| 00:03:30 | | hooway quits [Client Quit] |
| 00:06:40 | <isthisthedarkweb> | Wayward I'm not familiar with that SCOTUS case and my cursory search didn't yield it - do you remember the name? |
| 00:10:23 | <thuban> | the reference may be to _knight first amendment institute at al v. donald trump et al_, although that was a circuit court decision (the second) |
| 00:16:17 | <isthisthedarkweb> | That's why I wanted to clarify, as that case did not involve telling the White House to enable comments (reasonable court mixup aside) |
| 00:17:16 | | ftl quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer] |
| 00:17:56 | | ftl joins |
| 00:18:27 | | Dragnog_ joins |
| 00:18:56 | | HCross_ (HCross) joins |
| 00:18:56 | | @ChanServ sets mode: +o HCross_ |
| 00:19:24 | | themadpro_ (themadpro) joins |
| 00:19:47 | | Dallas_ (Dallas) joins |
| 00:20:44 | | Dragnog quits [Ping timeout: 600 seconds] |
| 00:20:44 | | Dragnog_ is now known as Dragnog |
| 00:21:50 | | Dallas quits [Ping timeout: 610 seconds] |
| 00:21:51 | | Dallas_ is now known as Dallas |
| 00:33:01 | | dxrt_ is now known as dxrt |
| 00:33:02 | | dxrt is now authenticated as dxrt |
| 00:33:02 | | dxrt quits [Changing host] |
| 00:33:02 | | dxrt (dxrt) joins |
| 00:33:02 | | @ChanServ sets mode: +o dxrt |
| 00:33:23 | | themadpro quits [Read error: Connection timed out] |
| 00:33:23 | | @HCross quits [Read error: Connection timed out] |
| 00:33:23 | | @HCross_ is now known as @HCross |
| 00:33:47 | | themadpro_ quits [Client Quit] |
| 00:34:22 | | themadpro_ joins |
| 00:40:24 | <Ajay> | Wayward: I thought they just said not to ban people since then they wouldn't even be able to see it |
| 00:40:38 | | themadpro_ is now known as themadpro |
| 00:40:51 | <Ajay> | I don't think it had to do with comments |
| 00:48:30 | <thuban> | Ajay: the decision specifically concluded that replying, etc was expressive activity, and that blocking people (thereby removing their ability to directly reply) was a burden on their ability to engage in speech (including with third parties talking to or about the president) which violated 1a |
| 00:48:47 | <Ajay> | I see |
| 00:48:57 | <Ajay> | I guess blocking everyone equally is probably less of an issue |
| 00:49:21 | <thuban> | yeah, not content-based |
| 00:49:39 | <Wayward> | That was actually brought up in the case, and though it didn't apply quite as specifically then, it was asserted as meaningful then... |
| 00:51:06 | <thuban> | is _knight_ then indeed the case you meant? |
| 00:51:35 | <thuban> | & i'm not quite sure what you mean--pronoun lacks antecedent |
| 00:52:41 | | @dxrt quits [Client Quit] |
| 00:52:59 | | dxrt joins |
| 00:53:01 | | dxrt is now authenticated as dxrt |
| 00:53:01 | | dxrt quits [Changing host] |
| 00:53:01 | | dxrt (dxrt) joins |
| 00:53:01 | | @ChanServ sets mode: +o dxrt |
| 00:53:08 | <Wayward> | > And burdens to speech as well as outright bans run afoul of the First Amendment. See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. 564 U.S. 552,566 (2011) (stating that government "may no more silence unwanted speech by burdening its utterance than by censoring its content”) United States v. Playboy 529 U.S. 803,812 (2000) ("The distinction between laws burdening and laws banning speech is but a matter of degree. The Government' scontent‐based burdens mus |
| 00:53:20 | <Wayward> | > The Government' scontent‐based burdens must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny as its content‐based bans.”). |
| 00:53:48 | <Wayward> | The issue at hand is that they deleted and then disabled Comments completely in response to criticial commentary. |
| 00:53:57 | <Wayward> | And for no other reason |
| 00:54:28 | <isthisthedarkweb> | To make sure we're starting from the same point of understanding, the "outright ban" referenced in the decision is banning a person in response to their political views |
| 00:54:49 | <isthisthedarkweb> | This is the first sentence of the decision: "This case requires us to consider whether a public official |
| 00:54:49 | <isthisthedarkweb> | States." |
| 00:54:54 | <Wayward> | So, the ruling isn't strictly about individuals and targeted bans on an entity by enity basis |
