#communications decency act

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Kati Morton was a reluctant adopter of YouTube.

A therapist working toward her license in California, it was her then-boyfriend, now-husband, who first suggested that Morton explore posting videos on the platform as a way to disseminate mental health information.

The year was 2011, and Morton, like many others, thought YouTube primarily consisted of videos of cats playing the piano and make-up tutorials. But after seeing other content posted on the site, Morton decided to give it a shot.

Her audience started small, with her videos garnering a handful of views. But in the more than a decade since then, Morton's YouTube channel has grown to more than 1.2 million subscribers.

Crucial to the growth of Morton's audience is YouTube's system for recommending content to users, which the company began building in 2008. It relies on a highly complex algorithm to predict what videos will interest viewers and keep them watching. Today, half of Morton's views come from recommendations, she said.

"If you could see the entire life of the channel, it was really, really slow and steady," Morton told CBS News. "And then through recommendations, as well as collaborations, things have grown as you're able to reach a broader audience and YouTube is better able to understand the content."

YouTube's recommendations algorithm, and those used by platforms like TikTok, Facebook and Twitter, are now at the heart of a legal dispute that will go before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, in a case that involves the powerful legal shield that helped the internet grow.

"We're talking about rewriting the legal rules that govern the fundamental architecture of the internet," Aaron Mackey, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told CBS News of what's at stake in the case, known as Google v. Gonzalez.

"A BACKBONE OF ONLINE ACTIVITY"

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes internet companies from liability over content posted by third parties and allows platforms to remove content considered obscene or objectionable. The dispute before the Supreme Court marks the first time the court will consider the scope of the law, and the question before the justices is whether Section 230's protections for platforms extend to targeted recommendations of information.

The court fight arose after terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015, when 129 people were murdered by ISIS members. Among the victims was 23-year-old Nohemi Gonzalez, an American college student studying abroad who was killed at a bistro in the city.

Gonzalez's parents and other family members filed a civil lawsuit in 2016 against Google, which owns YouTube, alleging that the tech company aided and abetted ISIS in violation of a federal anti-terrorism statute by recommending videos posted by the terror group to users.

Google moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that they were immune from the claims under Section 230. A federal district court in California agreed and, regarding YouTube's recommendations, found that Google was protected under the law because the videos at issue were produced by ISIS.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, and Gonzalez's family asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. The high court said in October it would take up the dispute.

The court fight has elicited input from a range of parties, many of which are backing Google in the case. Platforms like Twitter, Meta and Reddit — all of which rely on Section 230 and its protections — argue algorithmic recommendations allow them to organize the millions of pieces of third-party content that appear on their sites, enhancing the experience for users who would otherwise be forced to sift through a mammoth amount of posts, articles, photos and videos.

"Given the sheer volume of content on the internet, efforts to organize, rank, and display content in ways that are useful and attractive to users are indispensable," lawyers for Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, told the court.

Even the company that operates online dating services Match and Tinder pointed to Section 230 as "vital" to its efforts to connect singles, as the law allows "its dating platforms to provide recommendations to its users for potential matches without having to fear overwhelming litigation."

But conservatives are using the case as a vehicle to rail against "Big Tech" firms and amplify claims that platforms censor content based on political ideology.

Citing lower court decisions they believe has led to a "broad grant of immunity," a group of Republican Senators and House members told the Supreme Court that platforms "have not been shy about restricting access and removing content based on the politics of the speaker, an issue that has persistently arisen as Big Tech companies censor and remove content espousing conservative political views, despite the lack of immunity for such actions in the text of" Section 230.

The case has presented the Justices with a rare opportunity to hear directly from the co-authors of the legislation at issue. Ron Wyden, now a Democratic Senator from Oregon, and Chris Cox, a former GOP congressman from California, crafted Section 230 in the House in 1996. The bipartisan pair filed a friend-of-the court brief explaining the plain meaning of their law and the policy balance they sought to strike.

