Vladimir Putin Signs Sweeping Internet-Censorship Bills (arstechnica.com)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed two censorship bills into law Monday. One bans "fake news" while the other makes it illegal to insult public officials. Ars Technica reports on the details: Under one bill, individuals can face fines and jail time if they publish material online that shows a "clear disrespect for society, the state, the official state symbols of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and bodies exercising state power." Insults against Putin himself can be punished under the law, The Moscow Times reports. Punishments can be as high as 300,000 rubles ($4,700) and 15 days in jail.

A second bill subjects sites publishing "unreliable socially significant information" to fines as high as 1.5 million rubles ($23,000). [T]he Russian government has "essentially unconstrained authority to determine that any speech is unacceptable. One consequence may be to make it nearly impossible for individuals or groups to call for public protest activity against any action taken by the state," [analyst Matthew Rojansky told the Post]

Comments

To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

This is to prevent discourse on his attempts to maintain power beyond his constitutional term, whether by the Belarus union option or other means.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Narcocide]

Well yea, but it will also make it illegal to claim the Earth is flat so... win some, lose some, am I right?

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Partly, but that's only a small part of the bigger picture. It's primarily because he knows there's a storm coming, as soon as Trump is gone and Brexit isn't distracting every moment of British political discourse anymore, the genie he let out of the bottle of political interference is going to cause serious blowback in Russia when it's used back against them in kind.

This threat is already prevalent for him in some ways given that he tried the same tactic to get Le Penn in power in France, but didn't count on Macron turning up as a force of nature capable of capturing votes better than his propaganda campaigns ever could. I have no doubt French security services are already looking at ways to turn the tables under Macron's leadership therefore, given Macron himself was personally targeted by Putin. As soon as other big boys like America and the UK come on board, if their security services aren't already in spite of their inept national governance, Russia, is, frankly, fucked.

So the only thing Putin can do is try and enact laws and powers to control and shut down the internet to try and prevent that, but the irony is that in doing so he's only pissing off his own citizens even more and speeding up his inevitable demise.

And demise in Russia doesn't merely mean a new president, it means being knocked off with nuclear or biological weapons, it's really a case of live by the sword, die by the sword, and this maneuver by Putin is a desperate attempt to try and prevent the blowback from his actions; his policy of meddling could only realistically have worked if it had worked everywhere; but he was beaten in France, he was held back in Germany, and his candidate in the US unfortunately was stupid enough to make the security services his enemy by attacking them, so have managed to remain sufficiently independent as to not be neutralised by the effects of Putin's man in the whitehouse. Even Brexit is now beginning to falter despite once having looked inevitable and despite still seeing significant Russian funding through campaigns such as this that, unlike counter-campaigns such as Best for Britain, are not registered with the electoral commission so as to mask their funding source:

https://www.facebook.com/ads/l...

Mark my words, within the next 10 years Putin is done, and liberalism will return to the West as the natural leaning of human progress. The far-right (I refuse to submit to it's poor attempt at rebranding and call it alt-right) is showing it's true colours as a far bigger terrorist threat to Western society now than even ISIS and will be dealt with appropriately. The tables are turning and this act by Putin is a significant act of desperation in realisation of the fact that he's poked the lion one too many times and a shit storm is brewing for him.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

This is to prevent discourse on his attempts to maintain power beyond his constitutional term, whether by the Belarus union option or other means.

He'll have to replace Lukashenko to do that. There's no way Lukashenko will ever agree to a true union with Russia. Plus, there will be even more sanctions on Russia if he knocks off Lukashenko or invades Belarus. Lukashenko is no threat or problem for Russia, so an easier way would be to simply change the constitution or to let Medvedev serve another caretaker term as president. I'm guessing that they'll just change the constitution.

Re:To prevent discourse

[White Yeti]

The visa part, at least, is only partially true: "With a valid U.S. passport, you can stay up to 90 days [without a visa] for tourism or business during any 180-day period." I'm pretty sure long-term work or residence always required a visa.

Re:To prevent discourse

[mjwx]

Partly, but that's only a small part of the bigger picture. It's primarily because he knows there's a storm coming, as soon as Trump is gone and Brexit isn't distracting every moment of British political discourse anymore, the genie he let out of the bottle of political interference is going to cause serious blowback in Russia when it's used back against them in kind.

