Senator Lindsey Graham To Host Special 'But Think Of The Children Online!' Moral Panic Hearing
from the oh-come-on dept
Senator Lindsey Graham is not exactly the most tech savvy of politicians — and he demonstrates this is the most predictable of ways: falling for bogus tropes about the internet, while always (always) kowtowing to the surveillance state. He’s not sure that bloggers should be protected by the 1st Amendment, and he thinks that the law requires internet platforms to be neutral (it does not). Of course, one thing he likes about the internet is the fact that it allows the intelligence community to sweep up all your data.
But his latest is that next week he’ll be hosting a hearing with the most ridiculous of moral panic titles around: “Protecting Innocence in a Digital World.” There’s no more information about what the panel is officially about or who will be speaking, but from the name alone you can assume it’s going to be full on moral panics about the evils of the internet and how “something must be done” to “protect the children.” Of course, given his earlier comments on why Section 230 of the CDA is no good, there’s a decent likelihood that this, too, will be attacked during the hearing — even though CDA 230 was literally written to enable platforms to create “family friendly” spaces — and amending it would likely take away those incentives.
Similarly, this is coming at the same exact time that his colleague, Senator Josh Hawley, is demanding that companies stop moderating altogether, because he’s upset by the myth that internet companies are silencing conservatives (reality: they’re just saying they don’t want to host trolls and Nazis and sometimes they make mistakes because when you’re dealing with that much content mistakes will be made).
So I’m a bit confused as to how Senator Graham and the Judiciary Committee expect internet platforms to magically stop “bad stuff” online at the same time that another Senator is demanding that they stop moderating altogether.
Filed Under: grandstanding, innocence, internet, lindsey graham, protecting innocence, section 230, think of the children
Comments on “Senator Lindsey Graham To Host Special 'But Think Of The Children Online!' Moral Panic Hearing”
Is it real or is it Clairol, only the hairdresser knows for sure
Maybe the Academy Awards should focus on politicians rather than movies. Or, maybe not. While there is a lot of acting going on in politics, it may or may not be better acting.
Re: Is it real or is it Clairol, only the hairdresser knows for
And the award for best tragic comedy goes to….
The Apprentice 2: White House Boogaloo!!
Re: Is it real or is it Clairol, only the hairdresser knows for
I thought politics was where drop-out actors ended up.
" Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke
It is unfortunate, not to mention disturbing, the number of people for whom the common computer still rates as "sufficiently advanced."
Re: Re:
and depressing
Re: Re:
I am a computer programmer.
I spend my days creating complex written formulae which, when invoked, cause changes in reality. These formulae are developed in an arcane language, ordered according to strange and arbitrary rules that reflect deeper realities of an unseen world, a system which most ordinary mortals freely admit is beyond their comprehension. The language itself was created by several of the greatest masters of my craft, to provide a way to give definition to the powers of the unseen world and tame the chaotic and dangerous effects that can all too easily arise from manipulating them.
Is it truly that surprising that people see what I do as sorcery?
Re: Re: Re:
Funny, I’m also a computer program, and I see my computer as my lovable dog. He’s loyal to a fault, doing exactly what I tell him, be it sit, roll over, or attack the neighbors. He’s loyal, but REALLY stupid. I gotta communicate with him in really simple terms – "run, spot, run" level of language. Nothing mystical going on here…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
From my Digi-Comp I to my Threadripper – they were always seen as magic by the muggles.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s more or less the premise of Charles Stross’s Laundry Files series: "magic is a branch of applied mathematics."
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I rememver right, in one of the marvel crossovers, Doctor Strange gave Beast (Hank McCoy) an enchanted doodad that allowed the latter to perceive magic. Except instead of glowing neon purple snakes, Beast perceived the now-visible arcane apparitions as glowing mathematical theorems.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Isn’t that more or less what Thor said to Jane Foster in the movie Thor?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Jane: "That’s a quantum field generator, isn’t it?"
Frigga: "It’s a Soul Forge."
Jane: "Does a Soul Forge transfer molecular energy from one place to another?"
Frigga: "…Yes"
Jane (whispered): "Quantum field generator!"
Re: Re: Re:
Now you’ve done it. Watch out for Graham and his ilk. Shouldn’t be too hard to spot them though. They’ll be the ones with the pitchforks and torches.
Re: Re: Re:
You join the ranks of other MDP (most dangerous people) on the planet. Hopefully you will keep your cool. Not like some TICKING TIMEBOMBS like graham.
Not to mention he worships Trump like crazy.
Bad bad man.
Re: he pretty much admitted he was evil
He’s just doing it to keep his job and pretty much admitted it to a reporter.