"Section 230 protects targeted recommendations to the same extent that it protects other forms of content curation and presentation," they wrote. "Any other interpretation would subvert Section 230's purpose of encouraging innovation in content moderation and presentation. The real-time transmission of user-generated content that Section 230 fosters has become a backbone of online activity, relied upon by innumerable internet users and platforms alike."

Google, they argued, is entitled to liability protection under Section 230, since the platform's recommendation algorithm is merely responding to user preferences by pairing them with the types of content they seek.

"The algorithm functions in a way that is not meaningfully different from the many curatorial decisions that platforms have always made in deciding how to present third-party content," Wyden and Cox said.

The battle also highlights competing views about the internet today and how Section 230 has shaped it. For tech companies, the law has laid the groundwork for new platforms to come online, an industry of online creators to form and free expression to flourish. For Gonzalez's family and others, the algorithmic recommendations have proven deadly and harmful.

Like the Gonzalezes, Taiwanna Anderson, too, has fought to hold a social media platform responsible over content it recommends to users.

Last May, Anderson sued TikTok and its parent company, China-based ByteDance, after her 10-year-old daughter Nylah died in late 2021 after trying to perform the dangerous "Blackout Challenge," in which users are pushed to strangle themselves until they pass out and then share videos of the experience.

The challenge, which went viral on TikTok, was recommended to Nylah through her account's "For You" page, a curated feed of third-party content powered by TikTok's algorithmic recommendation system.

Anderson's lawsuit sought to hold TikTok accountable for deliberately funneling dangerous content to minors through the challenges and encouraging behavior that put their lives in danger. TikTok asked the federal district court in Pennsylvania to dismiss the suit, invoking Section 230.

U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond tossed out the case in October, writing that the law shielded TikTok from liability because it was promoting the work of others. But he acknowledged in a brief order that TikTok made the Blackout Challenge "readily available on their site" and said its algorithm "was a way to bring the challenge to the attention of those likely to be most interested in it."

"The wisdom of conferring such immunity is something properly taken up with Congress, not the courts," Diamond wrote.

Mackey, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noted that if people disagree with the reach of Section 230 as the courts have interpreted it, the right remedy is for Congress, not the Supreme Court, to rewrite the law.

"When they passed it, they set this balance and said not that they didn't believe there wouldn't be harmful content, but they believed on balance the creation of opportunities and forums for people to speak, for the growth of the internet and development of a tool that became central to our lives, commerce, political expression — that was what they valued more," Mackey said. "Congress is free to rewrite that balance."

A NEW CREATOR ECONOMY

In the 27 years since Section 230 became law, the explosive growth of the internet has fueled a multi-billion-dollar industry of independent online creators who rely on large tech platforms to reach new audiences and monetize their content.

In Morton's case, her YouTube channel has allowed her to expand beyond her office in Santa Monica, California, and reach patients around the country, including in areas where mental health resources may be scarce.

"The ability for me to get over a million views on YouTube means that I'm able to reach so many more people, and mental health information isn't held behind a paywall," she said.

Alex Su, a lawyer by training who runs the TikTok account LegalTechBro, first began sharing content on LinkedIn in 2016 as a way to drive awareness of his employer, a technology company. After building up a following of lawyers and others in the legal industry on LinkedIn, Su began experimenting with TikTok in 2020.

His TikTok videos, which touch on insider experiences of working at a law firm, resonated with other lawyers and people with ties to the profession. He said LinkedIn's recommendation system has been instrumental in helping Su reach his target audience and market his company's services.

"These algorithms let me go viral among people who can relate to my jokes," he told CBS News. "If I put this type of content in front of a general audience, they probably wouldn't find it as funny."

Internet companies and supporters of Section 230 note the law has allowed for new and emerging companies to grow into industry leaders without incurring significant litigation costs fighting frivolous claims.

Su, an early adopter of LinkedIn and TikTok for those in the legal field, noted that creators are often quick to take advantage of new platforms, where they can reach new audiences.