This threat is already prevalent for him in some ways given that he tried the same tactic to get Le Penn in power in France, but didn't count on Macron turning up as a force of nature capable of capturing votes better than his propaganda campaigns ever could. I have no doubt French security services are already looking at ways to turn the tables under Macron's leadership therefore, given Macron himself was personally targeted by Putin. As soon as other big boys like America and the UK come on board, if their security services aren't already in spite of their inept national governance, Russia, is, frankly, fucked.

So the only thing Putin can do is try and enact laws and powers to control and shut down the internet to try and prevent that, but the irony is that in doing so he's only pissing off his own citizens even more and speeding up his inevitable demise.

If we weren't talking about Russia I'd say you'd have an exceptionally good point.

However Russia is not like the west, it doesn't matter how authoritarian Putin gets there will be no popular uprising as there wasn't against Stalin or subsequent communists. Right now enough Russians are singing Putin's praises that he doesn't need to worry about fixing elections or pesky term limits, a lot of Russians think that Putin has made Russia strong again. Many of these people are also willing to patrol the streets and report their neighbours for being unpatriotic citizens. Most Russians have never known any other life except under the heel of another Russian and as long as the foot in the boot on their neck is a Russian foot, they seem to be content to accept it.

Putin wants to keep the west destabilised as the west is pretty much the only threat to his dictatorship. I'm guessing he's hoping to well and truly be in power by the time Trump is gone and Brexit has been sorted.

Re:To prevent discourse

[MitchDev]

Nah, letting people say they believe the Earth is flat or that you shouldn;t get your kids vaccinated just helps the rest of us identify the morons...

Re: To prevent discourse

[DamnOregonian]

Oh, shut the fuck up you gaslighting shit stain.
Slimy little trolls like you are why this whole thing has gotten so out of control.
You know damn well those are misleading caricatures.

Re:To prevent discourse

[geekymachoman]

> This is to prevent discourse on his attempts to maintain power beyond his constitutional term, whether by the Belarus union option or other means.

I don't care about Putin. But one thing's for sure - Putin don't need no internet bill to stay at power and people complaining about it. You cannot stay in power if you enact bills like this, it will not help, and people like Putin are not stupid to think that law can help them stay in power. What they do is they allow other people to get elected, and these other people are just muppets for people like Putin (like Dmitry Medvedev).

Times of forcing people to do anything is far gone. Now, you manipulate them to think they got what they want.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Mab_Mass]

The discrepancy is probably due to the fact that the "right wing nutjob" accurately named several left-wing dictums, while the left-wing but job just named a bunch of left-wing caricatures of what they apparently think the right wing believes.

Wow. BOTH of the posts were simple, one-dimensional caricatures of the other side. If you think that the first post "accurately named" any left-leaning policies, you need to get out of your bubble.

Seriously, I'm about as left as they come, but none of those statements was even close to something I'd claim as a valid position.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

That's still easy-mode, sorry:

Men can be women has nothing to do with science. Those are roles you're referring to, and yes, people can assume different roles throughout their lives. Their at-birth sex is not your business and therefore irrelevant.

Environmental destruction is already having a massive negative impact on humanity's long-term survival, whether it's habitat loss and species extinction or air and water pollution, or ocean acidification and dead zones; unfortunately no amount of proof aside from witnessing societal collapse will ever change your mind.. and even then it still might not, after all flat-earthers are a thing.

Black males commit more murders than white males because of long-lasting systematic discrimination which have denied generations of black communities opportunities to succeed. That doesn't excuse the individual, but it explains the statistic.

The Abrahamic religions in general aren't religions of peace, but we are tolerant of them because there are some good aspects of religious beliefs and some good people who believe them. In the end, we have to allow people to be ignorant and make bad choices because to deny them that is to deny them freedom. All we can hope is that the ignorant will eventually wise up.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Mab_Mass]

"Men can be women" is established left-wing dogma these days

While you're right that support of transgender rights is a left-wing position, the issue is more complicated than simply insisting that "men can be women." In fact, all of the positions listed in the original post are gross oversimplifications of complicated positions designed to appear stupid. This is, at its heart, the very definition of caricatures.

For the sake of trying to illuminate some of this complexity, let's just try to unpack this single issue, shall we? (I assume that I'm probably wasting my time, as conversations on the internet rarely change people's opinions, but I'm bored at work.)