He only has self interest at heart no matter what he says.
dudes with girl names always have a hidden agenda
sleepawaycamp
thecryinggame
Re: Re:
Wut?
Re: Re:
So what’s your hidden agenda, Pat?
So show us how it’s done, genius (and no, not the Apple kind)!
So the part of me that really dislikes politicans is saying "You want to hold a meeting about ‘preserving innocence on the internet’? I think someone should look a little closer into what this guy does in his leasure time.. especially his Internet activites. "
uneducated people like him, especially when in positions like he is, are so dangerous it’s unbelievable. all we can hope for is that, come election, the people remember the crap he and others like him put out, the damage they do and dont re-elect him!
How exactly is innocence protected in the non-digital world? There doesn’t seem to be a shortage of kids voluntarily looking at porn, having sex, smoking, doing drugs, committing crimes, etc. If we’re doing such a wonderful job in the physical world of "protecting innocence," what makes anyone think we can do better in the digital world?
Re: Re:
Actually, violence, drugs (including smoking), and sexual activity are all down significantly among teens over the last decade or so. We do seem to be a pretty good job at creating a "shortage" of kids engaging in such dangerous behaviors.
Re: Re: Re:
Do you know what the downturn is attributable to?
Where I was trying to go in the last post was that the government can’t "protect innocence" as it is – kids who want to do something unsavory will find a way. As for the kids who don’t want to do something unsavory, if the issue is preventing objectionable material from getting to their unspoiled eyes and ears, that gets done by parents actually being parental and is already being done in the digital world by those parents.
Anything's easy when you don't have to do it
So I’m a bit confused as to how Senator Graham and the Judiciary Committee expect internet platforms to magically stop "bad stuff" online at the same time that another Senator is demanding that they stop moderating altogether.
Oh that’s easy: ‘Nerd harder.’
Do you raise children??
To be ADULT or a child??
Many groups and religions base this on age, and certain conditions.. AT A POINT in life you have to be considered an ADULT. when?
Who is supposed to explain things TO THEM?? WHAT are they to Explain??
Its worse then looking for a Civics class or Sex Ed., that tells us ANYTHING???
There is an old idea. Dont like whats on TV, CHANGE THE CHANNEL. Dont want your kids watching Porn, then HIDE your tapes/disc’s…
do you want to PROGRAM your kids…Thats easy..Want the Gov./corps/ others doing it?? THEN DONT TEACH THEM BETTER…
Politics
So I’m guessing TechDirt supports Democrats.
Re: Politics
Pretty sure they don’t support any one particular party.
(flagging for off topic)
Re: ... don't really play into it.
When a politician in that party says or does something they consider good or agree with, yes.
Of course the same applies if a republican says or does something they consider good or agree with.
And when a member of either party says or does something stupid and/or bad TD will call them out on it.
Re: Politics
You misspelled democracy.
Re: Politics
So I’m guessing TechDirt supports Democrats.
Lol. We call out politicians from both parties pretty equally. Democrats have a bunch of dumb policy proposals regarding the internet, as do Republicans. Tragically, neither party is particularly good on tech issues, and both are pretty bad.
Maybe, for once, try thinking, and not wondering which uniform people are wearing.
Re: Politics
Yeah’s mike’s post shows either massive bias towards democrats, or a completely ignorant understanding of the issues at hand. I don’t think he is ignorant, I think he is biased.. which im my view is worse.
Re: Re: Politics
Then explain how he is wrong.
Also please explain why, with a quick search, I can find lots of TD articles blasting democrats for being just as stupid, if he is biased towards them.
Your argument is invalid and your logic is non-existent. All you’ve done is prove you have an axe to grind for some weird reason.
Re: Re: Politics
I think ignorance is worse than bias. At least a person has to have some knowledge of an issue to jump to one side or the other. You can’t do much with an ignorant person these days with so many ways to educate yourself, you can’t teach the willfully ignorant.
Re: Re: Re: Politics
You there pointing fingers at people you accuse of bias are, to me, showing off your own bias.
Re: Re: Re:2 Politics
Also, I meant to say, you are showing off your ignorance as well..
Re: Politics
My guess, Techdirt is opposed to idiots of all stripes (including commenters).
Re: Re: Politics
Good guess!
Mike reveals that :
Re: Re:
Citation needed.
Re: Re:
The what now? Stop putting words together and pretending it’s a thing.
Oh he has, and the reason that evidence isn’t in the post is because it doesn’t exist because that’s not happening. (note: he links to other articles writing about those "supposed instances" showing why not) But please, go ahead and provide examples of conservatives who were banned solely because of their political views and NOT because they were being a jerk towards humanity.
I’ll wait.
Lindsey Graham wants to tell internet companies what speech they can and can’t allow on their platforms to "protect the children".
