Multifocal fuckhead
Article by Godwin, the writer of Godwin's Law.

He's been around the net since the BBS/USENET days, and he's been a lawyer dealing with net cases most of that time.

He says he used to be pure libertarian, but now he's starting to believe that more controls are needed because the WRONG SORT OF PEOPLE are using freedom. RUSSIAN_MEDDLING can't be allowed to MALIGN_BEHAVIOR the web, and of course non-Sorosians need to be EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE. Individual Liberty requires it. Individual Liberty means Soros owns everything.

Here's one focus of idiocy:

Another thing we clearly got wrong is how large platforms would rise to dominate their markets—even though they never received the kind of bespoke regulated-monopoly partnership with governments that, generations before, the telephone companies had received. In most of today’s democracies, Google dominates search and Facebook dominates social media. In less-democratic nations, counterpart platforms—like Baidu and Weibo in China or VK in Russia—dominate their respective markets, but their relationships with the relevant governments are cozier, so their market-dominant status isn’t surprising.

Nonsense. Google was a government contractor from the start. Long before the web, big tech companies were primarily government contractors. It started in 1946 and it was already obvious in 1960 when Ike talked about it.

Second focus of idiocy:

Alternatively, as in this 2019 piece by Matt Schruers, the newly appointed president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, it’s sometimes called “the moderator’s dilemma,” where opposing incentives lead either to the suppression of viewpoint diversity or to websites “plagued with off-topic content, trolling, and abuse.”

One reason we need to keep Section 230 safe—a reason I didn’t have the foresight to champion back in the 1990s—is that it’s crucial to fighting disinformation: It allows internet platforms to curate their content without necessarily increasing liability.

Platforms have always curated content. It's called publishing. Publishers have always worked within the constraints of liability for real harm. Publishers didn't need Section 230. Moderating specialized forums has always been a hard job. Do you kick out the asshole who really knows his stuff but can't stop lording it over others? Or do you stay loose and keep the asshole's valuable knowledge while losing some newbies? Alphia Hart discussed it often in his 1950's anti-Hubbard magazine Aberree. Editors of radio hobbyist newsletters discussed it in the '30s. It's just part of the job. No easy solution.

Third focus of idiocy:

I remain skeptical as to whether tactics like microtargeting and demographic profiling, whether used by political campaigns or foreign governments, are as effective at manipulating people as some critics fear, but I see nothing wrong with using legal and policy tools to stop malicious actors from trying to use these tools.

Nothing new about profiling. It's called knowing your customers. Scammers have always done the best job of knowing their customers. The post office and Ma Bell always made efforts to stop scammers, though it was easier with mail. Also, in previous decades media tried to educate people about the techniques of scammers. Now that our entire "economy" is mobs and rackets, nobody wants to train the suckers.

But Godwin isn't talking about scammers when he says MALICIOUS ACTORS. The keyword means only one thing. Surprise surprise surprise.

I still believe that, but here in 2020 I’m also haunted by the challenges we face everywhere in the world in this century, ranging from climate change to income inequality to the (not-unrelated) resurgence of populist xenophobia and even genocidal movements.

Freedom is fine as long as the free people are 100% SorosThought. Any entity that is not 100% SorosThought is MALICIOUS_ACTOR MALIGN_BEHAVIOR and must be EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE.



The only genocidal movements are on your side, fuckhead. Greta is explicitly and joyfully genocidal.

Is Godwin just an idiot, or is he an AP? I'm inclined toward idiot. The centralizing nature of the web was perfectly clear in the '80s. NSA was the central node, and NSA developed the web for its own ends, not for "liberty". The other problems have been around long before the web, and didn't inspire "libertarians" to favor total censorship.

Meta-Godwins-Law left as exercise for reader.

Labels: #DeplorableLivesMatter, Aberree, Carbon Cult, malign misattribution, Sorosia

  ¶ 11:05 PM