First off, how do you define what is even means to be "men" vs. "women"? We all have some basic common-sense ideas, but none of them work as solid definitions. If we try to define things at the chromosome level, you can try to say that XX is a woman and that XY is a man, but what about XXY or XYY or XXXY? There are more, but you get the idea. If we then say that is complicated, but we can define based upon external genitalia, things get even more complicated. For one, there are hermaphrodites - where do they go? Also, some people have the standard XX or XY genotypes yet have external genitalia consistent with the opposite sex. I work in biotech and a colleague of mine tells a story of working for a prenatal genetic testing group that found an expecting mother had an XY genotype with a pure female phenotype.

Already, just trying to define terms, we are forced to abandon any kind of simplistic binary gender identity. It turns out that things are more complicated, even if we only focus on concrete issues like genotypes and external physiology.

Next, we turn to the even more complicated issues of sexual identity. In other words, how does any given person identify their own gender? I know very little about you personally, but I'll guess (based upon /. demographics) that you think of yourself as a man. (I also am a man, FWIW) When is it that you made this decision? Have you ever considered yourself or thought of yourself as a woman? Personally, I haven't. I'm a dude, and I've always seen myself that way. In other words, my gender identity was not a choice, but rather something that is intrinsic to who I am.

Now, imagine that you have this same sense of being a particular gender, but the organs between your legs don't match your particular sense of self. Most people's identities match their genitals, but for some people, they don't.

The current "left-wing dogma" is that people should get to decide for themselves their own gender identity, based upon the same intrinsic sense that you are using to identify your own gender, regardless of their genitals.

The statement "men can be women" misses this complexity. Instead, it tries to mix up various terms and frames the whole issue in a way that tries to deny all of the complexity mentioned above. That is what makes it a caricature.

As a side note, why should anyone else even give a shit about my gender? In a great many ways, allowing a flexible gender identity should be considered the right-wing, libertarian position. After all, unless I'm trying to have sex with someone, I really don't give a rat's ass how their clothing, etc. relates to what is under the clothing.

Re: To prevent discourse

[mapkinase]

Many Russians in the West think that Putin is the best given the choice between inept unconstructive and immoral opposition and him.

It's not the lack of data, it's just the reality does not match fairy tales of sjw liberals.

Re: To prevent discourse

[mikaere]

Genuinely, what is the point where you stop the racism of low expectations, and start asking that their culture condemn violence and move into the modern era?

The USA is a country entirely predicated on racism, either through slavery or colonial violence against the First Nation peoples. Blacks have only had emancipation for around 50 years, that is 10% of the time that the USA has been in existence.

Your systems are inherently racist because this is what happens under colonisation. Have a look at the other European colonies e.g. Australia, New Zealand and review the research taking place there.

Blacks being victimised by your state institutions such as the police or the courts is an entirely predictable outcome of colonisation. You don't see it because your society has a white normative bias, and probably because you don't study this aspect of sociology either.

Re: To prevent discourse

[rtb61]

I prefer simply rules. The censorship law is entirely anti-democratic and opposed totally opposed to equal rights. Specifically it places public officials above private citizens, public officials can insult and humiliate citizens in any way they choose and citizens will be criminalised should they dare to point out the moral failings of those officials. The law is entirely corrupt on that basis, as it places the rights of some citizens above the rights of other citizens and should be roundly condemned upon that basis.

All legislation must be equal in interpretation and application and should never create special rules for some, whilst denying the majority the same access to those rules and protections. So meh, Fuck Putin and the Russian government, they are a pack of potential monarchist cunts. That is the only fair and reasonable response to those unequal and biased laws.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Mab_Mass]

I'd consider it the left trying to have their cake and eat it too. It is trying to enforce the association of a particular behaviour to a particular biological sex. Which may or may not be the case.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. From where I sit, the left is not trying to enforce an association between behavior and biological sex. It is quite the opposite, in fact. Trying to enforce, for example, the notion of strong, stoic men has resulted in generations of emotionally immature men with anger issues. From what I've seen, there is more of a push to break down the strict boundaries of gender roles to allow room for more personal expression. To some extant, the feminist movement has moved the goalposts for women, allowing them to express more traditionally masculine traits and to get involved in rough sports, etc. On the flip side, however, image the reaction by many if a little boy when to school wearing a pink, frilly dress. Quite frankly, in many places, this boy would be in physical danger for something as trivial as clothing choice.