Josh Hawley wants to tell internet companies what speech they can and can’t allow on their platforms to "allow racists, sexists, and bigots to spew their hate speech with impunity".
Other than different motivations, these seem like the exact same thing to me. Care to try that again?
Re: Re: Re:
Take the motherfucking cell phones away from the children if you REALLY WANT TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN. The internet is far worse for them than underage drinking or smoking pot. Good grief!! WTF??
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Governments want THEIR CHILDREN to be very tech savvy so they can run the war machine without any of the other bothersome human traits.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Or, you know, not be ignorant luddites who can’t get decent jobs and don’t understand the basics of modern technology and how to live in a modern society.
I am very curious, you seem to think being technologically literate means giving up being human and becoming a robot. Can you expound on this? This level of stupidity is fascinating.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
It is the same stupid proud chauvinism that anyone not like them "isn’t a real person".
Like how "real America" refers to rural America. Anyone who is capable of Algebra or above or logical thought is "soulless" to similar blocs like musicians who think that the internet fills your head with numbers or that everything natural is good for you. And the reverse isn’t true socially – people with actual knowledge don’t dehumanize them they just think of them rightfully as fucking morons.
It dates back to at least peasant eras where they concluded that merchants had to be making money through ripping people off because goods have the same value everywhere and transportation costs time, effort, and money.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
…what? I’m sorry but there’s no way in hell I’d give any underage kids alcohol or drugs BEFORE letting them on the internet or giving them a cellphone.
There are lots of benefits to kids having a cellphone and access to the internet. The ability to call their parents in an emergency or do their homework being just some examples.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO benefit to giving them alcohol or drugs, both of which are essentially poison to your body. The same cannot be said of the internet.
Just because you don’t like the internet doesn’t make it the root of all evil.
Yes, WTF indeed.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
If you have ever had to try and babysit roudy teenagers, I can see the benefit of giving them alcohol and drugs, and then locking them in a room until they all pass out (or there is only one left standing)…
That’s how we become adults, right?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Please tell me this is just sarcasm.
I have an appropriate witness...
I have an appropriate witness...
Helen Lovejoy!
(sorry for the double post)
Google’s fairness doctrine relates to two things:
Its basically making sure you don’t program a computer with bias. But the second part is taking into account unfairness in society and adjusting the algorithm to compensate. Eg, you search for "prominent scientists" the algorithm will make sure it includes diverse results, women, indigenous, people with disabilities etc.
Where people don’t like this is the negative results for individuals classed as privileged. These apply to recommendation models etc.
It has been also reported that an engineer from Google recently revealed that these algorithms are also being used to influence public opinion on political issues. Interestingly Google also took down the original video that exposed this. Twitter has had its own issues relating to shadow banning etc and unbalanced application of its TOS against conservatives.
There has also been leaked documents on these programs running within google. You can find all the source materials for this yourself, just search with a different search engine.
Re: Re:
The "video" to which you refer is undoubtedly the fraud manufactured by Project Veritas. "Proof" only in the eyes of complete morons.
Re: Re: Re:
I would postulate that only morons use slander as arguments.. and as to claims of fraud you may want to review the definition of that word as you seem unfamiliar with it.. see the thing with interviews that are recorded is they can be shown in entirety to maintain context. No fraud there, just a google executive’s blatant and comfortable admissions that they are trying to prevent another republican presidential win and how they will be doing all they can to prevent it. That same executive also provided an example of how google feels about legal issues – basically it wont matter and they will do what ever they need to do to achieve their goals. This is why google deleted the video, not because it was "fraud". Rather because it exposed their agenda.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I would postulate that only those who don’t have any actual facts to back up their assertions rely on a video that was edited to take what was said out of context, then further mis-construed in additional commentary to make it seem that something was going on that wasn’t. Am I wrong?
Project Veritas’ videos have regularly been shown to be heavily edited so that it fits their narrative. The actual full recording shows otherwise. You continuing to rely on such fabricated "evidence" shows you to be either ignorant or dishonest. Take your pick.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You continuing to rely on such fabricated "evidence" shows you to be either ignorant or dishonest. Take your pick.
Someone could honestly use a faulty source, thinking it was valid, in which case they would be ignorant.
If however, upon being told just how flawed that source is they keep using it then ignorance is replaced with dishonesty.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Semantics 101; Either Or Syndrome. To assume one or the other qualifies being stuck in an Either Or Syndrome. Maybe other forces are at work. Maybe a cemented bias has this person now convinced their effort is neccessary to protect an unwitting bias. Nothing dishonest and perhaps not ignorant totally, they continue to endeavor to hallucinate believing their paycheck is justified.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
This is probably the kind of person who screams: "The Drunk Elizabeth Warren video wasn’t ‘doctored’ it was just slowed down!"
