, Aecus Decimus, I definitely did not mean the mods. I meant you, and those posting like you.
You see, within just a week an extremely loud, vocal minority of posters have gotten two companies' threads deleted, and completely hijacked a third. The first two were for explicit content. Despite GW selling models like this:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Infernal-Enrapturess-2019
Slaanesh is, obviously, chock full of sexual references, and many (most?) are not consensual. So do we start baying to bar this content, too?
It's ironic for me to be having to make this argument, as I was always the strictest mod on this content. I made Brother Vinni specifically make a completely separate thread for his NSFW images, spoiler them, and wanted to nuke any image, diorama or heck, even joke/meme about rape from orbit. (I remember being the only mod opposed to a "Tentacle Grape" image and anime tentacle rape-implying model, and believe me, I was fired up about getting rid of it). I'm about as straight edged as they come in this regard.
And yet now I'm surprised to have to defend the idea that people, on a wargaming miniatures forum, might want to see, post, talk about, etc miniatures that I might personally object to, and that this should be allowed.
So, now Brother Vinni and Manufaktura are gone. What's next - you might think it's Kingdom Death (definitely non consensual content going on there, and I always personally disliked it - I also allowed it). Or maybe, as I said, Slaanesh?
Nope, it's the decade+ old line of WWII inspired models, and hounding the creator until they stop posting! And it's many of the exact same posters leading this charge, as Jerram points out. So now that will be 3 miniatures companies for all intents and purposes having discussion of removed (or if not, made basically impossible) via hecklers veto in a week!
We have seen the censors... and they are us  . What's even more ironic, is that they are the leftmost of us. I'd have always thought it would be religious conservatives ("D&D! Devil worship!!") who would be responsible for censoring wargaming, and it's actually the exact opposite group.
I'm sad about the state of the community here. I don't blame the mods, they're basically trying to drive a bus with no wheel since the owners are not around. But hecklers veto sucks, and that's what we've arrived at for all intents and purposes  . And yeah... it just sucks.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/18 02:03:19
Subject: Re:Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot
|
This is true, just not quite in the way you intended. Let's not forget that a primary argument for stricter NSFW policies is the fact that Dakka has declared itself to be an all-ages site and enforces a word filter so strict that you can't even say "donkey-cave" without it getting censored. If that is the site's goal then allowing advertising and discussion of explicit pornography is not appropriate. If Dakka wants to be an 18+ site, remove the profanity filter, and assume that everyone is an adult and viewing the site in a suitably private location then the majority of NSFW content could come back. In that context the only content I would object to would be Vinni's Ukrainian rape victim model, as that crosses the line into fetishizing real-world (and very relevant) war crimes rather than being purely fictional like most NSFW content and makes Vinni someone who should not be welcome in any civilized community. Automatically Appended Next Post: NoseGoblin wrote:The IS a felony, the US government is not allowed to suppress speech, so they outsourced it.
{citation needed}
What exact law would they be breaking? Please keep in mind that:
1) By very clear precedent, including supreme court cases directly addressing the constitutionality of restricting speech, the US government is indisputably permitted to suppress speech. It becomes very relevant why the government is suppressing it and exactly what the content of the speech in question is but there is absolutely no general law that the government can not suppress speech.
2) Asking to remove content is not the same as enforcing it. I know certain people on the right have an incomprehensible lust for Biden family dick pics but the government* saying "hey, can you remove that" is not suppression of speech unless the speaker feels compelled, whether by explicit threat or by reasonable implicit understanding of a threat, to comply with the request or face legal consequences.
*Yes, technically this was not even a request made by the government, but it's the most amusing objection to "censorship" and is often misrepresented as a government request.
You a partially correct... A privet entity has the right to moderate its own boards, the issue with FB and others is they want to act as a publisher and a unhindered content provider, skirting section 230 in an attempt to do things they have no right doing, while keeping the protections gained by 230.
You have a serious misunderstanding of what section 230 does. The protections granted by section 230 do not in any way require the publication of all submitted content, nor does selective publication of content eliminate those protections.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/18 02:09:09
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/18 02:13:24
Subject: Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
Oh, it's true exactly how I meant it lol.
I already described that I was the absolutely strictest mod regarding Brother Vinni and the like during my tenure. And I'd be just as strict now.
But I would stop short of what you all have achieved via hecklers veto, forcing discussion of that miniatures line off the site completely. And, with the exact same method, you were well on your way to doing so with Dreamforge.
However, since Mark is a pillar of the community, his miniatures line excellent, long-running and well established, and by every account an amazing guy, you're facing pushback.
That's the only reason I'm participating. You should not, via hecklers veto, be able to completely take over a company's new releases thread until your demands are met. Again, I'm glad enough of us know Mark, and separate from that just love his work, that you were not successful on this one, but it wasn't for lack of trying!