What do you mean by "gender"

In the most basic sense, I mean gender as the male/female dichotomy as a social construct. See the American Psychological Associations's description for more details.

To those that push identity politics it seems to almost be like a religion, making claims about some 'innate sense of being' about a particular sex.

When did you decide to identify as a man or woman? I'm honestly not trolling here. Instead, I just want to illustrate how for the majority of people, this is a nonsense, no-brainer question. For some, however, this is a very difficult question. I have known several trans people, and one common thread that is echoed across everything that I've read is that even as a small child, they have had a sense of being the opposite gender of their biological sex.

Certainly identity politics is fraught with bad politics/power plays, etc., but please don't think that this is only something the the left is guilty of. The far-right's obsession with immigration and fear of the loss of white culture is identity politics at its worst.

It's all well and good for people to have weird and wonderful senses of spirituality, but it isn't cool to push them on others. Some clearly male person with stereo-typically feminine traits claims to be female? fine, but others don't have to agree and are entitled to think the person is deluded, that instead it's fine for guys to be how they are and it doesn't change them being guys.

If you want to think transgender people are deluded, that's fine - you can think whatever you want. At the same time, though, you should recognize that trans people have existed for a long time in different cultures.

Literally, all that most trans people want is to just live their lives as the gender of their choice. They don't want to push anything on you, only to be treated with respect, be addressed with a particular set of pronouns, and live according to how they picture themselves. Why is this such a big ask?

Clever girls

[stealth_finger]

So they've basically made it so they (the state, the gov, politicians etc) can say anything they want and any one who might question it will be hit with "disrespect for society, the state, the official state symbols of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and bodies exercising state power." and anyone not state sanctioned can be pulled on "unreliable socially significant information". Trump is probably checking to see if he can get away with that one too.

Re:Clever girls

[Freischutz]

Trump is probably checking to see if he can get away with that one too.

Um, it's literally the Democrats who are going all in for online censorship. They just conveniently have the private sector CEOs of the communications media on their site.

Your comment conveniently overlooks Fox News and Sinclair media. Is that because you think they are the only ones who are fair and balanced or do you just not count them as part of the communications media because you think they channel god's word straight into your living room?

Re:Clever girls

[stealth_finger]

Not me dude, luckily he's literally not my president so I couldn't give a shit, but he does seem to be the one with the hurt feelings. Twitter rants all the time because tv people joked and hurt his ickle wickle feelwings :_( Awww whassa matter poor little snowflake? If he can put a stop to people criticising him you know for a fact he'd jump at the chance. It might even over take his wall on the list of things to pretend to be doing.

The second North Korea

[SurenEnfiajyan]

I am so glad that I no longer live in Russia since the age of 3-4 years, though its my birthplace.

Re:The second North Korea

[SurenEnfiajyan]

Welcome to the USA...

I live in Armenia.

Re:The second North Korea

[tehcyder]

Welcome to the USA...

I live in Armenia.

It's spelled AMERICA, pal.

Re: The second North Korea

[TimMD909]

Armenia? Cool name for a state. I live in a different state called 'denial'. The weather's great here. I think...

Re:nothing new

[Tomahawk]

Is 'freedom of speech' actually entrenched in the laws or constitution in every country?
In the US it wasn't until the first amendment was ratified.

Does it have the same meaning in every country?

Also, does the Government of every country treat it the same?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:It's not an insult...

[JaredOfEuropa]

Saying "Putin has a big nose", then, isn't an insult, it's just a fact.

Hence the new laws. Pointing out an inconvenient truth about Putin or his cronies might technically not be an insult, but you can be sure it will de deemed "disrespectful to the state" and punished accordingly.

Re: nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Even after ratifification, it only applied to the federal government. It until the 14th amendment that it changed.

New Zealand

[Kunedog]

No post on NZ's internet (and more) censorship?

Re:New Zealand

[Highdude702]

Of course not, that's good censorship.

Re:It's not an insult...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ex-Putin Adviser Who Died in U.S. Had Broken Neck, Report Says

The official ruling was that Mikhail Lesin, 57, died accidentally of blunt force trauma after falling repeatedly in his room while intoxicated

https://www.haaretz.com/world-...