| 00:55:26 | <Wayward> | but also broad scope burdens on critical speech and the ability to express it |
| 00:55:36 | <thuban> | deleting all/disabling all comments is not content-based. |
| 00:56:08 | <isthisthedarkweb> | That is a reasonable opinion to have about the situation personally, Wayward, but that's not what the case held |
| 00:56:21 | <Wayward> | It was when it was decided to do so because of the presence of undesired content, and not before then. |
| 00:57:07 | <Wayward> | here's the entire ruling. |
| 00:57:07 | <Wayward> | https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/a07ecc2a26/2019.07.09_ECF-141-1_Opinion.pdf |
| 00:57:55 | <Wayward> | it's worthy of note that the court's decision doesn't apply to specific platforms, technologies and techniques, but to general principles and evolving landscapes, both today, then, and 100 years from now. |
| 00:59:02 | <Wayward> | A conscientious actor of the Government stepped in and squashed speech, with intent and purpose, using the technologies and techniques available on that platform. |
| 00:59:03 | <thuban> | i've read it. i don't believe it supports the claim you're making and i don't think most 1a lawyers would agree with you (or that such a claim would be likely to succeed in court). |
| 00:59:42 | <Wayward> | Including speech that was already made present, and then made deleted. |
| 00:59:48 | <Wayward> | Not preserved. |
| 01:02:09 | <Wayward> | At the very minimum, I was deprived of accessing public speech that was already uttered, through concious efforts. |
| 01:02:42 | <isthisthedarkweb> | You would be correct if the current administration kept comments on and selectively deleted comments based on the opinion they expressed, and if deleted those comments banned that user from seeing future white house posts |
| 01:03:40 | <isthisthedarkweb> | The decision is explicit that blocking a user prevents them from seeing future posts and participating in what was used by POTUS as a public forum was relevant |
| 01:04:23 | <isthisthedarkweb> | That, to my knowledge is not even possible for youtube, and is entirely irrelevant if the white house does not create a public forum with their posts, i.e., enable comments |
| 01:05:05 | <thuban> | in addition, the government can and does close public forums (eg public parks). |
| 01:06:43 | <thuban> | you seem to be putting a great deal of weight on the fact that previously made comments have now been deleted, but i'm hard pressed to see the legal relevance. |
| 01:09:04 | <@Kaz> | i think the very clear cut difference here is 'blocking an individual' vs 'disabling a feature' |
| 01:09:12 | <@Kaz> | pretty sure whitehouse.gov is wordpress. |
| 01:09:15 | <@Kaz> | wordpress supports comment |
| 01:09:23 | <@Kaz> | why can't I comment on whitehouse.gov? |
| 01:09:36 | <Wayward> | I'm pretty sure that deleting existing published recordings is also no bueno |
| 01:09:51 | <thuban> | on what basis, wayward? |
| 01:09:52 | <@Kaz> | tell your nearest judge |
| 01:09:53 | <Wayward> | public record, comments |
| 01:11:11 | <Wayward> | isthisthedarkweb: the youtube channel used to be a public form. comments were enabled. the criticism was bustling |
| 01:11:31 | <@Kaz> | uh |
| 01:11:45 | <@Kaz> | you needed an account, right? |
| 01:11:46 | <Wayward> | so i guess the question is, can the government go in and change their minds, bust up the public forum and shew everyone out? |
| 01:12:01 | <Wayward> | Kaz: account membership is irrelevant |
| 01:12:22 | <@Kaz> | I feel like you can't just throw away account membership because it doesn't suit you |
| 01:12:26 | <@Kaz> | it very much is relevant |
| 01:12:50 | <@Kaz> | I am a US citizen living in Iran |
| 01:12:58 | <@Kaz> | Google has banned me, and now I cannot criticize my government |
| 01:13:16 | <@Kaz> | the government is using a platform that violates my freedom to criticize the government |
| 01:13:17 | <Wayward> | That's a very good point and one that's actively being prepped for lawsuit |
| 01:13:38 | <isthisthedarkweb> | Care to elaborate on that? |
| 01:14:05 | <@Kaz> | so consider me confused |
| 01:14:20 | <@Kaz> | you don't like the fact that they turned off comments, but you also hate that they'd enable comments on a non-free platform |
