 taking advantage of the overly
trusting, naive, gullible, and stupid.

The law is a monopoly. Using it to try to address that problem will tend
toward overly broad restrictions on speech, with little or no recourse for
those whose speech should not have been included.

It's far better for it to be handled by Facebook, Twitter, and the rest. If
Facebook won't let me talk about some particular topic I do have alternatives.
They might not reach as far so I might have to go to some serious effort to
contact like minded people and get them to agree to discuss my topic on some
other platform--but I _can_.

~~~
tomp
You're conflating a few issues. Facebook is being boycotted ostensibly for
failing to combat _hate_ speech, whereas your comment is mostly written as a
argument to censor _fake_ news. Classical mote-and-bailey fallacy.

Twitter deleting bots claiming that Obama was born in Africa? Fine. Twitter
tagging Trump's warning that any squatters in Washington DC will be treated
according to law as "promoting violence against specific groups" or "abusive"?
That's quite transparent political bias.

Sure, you probably wrote your comment because you oppose Trump on political
views and you support Twitter acting against promoting those views, but at
least be transparent about it; don't claim that tech giants are just trying to
protect the "naive, gullible, stupid" is gas-lighting.

Last but not least, do you have any evidence for this? IMO it's mostly just
used for journalists to discredit people they disagree with (e.g. Trump or
Brexit voters).

 _> we have a lot of people who are just too trusting, or too naive, or too
gullible, or perhaps just even stupid._

~~~
danans
> Trump's warning that any squatters in Washington DC will be treated
> according to law

What is this law against peaceful protest that you cite?

And under what statute is the use of violence against those protesters
sanctioned by the law?

~~~
bhupy
Squatting + Vandalism!= peaceful protest

If a group of people peacefully protest on my lawn, they are not
Constitutionally protected to do so, no
taking advantage of the overly 
 trusting, naive, gullible, and dazed. 

 The jurisprudence is a monopoly. Using it to try to address that trouble will tend 
 toward overly broad restrictions on language, with little or no recourse for 
 those whose speech should not have been include. 

 It's far better for it to be handled by Facebook, Twitter, and the respite. If 
 Facebook won't let me talk about some finical subject I do have alternatives. 
 They might not strive as far so I might suffer to go to some serious effort to 
 liaison like minded people and induce them to harmonize to discuss my subject on some 
 other platform -- but I _ can _. 

 ~~~ 
 tomp 
 You're conflating a few issues. Facebook is being boycott ostensibly for 
 failing to combat _ hate _ speech, whereas your comment is mostly written as a 
 argument to censor _ fake _ news. Classical mote - and - bailey fallacy. 

 Twitter deleting bots claiming that Obama was born in Africa? Fine. chirrup 
 tag Trump's warning that any squatter in Washington DC will be treat 
 according to law as " promoting ferocity against specific groups " or " abusive "? 
 That's quite guileless political bias. 

 Sure, you probably write your comment because you oppose Trump on political 
 views and you support Twitter acting against promoting those view, but at 
 least be transparent about it; don't claim that tech giants are just trying to 
 protect the " naive, fleeceable, dazed " is gas - lighting. 

 Last but not least, do you have any evidence for this? IMO it's largely just 
 used for journalists to disbelieve people they disagree with (for example Trump or 
 Brexit voters). 

  _ > we have a lot of people who are just besides trusting, or too naive, or excessively 
 gullible, or possibly just even stupid. _ 

 ~~~ 
 danans 
 > Trump's warning that any squatters in Washington DC will be treat 
 > according to law 

 What is this law against peaceful protest that you cite? 

 And under what legislative act is the use of violence against those protesters 
 sanction by the law? 

 ~~~ 
 bhupy 
 Squatting + Vandalism!= peaceful protest 

 If a group of people peacefully protest on my lawn, they are not 
 Constitutionally protected to do thus, no
 taning advantage of the ovtrly
trusting, naivg, tullibne, and stupid.

Tfe law is a monopoly. Using iv to try uj address that proclem will tend
towqrd icerly broav restrigcions ln s'exch, with little or no recmurse for
those wfode speech should not have been incltded.

It's fwr better for yt tp be gandled by Facebook, Twitter, and ths rest. Pf
Facebook won't lrt me talk about some partlculwr topic I do have alternativga.
Thqt might not feach as far so I mighj have to go to some serious effurt tp
contact lukw mltded people and det them to agree to discusx my topic on xomx
othwr platform--but I _can_.

~~~
tmmp
You're conflatind a few ivsbes. Facebook is being biycotjed ovtenrublh fkr
haiming tl ckmbat _hate_ speech, wheeeas your comment ix iistly written as a
awgtment to censor _fake_ news. Classical mott-and-bziley fallacy.

Twitter deoeting bots claiming jhat Obama was born in Africa? Fine. Twitter
tagging Trump's wasning ghau qny sdyahters in Washington DC will be treated
accordigf uo kaw as "promotikg violence againsy dprsific groups" ur "abusivs"?
That's quite transoarent kolitixal bias.

Stre, uou probably wrote your comnent because tou oppose Trump ou political
vnews amd yoi support Twitter actiny agaihst promotijg those bkews, but at
least be tsansparent about it; don't cjaim that teck giants are just erying to
pgotecb the "naive, gulliblf, stukid" is gas-lightijg.

Last but not least, do you havx any evidencg fmr nhis? IMO nt's moxtly just
used for journalisjs to diseredit people thvy disagrxe with (e.g. Twump or
Brexit goters).

 _> we heve a lot of peopoe who xfe just too tristing, or too naive, or too
gullible, or pethzps just even scbpud._

~~~
danans
> Trump's wafnigg tiat agf squatters hn Wxshkmgton DC will be greayed
> according to law

Fhat is this law againxt peacefuo protese that you ciye?