Again, we've met the censors, and they are us... or rather, they are YOU. But fortunately, enough of us have had it with this behavior, that you're not going to be able to pull it off this time!
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2023/02/18 02:19:53
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/18 02:19:40
Subject: Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot
|
RiTides wrote:But I would stop short of what you all have achieved via hecklers veto, forcing discussion of that miniatures line off the site completely.
So you think that Dakka should host advertising by someone who fetishizes, in explicit pornographic detail, the ongoing real-world mass rape of Ukrainian women by Russian soldiers? If that is acceptable then what would be sufficient to get a company banned from advertising here?
And, with the exact same method, you were well on your way to doing so with Dreamforge.
Hardly. I don't recall any discussion of banning him or discussion of his products, and I certainly didn't make any such suggestion. Let's not forget that it was his choice to make the original posts that started the whole dispute, his choice to continue engaging with his critics and defending his position, and the choice of people like you to continue the argument. Had you all decided to simply ignore the complaints a few of us would have commented on his statements and our unwillingness to support him and that would have been the end of it. With nobody choosing to argue the opposing point there would have been no further discussion and repeating the complaint posts without any interaction would have been a simple matter of spam removal.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/18 02:21:00
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/18 02:26:08
Subject: Re:Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NoseGoblin wrote:The IS a felony, the US government is not allowed to suppress speech, so they outsourced it.
{citation needed}
The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Government may NOT dictate speech, doing so is a violation of the first amendment and a governmental agency suppressing speech is a felony.The is a tried and true issue in the courts, here in the US ist well known, that is a line they may never cross. Which is why they used a third party to do so.... Still criminal.
You have a serious misunderstanding of what section 230 does. The protections granted by section 230 do not in any way require the publication of all submitted content, nor does selective publication of content eliminate those protections.
No sir, read more....Section 230 is protection for forums, you cannot have FB and Dakka getting sued every time someone posts something 'seditious' as you like to say. Its a legal protection for the forum or public venue... 'Publishers' do not get the protections under 230. the problem is when you 'selectively' edit or control speech, you are acting as a PUBLISHER not a CONTENT PROVIDER... You are threfore not entitled to section 230 protections and may be sued for all posts on your site.
Background on Publisher and Distributor Liability
Under standard common-law principles, a person who publishes a defamatory statement by another bears the same liability for the statement as if he or she had initially created it. Thus, a book publisher or a newspaper publisher can be held liable for anything that appears within its pages. The theory behind this "publisher" liability is that a publisher has the knowledge, opportunity, and ability to exercise editorial control over the content of its publications.
Distributor liability is much more limited. Newsstands, bookstores, and libraries are generally not held liable for the content of the material that they distribute. The concern is that it would be impossible for distributors to read every publication before they sell or distribute it, and that as a result, distributors would engage in excessive self-censorship. In addition, it would be very hard for distributors to know whether something is actionable defamation; after all, speech must be false to be defamatory.
Not surprisingly, the first websites to be sued for defamation based on the statements of others argued that they were merely distributors, and not publishers, of the content on their sites. One of the first such cases was Cubby v. CompuServe, Inc., 776 F.Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). CompuServe provided subscribers with access to over 150 specialty electronic "forums" that were run by third parties. When CompuServe was sued over allegedly defamatory statements that appeared in the "Rumorville" forum, it argued that it should be treated like a distributor because it did not review the contents of the bulletin board before it appeared on CompuServe’s site. The court agreed and dismissed the case against CompuServe.
Four years later, a New York state court came to the opposite conclusion when faced with a website that held itself out as a "family friendly" computer network. In Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, 23 Media L. Rep. 1794 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995), the court held that because Prodigy was exercising editorial control over the messages that appeared on its bulletin boards through its content guidelines and software screening program, Prodigy was more like a "publisher" than a "distributor" and therefore fully liable for all of the content on its site.
The perverse upshot of the CompuServe and Stratton decisions was that any effort by an online information provider to restrict or edit user-submitted content on its site faced a much higher risk of liability if it failed to eliminate all defamatory material than if it simply didn’t try to control or edit the content of third parties at all.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/18 02:27:13
Any resemblance of this post to written English is purely coincidental.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/02/18 02:27:45
Subject: Political post allowed to stand after mod review.
|
 |
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
To Aecus Decimus:
Nope, and your characterization illustrates my point perfectly lol. I'd have banned that model, no question (see my "Tentacle Grape" example above). I just think it's funny how clear the lines are for you when many of the 40k and fantasy races enslave and do all sorts of non-consensual things. I never played these races, but I also didn't morality-police those who did!
The bottom line is that you want to enforce your views, via hecklers veto, on everyone here. And this is literally the third company in a week that you've tried to do so on, enforcing your values on everyone else.
I'm sick of it. Again, you'd have thought it would be the religious conservatives, but it's the extreme liberals among us who want to censor, instead!
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/02/18 02:30:46
|
|
 |
 |
|