Go ahead and insist that you're right.

Re:nothing new

[Highdude702]

Well, that is until the data centers get harassed into not letting you use their services, and the same with your payment processors. and well we've seen what really happens when you try to run your own service.

The court jester

[Evtim]

I once read an interesting commentary from a historian. He was discussing the futile attempts of several (rather) competent kings of my country and how every time the state got rich and prosperous they would start some new wars, usually with their eyes fixed on the throne in Constantinople and then ruin the country trying to conquer it...

The scholar then spends a whole chapter of his book on the phenomenon of the court jester and how incredibly useful for a king it was that there is at least one person in the kingdom who can tell the truth to power! Remarking that the only Slavic king to ever have a jester was Peter the Great, who was of course heavily influenced by ideas from Western Europe. The jester survived for two months, after that he was sent to Siberia to tell jokes to the polar bears and the king (tsar actually) never got another one. I noted that not only Slavic tsars but no other ruler apart from the Western kings had a jester....though I think there was something like that in ancient Rome (standup philosopher, hey! Ohh, a professional bulshitter! Did you bulshit anyone last week? Did you TRY bulshitting anyone?)

Anyhow, I always assumed that under democracy, particularly with the aid of the net all of us can be the court jester. And that politicians would be wise enough (dream on!) to realize the usefulness of it...how else would they know (just like kings of old) what are the real concerns and troubles of the people.

Alas, not only everyone outside the West doesn't support telling truth to power; now it is questioned and slowly eroded here as well. From both sides of the political spectrum. Sad!

Re:The court jester

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you are highly incorrect about 'the only Slavic king to ever have a jester'.

Having a jester was a norm in medieval kingdoms of Poland, Czechia, Croatia

Russia is actually quite non-Slavic country with very strong Mongol and authoritharian influence - if you compare with Polish, Ukrainian or Balkan chaos and weak states or Czechs approach to religion - it is Russia that does not fit Slavic state standard.

Unreliable

[mentil]

Of course "unreliable socially significant information" is so nebulous it could refer to any information. 'Unreliable' doesn't even mean the same thing as 'false', it could just meant questionable or controvertible. I expect this to be heavily subject to selective enforcement, so those who make any inconvenient statements can be fined a year's wages to be made an example of. From what I can find, median per-capita income in Russia is ~$6,500/year. Interestingly, their PCI peaked at ~$9,700/yr in 2013, right before the annexation of Crimea and the associated sanctions. I bet the people aren't very happy their income has dropped by a third in the past 6 years.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you can do that.

There's the principle of the "public figure" in the US and the EU. So if you're a public figure like a politician, celebrity, or whatever who is in the position to utilize their social status to influence other people, you do not enjoy the same privacy and defamation rights as regular people.

This is to ensure that powerful people can be criticized for their actions and can't abuse their fame and wealth in legal systems that are already stacked in their favor due to their wealth and fame.

Re:At least they're open about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

In whataboutism we can trust.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[dunkelfalke]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Communism isn't just a placeholder for "policies I personally don't like", it has a reasonably clear definition. And by this definition Putin is most certainly not a communist.
Even going by the standards of the late CPSU Putin would not be a communist, but a reactionary and an enemy of the people.

Re:nothing new

[schwit1]

"How about the GOP dressing up O'Rouke's 2 decade old drunk driving mugshot to look like a leprechaun for St. Paddy's Day?"

There were multiple insults there.
An Irish guy calling himself Beto to get Hispanic votes
A rich guy talking like he understands how the poor feel
A criminal acting like he's a Kennedy (DUI and leaving the scene of the accident)

Surprised, anyone?

[OneHundredAndTen]

He remains what he has always been: a KGB thug.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[L. J. Beauregard]

Public Service Announcement: The right to free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say.

It doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it.

The 1st Amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences.

If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show cancelled, or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated.

It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door.

What next?

[The Evil Atheist]

Banning flag burning, or kneeling during the national anthem at a sports game?

People in the west used to ridicule for this

[Roodvlees]

Now, many westeners want the same in their own countries...

Re:Next week, Trump attempts the same

[SocietyoftheFist]

Hey, Trump loves laws like this, he praises Putin and Xi.

