Apparently novelist, YouTuber & media critic @thelindsayellis is withdrawing from public life in response to what is frankly the dumbest and most inexplicable online hate mobbing I’ve ever seen.
Here’s @thelindsayellis’s account of the aforementioned mobbing. A lot of kvetching about “cancel culture” is overblown, but there really are groups of folks who take perverse glee in wrecking lives over the most ludicrously trivial of perceived offenses.
Ironically, the barking about “cancel culture” is loudest from folks on the right who are largely immune to it. The scoldmobs are most vicious to folks on the progressive left, since those are the only people they ultimately have any power over.
In case you’re wondering what vile racist act got Ellis hounded off the Internet: She wrote a tweet offhandedly likening “Raya and the Last Dragon” to “Avatar: The Last Airbender.’ Yes, seriously.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I know this makes me hopelessly elderly, but I really despise the contemporary usage of “content” (and, by extension “content creator”). Imagine describing your favorite novelist or composer or painter or director as a “content creator.”
It’s a depressing way of thinking about creative work, because it admits the work itself is essentially filler. Never mind whether what you’re creating is political argument or comedy sketches or musical performance.
Shovel some undifferentiated sludge into your skullholes! The idle minutes and hours of your tedious existience must be filled with something! And that something is content!
Y’know, I don’t want to defend everything anyone wrote about the Steele Dossier, but… the original reporting on it was, in fact, quite accurate. As was most of the *reporting* (as opposed to punditry) I recall seeing on it. buzzfeednews.com/article/kenben…
Here’s the original Buzzfeed article. They say it’s “unverified, and potentially unverifiable” and note that it “contains clear errors.” They make clear they regard it as newsworthy mainly because it’s “circulating at the highest levels of government.” buzzfeednews.com/article/kenben…
There’s certainly a decent case against publishing it—I probably wouldn’t have, at least at that time—but at some point the fact that the FBI is investigating it makes it newsworthy independent of the credibility of the underlying claims.
OK, I guess I need to spell this out, because apparently a lot of people find it confusing. It is absolutely true that *in practice*, *today*, the repeal of 230 would likely induce MORE censorship from risk-averse companies.
That’s because, demonstrably, there’s little mass commercial appeal for platforms that do no moderation at all & get taken over by porn, spam, and trolls. But it’s also true that Section 230 (part of the Communications Decency Act) was partly meant to enable censorship.
Here’s the background: In 1991, a federal court held in Cubby v. Compuserve that the service was not liable for defamatory content posted by users. Compuserve was a mere distributor of the content, not a publisher, because it did not review or control user content.
Mary Anne Franks dumping on 230 as a special protection for an “industry,” which is importantly misleading. It protects a category of conduct—for businesses AND users—not just “social media companies."
I keep hearing bizarre claims like “well, newspapers don’t get 230 protection.” But every newspaper that allows user comments on articles relies on 230. So does every individual with a blog or YouTube channel or e-mail listserv.
Individuals with e-mail lists & YouTube channels are less attractive litigation targets than deep-pocketed technology companies, of course. But they’d also be a hell of a lot easier to bully.
Not least because social media itself has made it incredibly thorny to determine who qualifies as a “public figure” as opposed to a “private individual.”
The practical use case (because stuff like non-consensual nudes was already covered) is going to be this: A person is captured on photo or video behaving in some way many consider inappropriate, probably in a semi-public setting, and wants it taken down as it starts going viral.
Oof. Apparently they found someone to double down on the Randian misunderstanding of Kant everyone was having a good laugh at when WaPo printed it a couple weeks back.
This at least attacks some stuff Kant actually said, though the supposed intellectual original sin here is (a) not particularly unique to Kant & (b) pretty trivially correct.
Like, if you think defending the Enlightenment project requires rejecting the idea that reality as we perceive it is mediated & structured by our cognitive apparatus, that sounds like pretty bad news for the Enlightenment project, because that’s clearly true.