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Or was that vid of Pelosi? I don’t follow RWNJ propaganda that closely.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would postulate that you should perhaps not misuse the term "slander" when it is clear you have no idea what it means.
Ditto you and "slander."
No, what you saw was a Google employee explaining how they are trying to prevent foreign interference in an election.
After you look up slander in the dictionary, discover you are wrong, perhaps you can also look up the word gullible. You’re a sucker and you’ve been suckered.
Re: Re: Re:2 Gotta love own-goals
No, what you saw was a Google employee explaining how they are trying to prevent foreign interference in an election.
If someone sees a (heavily doctored) video where a person working at Google said they were trying to prevent foreign interference in US elections, and the viewer takes that to mean that it meant Google is trying to prevent another republican presidential win, that strikes me as basically an admission that a republican presidential win requires outside interference in their mind.
Much like the ‘platforms are kicking off nazis and racist losers, that’s evidence of an anti-conservative bias’ idea the connection they are making is a pretty self-damning one, all the more so if they were right, as it would mean ‘undermining foreign interference is undermining the republican party’ and ‘nazis/racist losers = conservatives’ respectively, which is probably not the message they want to be sending.
Re: Re: Re:3 Gotta love own-goals
Foreign interference of a US election.. too bad that doesn’t include new world order interference of a US election.
Re: Re: Re:4
What the hell do Hulk Hogan, Scott Hall, and Kevin Nash have to do with this?
Re: Re: Re:5 my god it all makes sense now...
Election rally 2020:
Donald trump: everyone I know you want me to stay. I know you do. But I will be honest it’s not about me. In fact it was about something greater then me. Which is why I’m stepping down. And someone else with greater insight and power can take over.
“Cloaked figure” ITS ME AUSTIN!
Re: Re: Re:6
Son of a bitch!
Re: Re: Re:3 Gotta love own-goals
What the HELL are you smoking? That stuff must be gooood!!
Re: Re: Re:3
“If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
And there is the flaw in representative democracies, the politicians do not represent the people, but rather tell the people how they will rule them.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
What you describe is obviously not a representative democracy, and no such thing exists.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
EVERYBODY IS A SUCKER. Don’t you get it?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shiva Ayyadurai still didn’t invent email, Hamilton.
Re: Re:
Putting random words together still doesn’t make it a thing. And a heavily edited, secretly, illegally recorded video definitely doesn’t make it a thing.
I’ve searched but I can’t find it. Can you please provide links to said reports so that I can continue to mock and poke holes in your false facts, I mean, so that I too can be as enlightened as you?
Its simple Sen. Lindsey Graham, if you are a US senator you defend the constitution rather than look for ways to limit it or undermine it. Don’t they get taught at least the very basics when they start the job?
Re:
Either no, or he skipped that lesson.
Re: Re:
Defending the US Constitution is NOT PART OF THE new world order JOB DESCRIPTION.
Re: Re:
They study the constitution to find ways of subverting it instead of understanding it or to reinforce it. Sadly common mentality.
Re: Re: Re:
Isn’t the entire purpose of the Federalist Society, from which the turtleman is packing federal courts?
Maybe Lindsey Graham has more experience chatting with children online than most other people.
Just what keeps people like Lindsey Graham who is wound so tight in my opinion from pulling the plug on life as we know it, I may never know, hopefully.
if Hawley wants to force all platforms to stop moderating, that could run into problems with the EU Copyright directive.
Congress will have to pass a law saying the EU cannot enforce its laws here in the United States, if Josh Hawley wants to ban all platforms from moderating what its users do, otherwise they will run into problems with the EU Copyright directive and possibly the one being considered on "terrorist" speech.
Re: Re:
The EU already can’t enforce its laws in the US because, you know, it’s a different country. How is this not obvious to you?
Mistakes or bias?
"sometimes they make mistakes because when you’re dealing with that much content mistakes will be made"
Really? I can’t remember the last time a "mistake" resulted in the removal of liberal or progressive content.
Re:
I mean, there was that time Twitter told off God, which, depending on your theological leaning might qualify…
Re:
Then you’re not looking hard enough.
Re: Re: Re:
Or at all.
Re: Mistakes or bias?
Techdirt has a handy content moderation tag; if you check that, you’ll see a lot of stories about all kinds of posts getting false-positive flags, be they liberal, conservative, or neither.
The bigger question is, what specific "conservative" content do you believe is being discriminated against? Are posts being flagged because they advocate for lower taxes and deregulation? Or are there some other specific types of post that you identify as "conservative" that are being targeted?
Re: Re:
Also: If that type of posting is linked to conservatives, and that upsets someone, perhaps they should ask why that link was made in the first place.