A friend just asked me, well what do you, if you're running a social media platform, with the fact that so many countries do have "hate speech" regulations and other forms of censorship?

This is a problem as old as the world wide web, of course.

My view is this: >

If you want a platform that complies with every regime's content regulation standards, you can. But you're going to trim away so much "offensive" content, as designated by one view or another, you end up with one hell of a bland conversation. And it will only get more bland. >

And not only bland as in uninteresting, unentertaining and un-fun: The forum will lose all capacity for functioning as an agent of change - change of any kind, or, worse, change of certain forbidden kinds. Not "disruption," that's for sure.

And THAT is what these regimes want.>

Read 5 tweets

Ron Coleman

@RonColeman

Apr 27

@clouthub

Engagement:

Comparing podcast videos for Episode 64 of #ColemanNation uploaded today on YouTube and @clouthub: Neither one is a barn-burner, but... order of magnitude difference, and that's not accounting for users of each service

Of course there are many more uploads on YT

@CloutHub

Episode 62: 38 views on YouTube. 550 on @CloutHub

This one I can't explain LOL... but I'll take it

Read 5 tweets

Ron Coleman

@RonColeman

Apr 6

https://twitter.com/roncoleman/status/1233417461556502531

Coming up on three years. No decision.

https://twitter.com/roncoleman/status/1233417461556502531

Again, here's the amended complaint likelihoodofconfusion.com/gavin-mcinnes-…

Here's our opposition to the SPLC motion to dismiss likelihoodofconfusion.com/opposition-bri…

Read 5 tweets

Ron Coleman

@RonColeman

Mar 24

I was resigned to the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the SCOTUS. I don't really understand her stand on CP but I didn't think it was enough to keep her off the high court. Judges are funny, and frankly if you don't have the Redweld, you never know about a case. >

But I'm seriously troubled by her "I'm not a biologist" crack. It reveals a fundamental break with reality, far worse than the one that brought us Obergefell.

That decision was terrible, but at least it merely dealt with a legal construct: Marriage. >

The logical and moral absurdities of pretending not to know how to define the two sexes are bad enough - very, very bad. This is especially bad for someone writing opinions involving the myriad laws premised on the parties' sexes in our vast social-engineered legal regime. >

Read 11 tweets