| 01:14:20 | <Wayward> | Knight First Amendment v. Trump has opened up a lot of doors in codifying Social Media as the "New Public Forum" |
| 01:14:25 | <@Kaz> | you simply cannot have both |
| 01:14:30 | <@Kaz> | pick one |
| 01:14:52 | <Wayward> | It may be that a judge and jury has to convict somebody of wrong doing before an account can be terminated |
| 01:15:11 | <@Kaz> | hahahaha |
| 01:15:21 | <@Kaz> | man, hook me up with the good shit |
| 01:15:22 | <Wayward> | utilizing a real and proper Artical 5 courtroom instead of just a kangaroo court to affect and afflict people's lives |
| 01:15:57 | | @JAA puts a bowl of popcorn on the table. |
| 01:15:58 | <Wayward> | The same way that any other private-public spaces have to in real life |
| 01:15:58 | <@JAA> | Help yourself. |
| 01:16:16 | | BlueMaxima quits [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] |
| 01:16:41 | <isthisthedarkweb> | You're not allowed to block individuals for protected speech responding to government communications = you have to be convicted by a jury to be blocked? |
| 01:16:56 | <Wayward> | That's the way it rather ought to be |
| 01:17:32 | <@Kaz> | you appear to simultaneously want 'they should allow comments on youtube' at the same time as 'they should not use youtube for comments' |
| 01:17:34 | <@Kaz> | which one is it |
| 01:17:39 | <Wayward> | A court has to order you to stay out of public squares in meat space |
| 01:17:40 | <@Kaz> | pick exactly one |
| 01:17:58 | <Wayward> | A court should have to order you to stay out of public squares in cyberspace |
| 01:18:22 | <@Kaz> | uh |
| 01:18:26 | <@Kaz> | is google state-owned |
| 01:18:28 | <@Kaz> | did I miss the memo |
| 01:18:29 | <Wayward> | Knight First Amendment v. Trump DEFINES social media as public squares |
| 01:18:37 | <isthisthedarkweb> | It does not do that. |
| 01:18:38 | <Wayward> | it's on record |
| 01:18:38 | <thuban> | Wayward: yes. yes they can. no court would find it unconditionally unconditional to close existing public fora (digital or physical), because it would make basic maintenance, renovations, and general change impossible. is the government obligated to somehow keep youtube running after google shuts it down? does all municipal construction have to cease because public sidewalks |
| 01:18:40 | <thuban> | are fora in perpetua? |
| 01:19:08 | <isthisthedarkweb> | In a moderate amount of detail, it explains why twitter, specifically, the way the white house was using it, specifically, counted as a public forum |
| 01:19:19 | <isthisthedarkweb> | It abosultely does not say ALL SOCIAL MEDIA IS PUBLIC |
| 01:19:32 | <@JAA> | Kaz: Google is a front for the NSA etc. pp. |
| 01:20:00 | <@Kaz> | ah yes |
| 01:20:05 | <@Kaz> | I forgot that little loophole |
| 01:21:27 | <isthisthedarkweb> | Wayward see page 3 of the case you linked, A: The Twitter Platform |
| 01:23:36 | <@Kaz> | https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/553892314590871562/803072522991304714/unknown.png |
| 01:23:45 | <@Kaz> | 'otherwise-open' is a keyword here, I think |
| 01:23:54 | <@Kaz> | I haven't read the whole doc, obviously |
| 01:27:34 | <thuban> | it's not long. legal decisions are much more accessible than most people think and i encourage you & others (other americans, anyway) to consider reading them--the institute for justice's "short circuit" newsletter and podcast are both very entertaining |
| 01:28:12 | <thuban> | geez, ^ s/unconditionally unconditional/unconditionally unconstitutional/ |
| 01:53:44 | | flashfire42 steals popcorn from JAA |
| 01:55:46 | | Wayward quits [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] |
| 02:13:23 | | BlueMaxima joins |
| 02:55:34 | | BlueMaxima quits [Client Quit] |
| 04:10:10 | | qw3rty_ joins |
| 04:13:24 | | qw3rty quits [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] |
| 05:22:01 | | tzt quits [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] |
| 05:24:28 | | Atom joins |
| 05:39:35 | | DogsRNice quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer] |
| 06:37:24 | <atphoenix> | what whitehouse videos were deleted? were they reposted somewhere else? |
