@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

LouisIngenthron

@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org

Software engineering contractor/consultant in Florida specializing in .NET C# #WebDev, plus #Indie #GameDev in #MonoGame, #Stride, and #Godot.
I like complex simulations and enjoy writing procedural generation algorithms for fun.

#Pilot in training. Burgeoning fan of #Aviation in general.

Fan of #1A jurisprudence and the kind of #FreeSpeech that applies to everyone equally.

Pro-Democracy. Pro-Rights. Pro-Freedom. In that order.

He/Him 🏳‍🌈

High risk of rants, especially with the lack of character limit.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

javi, to random

Question about USian politics:

Does Biden have to win in the primaries to be the candidate this year, or is it like the World cup and the last winner gets in the next competition without having to go through the qualifying phase (so he will be the candidate 100% sure)?

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@javi He has to win the primaries.

But I don't think an incumbent has ever lost the primary for their party, so we all pretty much treat it like a sure thing.

TheConversationUS, to internet
@TheConversationUS@newsie.social avatar

TikTok users worry about losing their social media platform, but First Amendment rights are on the line, too. There's a good argument for free speech protection of TikTok and its owners in this case, writes 2 law professors.
Imagine if the government told Jeff Bezos that he had to sell The Washington Post because it was worried that he might push a particular agenda.
Courts have long ruled that that sort of worry about future problems is unconstitutional:
https://theconversation.com/tiktok-law-threatening-a-ban-if-the-app-isnt-sold-raises-first-amendment-concerns-229879

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@Gregnee @TheConversationUS Yes. That's how free speech works.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@shsbxheb @TheConversationUS But the government never told him them they had to sell.

The problem here is not the agenda; we all have a free speech right to have an agenda. The problem is the government punishing that speech, and not with an even hand.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@kevinrns @TheConversationUS Why? "Unconstitutional violation of free speech rights" is a pretty damn good argument on its own.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@shsbxheb @TheConversationUS The problem here is the government violating the 1A rights of TikTok. You brought up Fox, but the government hasn't tried to violate their rights with a sell/ban order.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@shsbxheb What is?

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@shsbxheb The problem is that they're trying to violate it at all for anyone.

And this isn't a partisan issue. The TikTok ban was passed bipartisan.

LouisIngenthron, to random
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

I don't understand how a person can get to a point in their life where they block an ambulance or undeservingly take a handicap spot.

LouisIngenthron, to random
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

I'm not sure what's sadder: corporate attempts to get employees excited about work, or employees who enthusiastically go along with these transparent schemes.

YoSoyFreeman, to random
@YoSoyFreeman@mastodon.gamedev.place avatar

I'm sure you can do crazy stuff with pointers

but the basic stuff is like... super intuitive?

Internet convinced me they were some kind of ancient black magic

is literally a pointer. It points to a place.

The place in which something is.

So you can modify things out of the scope as long as you have a valid pointer

because pointers points to memory

you pass a pointer, create some new data, and put it on the place of the pointer

What's the deal?

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@YoSoyFreeman The problem is that they don't have to point to your stuff. They can point anywhere in memory.

They're like portals. Making them to places you already know is pretty safe. But if you're crazy, you can do some really unsafe but powerful stuff.

levisan, to random
@levisan@qoto.org avatar

In 2020 and years prior, I tipped the customary 20% and said that every year, I'd go down a 5% step. Well it's 2024 and here I am, tipping 0% everywhere (except if the person is not a stranger because I'm only a partial jerk). It's interesting how much more common it is to be asked for tips since I started reducing my tipping.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@levisan Wait, even for service staff?

chrishudsonjr, to random
@chrishudsonjr@mastodon.social avatar

Chase Oliver winning the #Libertarian Presidential nomination is the best possible outcome for such a trash party. Honestly surprised.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@AlexanderKingsbury @chrishudsonjr They don't count because they're in the minority and no longer have control of the party. The Mises Caucus even had some of them (delegates even!) thrown out of the convention.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@AlexanderKingsbury @chrishudsonjr JFC. I have to spell this out for you?

When people talk about the actions of the party, they're talking about the people in control, not minority dissent factions. So, yes, when criticizing the shitty views of the current trash party, the criticism applies only to the majority in control; the minority of reasonable libertarians who are unable to course correct don't count in the given context.

Now, either you're trolling me, or you have the attention span of a goldfish and couldn't maintain the conversational context long enough to avoid hitting me with this egregious straw man. Either way, this conversation is over.

avlcharlie, to random
@avlcharlie@mastodon.social avatar


When you filter and selectively choose what to display you are no longer a conduit and should be liable for your content.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@avlcharlie Everyone is already liable for their own content. S230 just prevents them from being liable for others' content.