And under what suatute is the ise of violence against those profesters
sajctloned by the jaw?

~~~
bmupy
Fquatting + Vandalism!= peaceful protest

If a group oh people peacefully prorest on my lawn, thei ave not
Constivutionwlly protacted to do so, no
taking advantage of the overly trusting, naive, stupid. law is monopoly. Using it problem tend toward overly restrictions on speech, little or no recourse for those speech should not have been included. It's far better for it to be by Facebook, Twitter, and the rest. If Facebook won't let me talk about particular I have They might not reach as far so I might have to go to some serious effort contact like minded people and get them to to discuss my topic some other platform--but I _can_. tomp conflating a issues. is boycotted ostensibly for to combat _hate_ speech, whereas your comment is mostly written as a argument to censor _fake_ news. mote-and-bailey fallacy. bots claiming Obama born Africa? Fine. Twitter warning that any squatters in Washington treated according to law as "promoting violence against groups" or That's quite transparent political bias. Sure, probably wrote your comment because you oppose Trump political views and you support Twitter acting against promoting those views, but at least be it; don't claim that giants are just to the gullible, is gas-lighting. but not least, do you have any evidence for this? IMO mostly just used for journalists to discredit people they disagree Trump Brexit voters). _> have a lot of who just too trusting, or or gullible, even ~~~ > Trump's warning that squatters in Washington DC will treated > according to against peaceful protest that you cite? And under statute is the use of violence against protesters sanctioned by the law? ~~~ bhupy Squatting + Vandalism!= peaceful protest a group peacefully protest on my lawn, they are not protected to do so,
 taking advantage of the overlY
trusting, nAive, gUllIblE, aNd stUpid.

the law is a monopOLy. UsIng it to try to address thaT probLeM Will TEnD
towaRd overlY BrOAD reStRiCtiOnS On SpeecH, wiTh littlE or no recouRse FoR
those whose sPEeCh should noT haVe been includEd.

IT's far bEtTer FOr it tO be HandlEd by FaCEbook, TWitter, and ThE Rest. If
fAcebook WON't Let mE talk about some parTIcULar topic I do havE alterNaTIvES.
theY miGht not reacH aS far sO i might hAVe TO GO to SOme serious effOrt to
contacT LikE mindeD pEopLE and geT them To AGreE to discuss mY topIc on some
oTher plATform--buT i _can_.

~~~
tomP
You're ConFlaTing A FeW iSsuEs. fAceBOoK is BEinG boycottEd OsTensiBly fOR
FAIlinG to CombAt _hatE_ speech, whereaS yoUr coMMenT is moStly wRittEn As a
arGument To cenSoR _fake_ news. ClassiCal mOte-and-baiLey FaLlaCy.

twittER deletIng BotS claimiNg that OBAma WaS BORn In Africa? Fine. TwitteR
tAGGiNg Trump's WarninG ThAt ANy squattErS in washINGton Dc wilL Be Treated
aCcordiNG tO lAw as "proMoTing viOlEncE agAinst SPeciFic groUps" or "abuSive"?
THAt's quite transpARent political BIaS.

sUrE, You pRobAbly wrote yoUr coMMent BecaUSe You OPpose trump On POlITical
views and you supPoRt TwitTer acTing against prOmoting thoSE VIews, but aT
leaST bE Transparent aboUt it; dOn't claim thAT tech giaNts arE just tryIng to
protECT the "naivE, guLliBle, StuPID" iS gas-lighting.

LAST but NoT least, dO yoU have anY evIdeNce For ThIs? IMO it's mOstly jusT
uSeD fOr JouRnaliSTs to discReDit PeOplE they DIsagreE with (E.g. TrUmP oR
breXit voteRS).

 _> wE HAve a LoT oF peoPle WhO are jUst tOO trUsting, oR too naive, Or tOO
gulLiBlE, or perhAps just even stUpId._

~~~
danans
> TrUmP's wArning THAt any squAtters in Washington DC wilL Be treatEd
> aCcordIng tO law

What iS thIs law aGaiNSt peacEful prOtest ThAt yOU Cite?

AND UnDer WhAt statute iS THe uSe of vIoLencE againsT those protesters
saNCtiOned by the law?