"I think it's no accident that there are these shifts where new entrants come in and you can take advantage of it as a content creator because then you can go viral on that platform with a new audience quickly," he said. "Without those different platforms, I would not have been able to grow in the way that I did."

FEW CLUES FROM THE COURT

The Supreme Court has given little indication of how it may approach Section 230. Only Justice Clarence Thomas has written about lower courts' interpretations of the legal shield.

"Courts have long emphasized non-textual arguments when interpreting [Section] 230, leaving questionable precedent in their wake," Thomas wrote in a 2020 statement urging the court to consider whether the law's text "aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed by internet platforms."

The Supreme Court could issue a ruling that affirms how Section 230 has been interpreted by lower courts, or narrow the law's immunity.

But internet companies warned the court that if it limits the scope of Section 230, it could drastically change how they approach content posted to their sites. With a greater risk of costly litigation with fewer protections, companies may be more cautious about letting content appear on their sites that may be problematic, and only allow content that has been vetted and poses little legal risk.

"If you're concerned about censorship, the last thing you want is a legal regime that is going to punish platforms for keeping things online," Mackey said. "It's going to be increased censorship, more material will be taken down, a lot won't make it alone in the first place."

A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by the summer.

[vaguely-problematic]

a u.s. supreme court case for 2023 may change the internet. legal eagle (above video) explains.

Gonzalez v. Google LLC is about whether youtube can be held liable for the content that its algorithm recommends to viewers. it involves a terrorist attack by isis and the fact that youtube was recommending isis videos to its users.

[iamdexter123]

DMs are open for anyone who has eyes on either Gonzalez v. Google or Twitter et al v. Taamneh et al currently before the US Supreme Court and wants to pontificate with me on the unlikely hope the court curbs the ability for the tech industry to use S230 of the CDA as an all encompassing shield.

[trench]

Omegle lawsuit not stopped by Section 230

Omegle lawsuit not stopped by Section 230

I guess with all the shootings in the past year, this story escaped my notice. But what else is new, right? Anyway, our ‘favorite’ random video chat site Omegle is facing a lawsuit. For those of you who may be unfamiliar, Omegle is not an app, as many news outlets report. It’s a website where people with webcams are connected to random people to chat with. The only age check on Omegle is a…

[nari-writes]

Lines in my own fic I still think are funny:

"You call me Drake because you're a transphobic little shit!"

"I do not!" Damian says, appalled despite himself.

[pepsitwist]

felt icky after the covid booster so i didnt watch crown jewel today but what do you MEAN logan paul tore his acl, mcl, AND meniscus??? how the fuck did that happen!!!!! 

[christiandomme]

Huh, Rep Curtis (Utah) is raising an interesting point about the difference between a publisher and a distributer. 

Section 230 protects media distributers (distributing content owned by others, basically hosting) but a publisher apparently uses active interference to diminish or amplify voices and sway consumer behavior. 

It’s more legally complex than that but using manipulation as the standard to differentiate whether someone is protected by 203 is a fascinating can of worms. 

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The future of the federal law that protects online platforms from liability for content uploaded on their site is up in the air as the Supreme Court is set to hear two cases that could change the internet this week.

The first case, Gonzalez v. Google, which is set to be heard on Tuesday, argues that YouTube’s algorithm helped ISIS post videos and recruit members —making online platforms directly and secondarily liable for the 2015 Paris attacks that killed 130 people, including 23-year-old American college student Nohemi Gonzalez. Gonzalez’s parents and other deceased victims’ families are seeking damages related to the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Oral arguments for Twitter v. Taamneh—a case that makes similar arguments against Google, Twitter, and Facebook—centers around another ISIS terrorist attack that killed 29 people in Istanbul, Turkey, will be heard on Wednesday.

The cases will decide whether online platforms can be held liable for the targeted advertisements or algorithmic content spread on their platforms.