Filtering Nazis out shouldn't make you liable for some idiot's defamatory remarks.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@avlcharlie So every Mastodon instance admin should be responsible for what every one of their users write? Wikipedia should be legally liable for every anonymous contributor?

What you're describing would end user content on the internet entirely.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@avlcharlie Should every bookstore be liable for the contents of every book just because they choose not to sell some? Or do you apply this standard only to the internet?

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@avlcharlie What do you think S230 does?

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@avlcharlie That's not a "utility-like paradigm"; It's a basic tenet of free speech.

That's why it applies to bookstores just as much as the phone company. It's a fundamentally flawed idea to sue the place where someone was standing when they made their defamatory comment instead of suing the person who made the comment itself.

As mentioned before, such an action would make the entire internet untenable, from wikipedia to email. It would crash our economy, end international commerce, and put marginalized people into real harm by separating them from their support structures.

What you're proposing is like burning down a hospital to prevent malpractice. It's just not a reasonable solution.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@avlcharlie Because "free speech" protects you from government retribution from speech, not private consequences.

In other words, the owner of the space has a free speech right to choose which speech is and isn't allowed on their property.

You have this same right. If I come over to your house, you're free to say "don't talk about religion or you'll be asked to leave." Doing so neither violates my right to free speech, nor makes you liable for the content of my speech, even though you're "selectively filtering" content on your property.

Those rules apply to everyone equally, even social media.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@avlcharlie In that example, yes, because you said it, you are responsible.

But with social media, each user publishes their own speech. The company is hosting and amplifying the speech, not saying it themselves.

So, in your example, this is less like writing down what they say and repeating it, and more like just handing them the megaphone, which is a crucial difference. If a social media company actually did repeat your words under their own account, I don't think 230 would protect them, because then the speech would no longer be 3rd party.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@avlcharlie Do you believe that about only social media, or do you believe it about everyone?

Should Walmart be responsible for defamation in a movie just because they choose to sell some movies but not others?

Should a grocery story be responsible for libel posted to its public tack board without its knowledge, just because it clears out old posts from time to time?

Does a coffehouse become responsible for the speech of all patrons in its establishment because they put up a sign that says "no politics"?

Should you be legally liable for every post you boost just because you don't boost every post?

We all have a free speech right to curate our own spaces and choose who we want to allow in. If you were to impose the restrictions you describe, then you'd be trampling on those companies' free speech right to disassociate from you.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@avlcharlie It's not a special law for social media. It protects all interactive computer services and their users. That includes video games, websites, blogs, map websites, traditional media, and even operating systems.

The reason those older business models didn't need a S230 of their own was because there was usually someone to hold responsible. You couldn't hold the bookstore responsible, but you could hold the publisher responsible, etc.
But the internet changed everything... it democratized speech and made it so anyone could self-publish, not just who the rich people thought were good enough. And, more importantly, they could do so anonymously. When the aggrieved rich wolf of wall street assholes called their lawyers to complain about someone bad-mouthing them, they couldn't identify the speaker, and there was no publisher to go after... so they went after the distributor of the speech... which created a terrible precedent, essentially saying that every website, including the family-friendly defendant, had to allow every racist troll, every boner pill spambot, and all porn on their platform, or else they became liable for the content of the users on their forum and the wolf of wall street could successfully sue them.

This was recognized as such an affront to justice that both political parties quickly rallied together and passed the bipartisan Section 230 to prevent it from happening again.

The premise is simple, and common sense: You should be able to set the tone in your own house, but that doesn't make you liable for the conduct of your guests.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@avlcharlie I think it is okay. Because we, the public, always have the right to walk out if we don't like the environment they're curating. That's our free speech right.

If we were required to use these systems, I would share many of the same concerns you do, but since I can tell Elon Musk to go fuck himself and just not use Twitter... it's fine.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@avlcharlie I agree with that. But I think there's also a growing movement to divest from that, with growing interest in decentralized networks like Mastodon upsetting big social media, and free open source software upsetting the big software giants, and increased unionization across the country.

The more the special interests try to tighten the noose, the more people feel the need to resist and find a better way.

LouisIngenthron,
@LouisIngenthron@qoto.org avatar

@avlcharlie Likewise.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • JUstTest
  • mdbf
  • ngwrru68w68
  • modclub
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • khanakhh
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • megavids
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tacticalgear
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • osvaldo12
  • everett
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • Leos
  • cisconetworking
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •