Mailchimp Shuts Down GreenMedInfo’s Newsletter for “Anti-Vaccine” Content

[Swordsmyth]

That is correct, they may be privately held but they are de facto public utilities.

At the very least they are now a publisher and not a platform.

[Stratovarious]

I just sent them (Mail Chumps) a note telling them they should go into peoples
homes gestapo style , find out what their thoughts are then ban them
from being able to send email to anyone anywhere , for life.

[Stratovarious]

At the very least they are now a publisher and not a platform.

I assumed they were an email service, shows what I know........ :shrugs: I don't get out much...

[r3volution 3.0]

How are we supposed to fix the problems with government if we are deplatformed and unpersoned by the oligarchs?

The only problem with the "oligarchs" are problems of government.

As for how you solve any of those problems, when most voters and special interests don't want them solved...

...welcome to democracy, ain't it swell?

[parocks]

If that's true, then it'll solve itself, won't it?

A problem that the Ron Paul folks have always has since 2007 at least is this idea that we do live in a free market economy that works by free market principles.

We want that, and we pretend that we have that, at base, with flaws that we identify, and we resist any efforts to place more restrictions on our our ideal, partially functioning, but ultimately functioning, at root, free market system.

Nope.

We're all screwed. There is no free market right now. And we would all oppose any laws to fix this "we're all screwed" problem.

The government has made it illegal to just go and kill the bad guys. The government is working with the bad guys. They're on the same team.

[parocks]

That is correct, they may be privately held but they are de facto public utilities.

Yeah, de facto public utilities.

We really need some sort of law. I guess I'm not a libertarian. Maybe I just understand that if we added this law, the country would go from, not at all free market to still not at all free market.

A few ideas about proposed laws.

1) If you start out as a normal non censoring company, then you become a near monopoly, you can't start censoring.

2) If you aren't explicitly political, no censorship.

4) Censorship is more acceptable when you're talking about a political website, or, an ideological website.

5) The phenomenon called "triggered" or "triggering" or anything like that, is a mental illness. We don't shape the world in order to make crazy people happy and comfortable. We treat crazy people so that they can function in the existing world with sane people.

6) Any websites that involve important, standard communications = like facebook, twitter, mailchimp, youtube = no censorship.

I'd like to see the Sherman Anti-Trust Act just rip everything apart, which would be separate from this law.

[timosman]

The biggest lie ever - we represent the normal.

[specsaregood]

That is correct, they may be privately held but they are de facto public utilities.

they are in no way a public utility. they are much more like a private mailbox/shipping store in a strip mall. and their terms of use on their site makes it plain that they censor and limit who can use their service and for what content.

[r3volution 3.0]

At the very least they are now a publisher and not a platform.

A) Under what circumstances should Person X be held liable for Person Y's speech?

B) What is the underlying crime, committed by Y, that you're concerned about?

...don't cite me the current statutes, I'm asking how you think the law ought to be.

[UWDude]

Internet is the post office of the 21st century. It should be set up with all the rights of a utility.

their terms of use on their cite makes it plain that they censor and limit who can use their service and for what content.

and they are literally 70% foreign, and have foreign ideas about what freedom of speech means.

And the ones who do understand what freedom of speech means, must keep silent, or lose their jobs.

And yeah, work voluntary contract, blah blah.

But really., who the $#@! is really running these silicon valley corporations?

It was the $#@!ers we were forced to bail out for $700B cuz too big to fail.
They are still a cabal of majority shareholders.

I KNOW WHO MY ENEMIES ARE
THEY DESERVE HASTY EXECUTIONS
$#@! THEIR RIGHTS

[oyarde]

I do not use male chump nor would I but I do find it curious a private mail co doing business would be so concerned if you are anti vacs . Why would they care ? Also kind of hard to believe you approve an account for a greenmed without knowing it would violate your suddenly very biased opinions .

[UWDude]

I do not use male chump nor would I but I do find it curious a private mail co doing business would be so concerned if you are anti vacs . Why would they care ?

Because they are culling the weak minded.

[Swordsmyth]

A) Under what circumstances should Person X be held liable for Person Y's speech?

B) What is the underlying crime, committed by Y, that you're concerned about?

...don't cite me the current statutes, I'm asking how you think the law ought to be.