Tech companies argue that Section 230 protects them from these types of lawsuits because it grants them legal immunity from liability over third-party content that is posted on their platform. The case will decide whether platforms can be held liable for spreading harmful content to users through their algorithm.

Here’s what to know about Section 230.

WHAT IS SECTION 230?

Section 230, which passed in 1996, is a part of the Communications Decency Act.

The law explicitly states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” meaning online platforms are not responsible for the content a user may post.

The law allows tech companies to moderate or remove content that is considered egregious. Section 230, however, does not protect sites that violate federal criminal law, or intellectual property law. It also does not protect platforms that create illegal or harmful content.

Because popular sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube rely on user-generated content, many people have credited Section 230 for the creation of the internet we now know and love.

As the scale of online platforms has drastically increased over time, with up to 368 million monthly active users on Twitter alone, experts argue that Section 230 helps protect companies that struggle to keep up with the amount of content posted on their platforms from being sued over what users say or do.

WHAT ARE THESE CASES ABOUT?

The Gonzalez family first filed a suit in 2016, alleging that because Google, which owns YouTube, matches and suggests content to users based on their views, the platform recommended ISIS’s content to users, and enabled them to find other videos and accounts owned by ISIS.

Plaintiffs also argued that Google placed paid advertisements on ISIS videos, which meant they shared ad revenue with the terrorist organization. The lawsuit argues that this means that Google has not taken enough action to ensure ISIS remains off the platform. Because of this, the plaintiffs allege that these tech companies are directly liable for “committing acts of international terrorism” and secondarily liable for “conspiring with, and aiding and abetting, ISIS’s acts of international terrorism.”

A federal district court in California dismissed the complaint, saying that Google could not be held responsible for content that was produced by ISIS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the district court, but in October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

In an opposition brief filed to the Supreme Court, Google maintained that a review of the case was not warranted because websites like YouTube could not be held liable as the “publisher or speaker” of the content users created. They add that Google does not have the capacity to screen “all third-party content for illegal or tortious material” and that the company was concerned that “the threat of liability could prompt sweeping restrictions on online activity.”

Major tech companies like Twitter and Meta, which have expressed their support for Google in the case, say that recommendations based on their algorithms allow them to “organize, rank, and display” user content in a way that enhances a user’s experience on the platforms and called the ability to do so “indispensable.”

WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF SECTION 230?

If the court decides in Gonzalez’s favor, the lawsuit will set a precedent for holding tech companies liable for targeted ads or recommendations.

The effects this could have on the internet are not entirely known, though many warn that tech companies would face a host of lawsuits. Corporate giants like Yelp, Reddit, Microsoft, Craigslist, Twitter and Facebook, say that searches for jobs and restaurants could be restricted if platforms can be sued over what users post, according to the Associated Press. And other review sites could even be held liable for defamation if a particular restaurant received bad ratings.

Even dating sites, like Tinder and Match, called Section 230 essential to user experience on the app as they hope to continue providing match recommendations “without having to fear overwhelming litigation,” according to CBS.

HOW DO LEGISLATORS FEEL ABOUT SECTION 230?

Conservatives have long criticized Section 230, alleging that it allows social media platforms to censor right-leaning content.

This scrutiny was applied towards platforms like Twitter, which came under fire after it removed a story by the New York Post about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Twitter executives later called the action a mistake in a House committee hearing, but many conservatives have claimed this as evidence of bias. Lawmakers also criticized social platforms ban of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ Infowars page from their sites in 2018.

Former President Donald Trump made calls to repeal the law, even prompting the Justice Department to release proposed amendments to Section 230 in 2020.

“I’ll just cut to the chase, Big Tech is out to get conservatives,” said Rep. Jim Jordan in a House Judiciary Committee hearing in July 2020. “That’s not a hunch, that’s not a suspicion, that’s a fact.”

Democrats have similarly argued against Section 230, saying that it prevents platforms from being held liable for hate speech and misinformation spread on their sites.

In July 2021, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Ben Ray Lujan introduced a bill that would remove tech companies’ immunity from lawsuits if their algorithms promoted health misinformation.

The White House later called on Congress to revoke Section 230 during a September “listening session” about tech companies’ accountability. And in January, President Joe Biden released an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, asking for bipartisan legislation that would hold tech companies accountable.

“The American tech industry is the most innovative in the world…But like many Americans, I’m concerned about how some in the industry collect, share and exploit our most personal data, deepen extremism and polarization in our country, tilt our economy’s playing field, violate the civil rights of women and minorities, and even put our children at risk,” Biden wrote.

[garudabluffs]

WHAT IS SECTION 230?

"Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, _ _ states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

“The primary thing we do on the internet is we talk to each other. It might be email, it might be social media, might be message boards, but we talk to each other. And a lot of those conversations are enabled by Section 230, which says that whoever’s allowing us to talk to each other isn’t liable for our conversations,” said Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University specializing in internet law. “The Supreme Court could easily disturb or eliminate that basic proposition and say that the people allowing us to talk to each other are liable for those conversations. At which point they won’t allow us to talk to each other anymore.”

There are two possible outcomes."

“The rest of the world is cracking down on the internet even faster than the U.S.,” Goldman said. “So we’re a step behind the rest of the world in terms of censoring the internet. And the question is whether we can even hold out on our own.”

READ MORE https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/section-230-rule-made-modern-internet-97350905

The story of Section 230 goes back to an AOL troll. Now the law may be undone

February 22, 2023

"Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University Law School who has written extensively about the Zeran case, has a hard time believing that Zeran was not intentionally targeted, but he admits that the real culprit may forever be a mystery.

"I just cannot accept the idea that he was a random drive-by victim. That just doesn't pass the smell test," Goldman said. "It is one of the great whodunits of our time."

3-Minute Listen READ MORE https://www.npr.org/2021/05/11/994395889/how-one-mans-fight-against-an-aol-troll-sealed-the-tech-industrys-power

[anantaru]

"gimme a kiss here,"

wriothesley points at his cheek, index finger catching the flustered flesh and wriggling for more, "and here," he adds promptly, a crystal clear image portrayed in front of your eyes as to what the duke sought after before eagerly pointing at his forehead next, "and here," lastly, he finishes his deepest sentencing, pointing at his mouth.

"point taken," you retort back, adding in a pet name just to see how flustered wriothesley could get from it, his throat working around a deep swallow as he sucks in a breath when you call him baby, the warm breeze fanning against your slightly parted lips.

with the last word lingering in the air, you remember that wriothesley liked to play the tough one and he certainly enjoyed the feeling of other people being reluctant to approach him, given that he was of influential power, although currently, he was not in such a position. 

he's swift when he melts against your lips, humming in a pleased timbre when you gave him what he longed for all day long— and wriothesley whines next, such a rare noise, as if that was an effective way of communicating with you, a silent more muffled by your hungry lips devouring each other— but the sound of the small sobs and heavy breathes coming from your person were a heavenly melody to him, his mouth curling into a cheeky smile when he pinches your hips as to pull you on his lap.

with that sudden act, you're straddling the duke, your arms wrapped around his neck as you continue with your sweet ministrations, bringing your lips together in another heated kiss and lapping your tongue against his wet muscle while the rough material of your panties and his tight pants clash together— the small tingles you could gather on your core slither around you, almost like a gentle sloping cloud in the sky manifesting a curl of pleasure, the sheer impact of it all trailing down the expanse of your spine.

and when wriothesley notices your sudden weakness— compelled how your hips have gone rogue and stutter from lack of control, he figures there wasn't necessarily a point in stopping those additional movements, in fact, he'd love to help you out, the rhythm of your clothed cunt rolling across his length let lose between a heart-beat as your boyfriend decides to harshly drag you against him instead.

together you're breathing deeply before he presses you into his stiffened groin— the movement of it so sudden that you weren't able to voice anything at all and were forced out a crumbling whine, catching you off guard as you part your mouth ever so slightly which allowed wriothesley to demand entrance again— immediately taking the candied chance to let his tongue slide inside your mouth with ease, pressing and mingling the two together. 

he gives your hips a few more tugs, focusing that you're nudging your wet panties over his length and that his thick cock-head could poke at your concealed entrance, shoving back an impatient growl all the while rubbing circles on your thighs with his index fingers to soothe you.

soft lips tease you through the thin skin on your neck and you wet the pale grey fabric of his pants beyond decency, placing an insufferable quiver of need through his throbbing shaft followed by a sharp grin leaving you gasping and squirming— both of you distracted against drenched clothes, swollen lips soaked with saliva and your unravelling bodies working ethusiastically with quick, lascivious grinds of your hips and wriothesley bottoming out ever so often, dragging you rapidly to the utter brink of release.

©2023 anantaru do not repost, copy, translate, modify

[jazzylynx]

“Hey hank noticed our new neighbors hung a flag in front of their house idk what it means but the colours are nice”

“I believe its one of those trans flags bill”

“Oh that's nice; i mean i think trains are neat never thought i could publicly show my interests”

“Knowhat man, not talkin about no trains man goin toot toot man; talkin bout people wantin to be who they are, respecting pronouns, upholding gender identity while dismantling gender roles man”

“ now I've noticed people being assinine by not respecting and protecting the trans community and i tell you h-what I'd kick the ass of the person who isnt showing some human decency towards them. Now i may be old fashioned but i like to define a person by their character and how they act towards people be it women, man or whomever someone says they are; long as they can enjoy a cold drink after doin some pristine lawn care on a hot summer day, helping a neighbor with a afternoon project and whom also believes in how propane is the greatest gift to the world america has to offer than, goddangit! why not take pride in who you are “

“Yehp”

“Yep”

“Yepp”

“Mhm yep”

[luceafarul-de-dimineata]

Whb nobles reacting to their ship coming true

When Paimon finds out that you're in a relationship with Satan, he squeels. He's not one to rub salt on the wounds of others (not often at least), but he would make a few posts goating about being right all along. Starts making plans for the wedding since that's the only reasonable step forward. Whenever you're not with Satan, you're with Paimon on a self-care/gossip day. He's very happy that his wingman act wasn't in vaine.

Eligos throws a party and he invites the entirety of Hell over. He has no decency, he would spam all the shipping forums with photos of you and Mammon. Don't bother reporting it for spam, he has 500 alt accounts. He personally sews you and Mammon's clothes for the party. The costumes look like that of people getting married, but Eligos doesn't see what the problem is. He gets into a fist fight with everyone that disaggred with him on the forums. Bimet is in the back betting on who wins the fist fight.

Foras' squeel is so high pichted that Hades will get noise complaints from Naberius about it. He is very happy to say the least. He will turn invisible and spy on you and Leviathan being cute together like a proud father. The relationship between you and his king is like his personal child, and he can't wait to watch it grow further. Finally mod Jjok has a free day without any complaints of doxxing.

When Amon gets the news, he's not even surprised. He always was under the impression that you and Beelzebub were dating (that's why he didn't persue you himself) so this is old news to him. Would invite himself to all your dates with Beelzebub so he can protect the two of you... as in get free food and be near his king. He'll be a lot more energetic after the fact, so much so that he might make a few visits to the people that still ship you with anyone else. After all, they are going against Avisos' one law, they must be punished in some way.

Gamigin gets so excited that he starts screaming and crying. Might even puke from excitement. He is the happiest out of all of the shippers. Finally, his brother Lucifer found someone that loves him as much as he loves them. This is the happiest day of his life and he can't stop crying while hugging the two of you. Would start calling you sibling MC and invite you to all the communal dinners in Paradise Lost. Would insist you call him and everyone in the country brother or sister. You're now part of the Paradise Lost familly and you'll be treated as such.

