The side that it’s not actually illegal to advocate violence? “To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test.” Unless there’s a decent likelihood that me talking on the internet will actually lead to whatever I’m talking about happening, it’s okay to talk about, which leaves a massive grey area.
Or the side that threats of violence are not allowed on most moderated spaces on the internet? I’m not sure how I could give you a citation for that one, would you settle for citations from like 5 of the biggest social media platforms as a stand-in?
Or, it’s possible that you didn’t really care whether it “sounded” like I was saying that weird and not true thing (who would even be forcing those social media platforms to do this? “The” government? The devs? The server owners? The corporate owners, of the ones that are corporate which wasn’t what we were talking about?), and just wanted to play the favorite Lemmy game of pretending someone said something everyone knows is false, so you can waste time and typing of all people involved by pretending that absurd thing is what they said and then starting to curse and be hostile at them about how stupid they are for saying that absurd thing they never said. It is fun to do that. Popular too! Have fun with it. Any time you want to join us in the conversation we’re actually having you are welcome to do that too, though.
How the fuck else was I supposed to interpret “weird quasi-legal regulatory space,” asshole? Jeez, bite my head off for an honest mistake due to your unclear phrasing, why don’t you!
I’m biting your head off because you said, “Where the fuck did you get a nonsense idea like that?”
You can’t come in hot after totally misunderstanding what everyone else seemed to have no trouble understanding, and then getting super-hostile and cursing about it, and then all of a sudden now be concerned about the importance and value of not “biting heads off” based on a misunderstanding.
I’m just going to pretend you said, “Hey, that is a really good point, I shouldn’t have tried to bite your head off, sorry about that. I can understand that most people on most social media are going to have a negative reaction to being talked to that way, and when I’m on the receiving end, it is all of a sudden different than the guns blazing fun time I was having with it initially.”
Where the fuck did you get a nonsense idea like that?
Which side of it?
The side that it’s not actually illegal to advocate violence? “To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test.” Unless there’s a decent likelihood that me talking on the internet will actually lead to whatever I’m talking about happening, it’s okay to talk about, which leaves a massive grey area.
Or the side that threats of violence are not allowed on most moderated spaces on the internet? I’m not sure how I could give you a citation for that one, would you settle for citations from like 5 of the biggest social media platforms as a stand-in?
The way you phrased it made it sound like social media was somehow being forced to do it rather than choosing to do it themselves.
Opposite. Was clear to me; excessive cya, or just wanting to.
To you, it sounded that way, maybe.
Or, it’s possible that you didn’t really care whether it “sounded” like I was saying that weird and not true thing (who would even be forcing those social media platforms to do this? “The” government? The devs? The server owners? The corporate owners, of the ones that are corporate which wasn’t what we were talking about?), and just wanted to play the favorite Lemmy game of pretending someone said something everyone knows is false, so you can waste time and typing of all people involved by pretending that absurd thing is what they said and then starting to curse and be hostile at them about how stupid they are for saying that absurd thing they never said. It is fun to do that. Popular too! Have fun with it. Any time you want to join us in the conversation we’re actually having you are welcome to do that too, though.
How the fuck else was I supposed to interpret “weird quasi-legal regulatory space,” asshole? Jeez, bite my head off for an honest mistake due to your unclear phrasing, why don’t you!
I’m biting your head off because you said, “Where the fuck did you get a nonsense idea like that?”
You can’t come in hot after totally misunderstanding what everyone else seemed to have no trouble understanding, and then getting super-hostile and cursing about it, and then all of a sudden now be concerned about the importance and value of not “biting heads off” based on a misunderstanding.
I’m just going to pretend you said, “Hey, that is a really good point, I shouldn’t have tried to bite your head off, sorry about that. I can understand that most people on most social media are going to have a negative reaction to being talked to that way, and when I’m on the receiving end, it is all of a sudden different than the guns blazing fun time I was having with it initially.”