Re: Leftist Propaganda Needs Censorship

[L. J. Beauregard]

Roight, guv. The Commie Pinko Liberals are all into flags and nationalist bullshit and Nuremberg rallies and military expansion. When they're not burning the flag, Trashin' Are Country and Disrespectin' Are Troops. (Which one of these are we doing this week? My SorosGram got lost in the mail again.) I mean they were the National Socialist German Workers' Party, right?

Pay attention when Ah'm talkin' to ya, son. When tyranny comes to America, it will not be UN troops and black helicopters and Agenda 21. It will be the Fourth of July every single fucking day. And you, Anonymous Coward, will be shouting the Leader's slogans and goose-stepping to the Leader's drums.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[terrycarlino]

I absolutely do.

But pretending that Trump or the Republicans would do this if they could, while conveniently forgetting that Obama and the Democrats actually tried, is a shill move.

Real conservatives are constitutionalists and honor the Bill or Rights.

Unfortunately we've come the point where we're not allowed to criticize people for their actions. Someone can be a war hero of undisputed bravery and still be a political back-stabber. Someone can hold beliefs we disagree with and still hold them with integrity and not be evil. Yet somehow too many people seem to think we're living in a cartoon where all of the opposition works for Satan and any criticism is equivalent to marking someone with 666.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[terrycarlino]

News organizations hating someone was a criteria for excluding reporters than Trump would be talking only to Fox News. If lying about the president was a criteria for getting excluded then I guess Fox would again be the only reporter in the room.

Why not just admit that Obama tried to exclude Fox News and it was a d*ck move and Trump tried to exclude specific reporteres and it was a d*ck move and let it go at that.

Nobody has tried to pass a law in the U.S. to jail people for insulting the government. The left has counted on their buddies in Big Tech to ban people from social media, the "new public square", that is not public and all and not subject to the first amendment. Still a problem, but not the same thing.

There's no points for tribalism.

Re:nothing new

[lgw]

You don't have free speech if "hate speech" is banned. Heck, Putin has just effectively relabeled speech against the government as "hate speech". China long ago did the same, but broader, calling any speech that disrupts social harmony "hate speech".

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[L. J. Beauregard]

1. Stop being a drama queen. You. Are. Not. Being. Oppressed.
2. Donald Trump is a liar, a crook, a thief, a con artist, a loudmouth braggart phony and the very model of a toxic boss. He has been these things IN PUBLIC for decades longer than the Evil Liberal Deep State Fake News Mainstream Media has had any reason to care about his politics. Now he starts whistling all the Fascist dog whistles and suddenly he's the Messiah.
3. Which "traditional values" are you talking about? The one that says the wifey should be barefoot and pregnant? That the cullud people should know their place? That the Feelthy Queers need to remain in the closet? That I'd better see you in church bright and early Sunday morning OR ELSE?
4. Again: When tyranny comes to America, it will be the Fourth of July every day, not black helicopters, and YOU will be on the tyrant's side.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[terrycarlino]

The problem here being that it only takes a small, noisy, activist group to scare advertisers enough to ban just about anybody. Be a big enough asshole and advertisers, who quite frankly just don't want to deal with the noisy minority will dump you, so social media bans you.

twitter banned a liberal feminist fro misgendering. This is becoming not just a right verses left problem.

In the U.S. social media is protected like the post office. They have no responsibility for what is carried on their platforms. If they want to edit like publishers, then conversely they should be treated like publishers and made responsible for all that is published on their platform. They shouldn't have it both ways.

Re:Why "Once Trump is gone"

[lgw]

Civil discourse is necessary for a functioning democracy. Our system is doomed if we're unable, as a society, to sift through propaganda and fake news. Discourse and compromise between factions are the foundation of civilization itself. Partisanism, demagoguery, and nationalism proceed the fall of great nations.

This is very true. But that "we" is important. Each of us as individuals needs to be able to sift through propaganda and fake news. And most people are in fact pretty god t that when it comes to things that affect them directly. People will believe anything they're reading just for entertainment, and that's OK really.

We built a resilient society by insisting that critical thinking is everyone's duty. You can't outsource that; well, not and protect yourself from tyranny. Very effective: you read some misinformation, and most of your friends point out why it's wrong and give you shit for believing it. Very ineffective: this is the dark secret the government has hidden from you; don't believe it, they're just protecting you by hiding this mysterious dangerous informant that you should not read.