[wirsindkrieg]

Person ≠ Human = Person

(For clarity, that title should be read as "Person does not equal Human equals Person".)

I've seen a fair few posts over the years I've been involved in the community where someone gets upset by the use of "people" as an umbrella term, generally also claiming that "person" refers exclusively to humans, and therefore the term excludes non-humans.

That is wrong, and it shows that there is a very important conversation that should be happening but isn't.

First thing's first, [this] is the Wikipedia article on "Personhood". I'm going to recommend reading it in full, but if you don't have time or don't want to, the most relevant parts for this are the opening paragraphs (up to the "Philosophy" header) and the sub-headings "Non-human animals" and "Hypothetical beings", both under the "Debates" heading. Those sections should provide some insight into what I'm going to be talking about here, and give you an idea of that conversation that should be happening.

With that out of the way, let's talk about what it means to be a "person", and why it's wrong to claim that it's synonymous with "human". The state of being a "person" (that is, personhood) is less of a biological classification and more of a social one. A person is someone who is deserving of basic rights and decency, which I would hope we can all agree is not a category exclusive to humans. Exactly where the line between "person" and "non-person" lies has been debated extensively for a very, very long time, but there is at least one solid standard that everyone should be able to agree with:

A person is a sapient, thinking being capable of recognizing itself as being a person.

If you are reading this right now, I'm going to assume that you meet that definition, which makes you a person, and that is a good thing. It means you are a being which deserves basic rights like the ability to engage with society, own property, and exercise your free will. Saying you're not a "person" because you're non-human is saying that you shouldn't get to enjoy those basic rights, and that you should not be included in society and allowed to act as an independent being.

All humans are people, but that does not mean that all people are human. And it's worth noting that declaring categories of humans as not being people has been an important part of excusing the removal of basic rights from them. You see it in the way that slaves were talked about prior to the practice being outlawed, and in the way that fascists talk about the groups that they think should be killed en masse. Declaring those groups as not being "people" dehumanizes them, not because being a person means being human, but because being human means also being a person.

There very clearly needs to be an ongoing conversation in the community about non-human personhood, because it is a topic with a long history, with strong points made in favour of including all manner of non-humans under the umbrella of "person". This ongoing trend of declaring oneself to not be a person because of non-humanity is, put bluntly, foolish at best and actively dangerous at worst. Everyone has personhood. It came free with your being a sapient being, capable of thought and self-reflection.

And bonus conversation topic: The reason that anti-kin and related groups do the whole, "Oh, you're not human? Does that mean I can treat you like an animal?" bit is because they don't see non-humans as having personhood. Consider how it would affect how they approach our communities if they were open to the concept of non-human personhood, and how that could further benefit the community as a whole.

Discuss.

[okayysophia]

I hate the way everyone acts so clueless to the treatment of black women. Abusing black women is like an initiation ritual in the black community. We have an entire industry of know abusers, criminals, rapist and pedophiles. Domestic violence rates against black women are increasing everyday. Y’all were literally just watching Blueface abuse his partner like it was a performance. You watch Quavo drag Saweetie from that elevator, we know what Fabulous does to his wife, we know what Joe Budden did to his pregnant partner, Trey Songz, Chris Brown…

Tory Lanez almost killed Megan. Black men expected her to be silent for the sake of a black man’s reputation and are now using her as a scapegoat for not being a ‘black queen’ correctly… Black Women being abused and almost killed by black men is supposed to stay hush hush within the ‘culture’… that is the culture that has been normalised. That expectation for black women to keep quiet about their abuse at the hands of black men because “they have it hard out here” is manipulation, something that is also normalised to use against black women.

“bLaCk MeN dEsErVe To GrOw OlD” meanwhile collectively not a shred of grace or human decency has been granted to Megan after almost being killed or after she lost her mother… or any black women for that matter.