If you take editorial control of content on a subjective basis as opposed to a published list of what you won't allow then you are responsible for anything you allow.

[timosman]

I do not use male chump nor would I but I do find it curious a private mail co doing business would be so concerned if you are anti vacs . Why would they care ? Also kind of hard to believe you approve an account for a greenmed without knowing it would violate your suddenly very biased opinions .

AKA Making $#@! up as we go.

[r3volution 3.0]

If you take editorial control of content on a subjective basis as opposed to a published list of what you won't allow then you are responsible for anything you allow.

Define "editorial control."

[timosman]

Define "editorial control."

Before and after are different.

[Swordsmyth]

Internet is the post office of the 21st century.

If the Post Office kept up with the times and offered a neutral 1stA abiding service in each internet category we could ignore the transgressions of private parties even when they were wrong.

Neutral distribution of information is vital to a republic.

[timosman]

If the Post Office kept up with the times and offered a neutral 1stA abiding service in each internet category we could ignore the transgressions of private parties even when they were wrong.

Neutral distribution of information is vital to a republic.

What if you are crazy?

[UWDude]

Define "editorial control."

Banning you, would be editorial control.

Everyone knows you are a sock puppet.

Selective enforcement and all.

Everyone knows you have been banned before.

But the only reason anyone would want you banned, is because they ideologically disagreed with you.

[Swordsmyth]

Define "editorial control."

It's plain English.

The kind of control an editor exercises.

[timosman]

Banning you, would be editorial control.

Everyone knows you are a sock puppet.

Selective enforcement and all.

Everyone knows you have been banned before.

But the only reason anyone would want you banned, is because they ideologically disagreed with you.

I am not sure about Che.

[Swordsmyth]

What if you are crazy?

Honk Honk.

[UWDude]

Neutral distribution of information is vital to a republic.

The truth must constantly be guarded.
It is always under attack.
They are always trying to find slimy, underhanded ways to shut us up.
Shut the people up. Give control to the bailed out multiple time bankers.
The majority shareholders of all these corporations. They run the boards.
And they are far more than just American bankers.

I cant wait until it is completely legal to have lotteries, deciding which banker gets hung on a reality show, and who gets to kick the bucket from beneath them.

I can't wait, until it is not only legal, but socially acceptable, even encouraged to do so. online, and is a giant online money making scheme. Executions for entertainment. Bye bye bankers.

And they know this hatred for them exists.

[r3volution 3.0]

It's plain English.

The kind of control an editor exercises.

If I own a forum, do I have "editorial control" of posted content if I:
--review every post before publishing
--review 1/10 posts
--review 1/1000 posts
--review 1/1M posts
--review 1/1B posts
--review no posts?

What kind of control did a traditional editor (i.e. of a print publishing venue) have when these rules were made?

[timosman]

Honk Honk.

Sounds good to me.

[UWDude]

If own a forum, do I have editorial control of posted content if I:
--review every post before publishing
--review 1/10 posts
--review 1/1000 posts
--review 1/1M posts
--review 1/1B posts
--review no posts?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, no.

If you are not reviewing posts, you have no way of censoring them, therefore, no editorial control.

[UWDude]

I am not sure about Che.

I am. Che is way cooler.

[Swordsmyth]

If I own a forum, do I have "editorial control" of posted content if I:
--review every post before publishing
--review 1/10 posts
--review 1/1000 posts
--review 1/1M posts
--review 1/1B posts
--review no posts?

What kind of control did a traditional editor (i.e. of a print publishing venue) have when these rules were made?

If you make subjective decisions about what you allow then you have editorial control, you may not exercise it in all cases, you may not even be capable of exercising it in all cases but you have it and you use it.
If you can't exercise it in all cases then maybe you should either not take it or not allow posts to appear until you can.

[r3volution 3.0]

If you make subjective decisions about what you allow then you have editorial control, you may not exercise it in all cases, you may not even be capable of exercising it in all cases but you have it and you use it.
If you can't exercise it in all cases then maybe you should either not take it or not allow posts to appear until you can.

If the platform owner doesn't/can't actually moderate content, what *decisions* are we talking about?

[Swordsmyth]

If the platform owner doesn't/can't actually moderate content, what *decisions* are we talking about?

If he doesn't then he doesn't have editorial control, if he does sometimes then we are talking about the times he does.