| 06:45:23 | | spirit joins |
| 08:36:55 | | hooway joins |
| 08:49:16 | | @arkiver quits [Quit: .] |
| 08:49:30 | | arkiver (arkiver) joins |
| 08:49:30 | | @ChanServ sets mode: +o arkiver |
| 10:49:17 | | godane1 joins |
| 10:51:55 | | godane2 quits [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] |
| 11:37:50 | | monoxane quits [Changing host] |
| 11:37:50 | | monoxane (monoxane) joins |
| 12:17:11 | | nepeat quits [Client Quit] |
| 12:17:53 | | nepeat joins |
| 12:30:12 | | LeGoupil joins |
| 13:49:24 | | mutantmonkey quits [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] |
| 13:53:53 | | mutantmonkey (mutantmonkey) joins |
| 14:13:03 | | DLoader_ joins |
| 14:15:53 | | DLoader quits [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] |
| 14:15:54 | | DLoader_ is now known as DLoader |
| 14:37:26 | | Arcorann quits [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] |
| 14:43:05 | | @dxrt quits [Client Quit] |
| 14:43:23 | | dxrt joins |
| 14:43:25 | | dxrt is now authenticated as dxrt |
| 14:43:26 | | dxrt quits [Changing host] |
| 14:43:26 | | dxrt (dxrt) joins |
| 14:43:26 | | @ChanServ sets mode: +o dxrt |
| 15:13:51 | | themadpro is now known as themadpro_ |
| 15:14:02 | | themadpro_ is now known as themadpro |
| 15:15:10 | | themadpro is now authenticated as themadpro |
| 15:15:20 | | benjins quits [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] |
| 15:15:53 | | benjins joins |
| 15:16:16 | | benjins is now authenticated as benjins |
| 16:38:58 | | tzt joins |
| 16:56:43 | | sliccricc (sliccricc) joins |
| 17:01:44 | | sliccricc quits [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] |
| 17:37:46 | | LeGoupil quits [Client Quit] |
| 17:38:11 | <spirit> | does wpull's --reject-regex take the hostname into account or should i use ^ to denote the start of the url after that? |
| 17:38:19 | <spirit> | eg if i want to reject anything on example.com that is in the root (so to speak) and named "foo.*". https://example.com/foo |
| 17:38:40 | <spirit> | --reject-regex 'example.com/foo' or --reject-regex '^/foo' or something else? |
| 17:41:05 | <@JAA> | spirit: It acts on the full URL. You can do something like --reject-regex '^https?://[^/]+/foo' if you want to ignore it across all hosts. |
| 17:41:39 | <spirit> | cheers! |
| 17:43:59 | | Mossaab joins |
| 17:49:12 | | sliccricc (sliccricc) joins |
| 17:49:33 | | Mossaab quits [Remote host closed the connection] |
| 18:03:44 | <spirit> | i will never get tired of asking, current wpull fork is ...? ludios' fails on python 3.9 |
| 18:06:26 | <@JAA> | Not sure there is one that supports 3.9. |
| 18:13:11 | <spirit> | oh noes |
| 19:20:48 | <systwi> | Using an ignore with `wget' like "-R index.htm*" has the possibility of removing something useful, such as "index.html_creation_tips.mp4", correct? |
| 19:23:22 | <@JAA> | systwi: Yes, if there's any wildcard in the --reject value, it's treated as an fnmatch. |
| 19:30:47 | | godane2 joins |
| 19:32:50 | <systwi> | An effin' match, got it :P |
| 19:33:04 | | godane1 quits [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] |
| 19:38:47 | | godane1 joins |
| 19:41:16 | | Hackerpcs quits [Quit: Hackerpcs] |
| 19:41:39 | | godane2 quits [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] |
| 19:42:45 | | godane2 joins |
| 19:43:13 | | Hackerpcs (Hackerpcs) joins |
| 19:44:01 | | godane1 quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer] |
| 20:11:46 | | Atom-- joins |
| 20:15:04 | | Atom quits [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] |
| 21:36:24 | | Mateon1 quits [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] |
| 21:37:19 | | Mateon1 joins |
| 21:38:26 | | ftl_ joins |
| 21:38:44 | | pnJay__ joins |
| 21:42:44 | | pnJay_ quits [Ping timeout: 600 seconds] |
| 21:42:44 | | pnJay__ is now known as pnJay_ |
| 21:43:04 | | @Fusl_ quits [Ping timeout: 600 seconds] |
| 21:51:47 | | ftl quits [Read error: Connection timed out] |
| 21:51:47 | | ftl_ is now known as ftl |
| 22:25:15 | | BlueMaxima joins |
| 23:16:16 | | spirit quits [Client Quit] |
| 23:25:02 | | godane (godane) joins |
| 23:26:37 | | godane2 quits [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] |