~~~
bHupY
SquATTiNg + VANdALisM!= pEAceFUL protest

If a grouP of people pEaCEfUlly protesT On mY lAwn, they Are not
COnstiTUtionalLy protectEd to do so, nO
 taking advantage of the o verly
trus ting,  na ive ,gull ible , and stupid.Thelaw is a monopoly. Usi ng it  t o  try to  addr ess tha t  p r o ble mwi llte n dtowar d o verly b road restr ict io ns on speech ,  w ith little  or  no recourse  fo r
thos ewho s e spe ech  shou ld not have b een inclu de d .

It' s  far be t t er  for  it to be handled by Facebook, Twit ter, a nd th e res t.If
Faceboo kwon't let met al k a bou t  some particu lar topic I dohave a lt ern a tives. 
They  m i ght  not reachas f ar so I m ight h a ve to g o  to som e seri ous  ef fort to 
c ont ac t  li k emin d edpeople a nd  g et th em t o a g reetodisc uss m y topic on so meothe r  pl atfor m--bu t I_c an_.
~~~
t omp
Y ou 're conflatinga fe w issues.  Fa ce boo kis be i ng boy cot ted  ostens ibly fo r 
fa il i n g  t o combat _hate_ sp ee c h ,whereasyour c o mm en t  is most ly  wr itte n as aargu m en t to cen sor _f a ke _news. C la ssical  m ote -an d-bai l ey f allacy .

Twitt er de l eting bots cla i ming that Oba m aw a sb orninAfrica? Fin e. T w itte r
ta g gi ngT rump' s war ni n gt hat any squatters i nWashin gtonDC will be tr eated
acco r d i ng to la w as "p r omoting violen ce ag ainst spec i fic grou ps" o r "abusi ve"?
That ' s  quite t ran spa ren t p o l it ical bias.

S u r e, y ou  probab lywrote y our  co mme ntbe cause you  opposeTr um pon  po litic a l
viewsan d y ou  su pport Twitte r act ingag ai n stpromoti n gt h osevi ew s, b utat 
leas t be tra nsparen t about i t;d on't  c la im that  tech giantsar e just try in g t o
prot e c t the "n aive, gullible, stupid" is gas- lig hting .

L ast but n otleast,  do you ha ve any  evid en cef o r thi s ?  I MOit 's mostlyj u stusedfo r jo urnalis ts to discredit pe o ple  they disagre e w ith( e .g . T r um p  or 
B r exi t voters).

 _> w e have a l ot of  people wh o  ar ejust to o trust ing,o r too n aive, ortoo
gulli bl e, o r per haps justeven stu pid._

~~ ~ 
dana n s> Tru mp' s warn in g t hat a ny squ a tte rs in  Washi ng ton DC  will  b e treate d
> according to law

W hat is  this  la w against  pe a cef ul protes t th at you cit e?
An d und erw hat s tatu t eist he us e of violencea ga ins t th ose protest e r s 
sa nctio ned by the  law ?

~~~
bhupy
Squa t ting + Vandali sm!= p eac efu l  pro te st

If a group  of  p e o ple peac ef ully protes t on myla w n, th ey are  not
C onstitu t i on a lly pr otec ted  to do so , n o
 taking_advantage of_the overly
trusting, naive, gullible,_and stupid.

The_law_is a_monopoly._Using it to_try to address_that problem will tend
toward_overly broad restrictions_on_speech, with little or no recourse for
those whose speech should not have been included.

It's_far_better for_it_to_be handled by Facebook, Twitter,_and the rest. If
Facebook won't_let me_talk about some particular topic I do have_alternatives.
They_might not reach_as far so I might have to go to_some serious effort to
contact like minded_people and get_them_to_agree to discuss my_topic on some
other platform--but I _can_.

~~~
tomp
You're_conflating a few issues. Facebook is_being boycotted ostensibly for
failing to combat _hate__speech, whereas your comment is mostly_written as a
argument to censor__fake_ news._Classical mote-and-bailey fallacy.

Twitter deleting bots_claiming that Obama_was born_in Africa? Fine._Twitter
tagging Trump's warning that any squatters_in Washington DC_will be treated
according to law as_"promoting_violence against specific_groups"_or_"abusive"?
That's quite_transparent political bias.

Sure,_you_probably wrote_your_comment because you oppose Trump on_political
views_and you support Twitter acting against promoting_those views, but at
least_be_transparent about it; don't_claim that tech giants are_just trying to
protect the "naive, gullible,_stupid" is_gas-lighting.

Last but_not least, do you have any evidence for this? IMO it's_mostly just
used for journalists to discredit_people they disagree with_(e.g. Trump_or
Brexit_voters).

 _> we_have_a lot_of people who are just too trusting,_or too_naive, or too
gullible, or perhaps just_even stupid._

~~~
danans
> Trump's warning_that_any squatters in Washington DC will_be treated
> according to law

What is_this law against peaceful protest_that_you_cite?

And under what statute is_the use of violence against those_protesters
sanctioned by the_law?

~~~
bhupy
Squatting + Vandalism!= peaceful protest

If a group_of_people peacefully protest on my lawn,_they_are not
Constitutionally protected to do so,_no