Fee shifting under federal law for content lawsuits would win.
The evidence for a 230 law would be a lot of cases against websites over contents, and lack of that evidence means a 230 like law is not required.
The evidence for a 230 law would be a lot of cases against websites over contents, and lack of that evidences means 230 is working just fine.
That sophistry aside, if litigation law were changed to provide speedy adjudication for quick dismissal (like SLAPP laws) and if costs and fees were awarded to the victor, THAT would probably help more than 230.
That was never the law's intent. You can go look ...
No, you can go look. You're a nobody with claims that aren't held up by either history (what's on the books) words (what Wyden and Cox have said for years) or anything.
If you can't be competent enough to
provide links proving your points (good luck with that, troll!)
sign your name
Go find a place where an audience will support you. I hear Marjorie Greene has one. If not, maybe Fox News. On this one we actually read real news and even unaffiliated readers (like me) try to keep the record straight.
Bye Troll. [Feel free to read that as "Bye, Felicia."]
Yeah, can't wait for the whiner-in-chief, Guiliani and the Faux News airheads being sued by Dominion
Dominion sued for 1.7B.
Smartmatic sued for 2.3B.
Are you still "can't wait"[ing] or does this scratch that itch?
BTW, Smarmatic's filing is 285 pages, a bit repetitive, but quite brilliant. I'd give their lawyers a 98% on that one. Masterful filing. I'm sure Fox's litigation insurance will have a great number of days going through that one.
Did I mention the FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in two lawsuits? You can stop waiting now.
I know why TD offers anon postings and it's not for worthless trolls.
Face facts: Your doomsday scenario for the loss of 230 is playing out in front of your eyes. You're just too absorbed in ensuring your side "wins" to notice it.
Face facts. Anonymous trolls waste time in front of everyone's eyes. You have no idea what is in front of anyone's eyes or what we (readers) are absorbed "in".
Tell your GP you took yourself off the meds and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder is back. You would like your prescription renewed.
And I'll be laughing my ass off in silence over it.
Laughing isn't silent, and only a narcissist or a douche tells other people "I'll be laughing over it." Nobody cares. Nobody has ever cared. Not even the idiot staring at you in the mirror when you shave.
So, politely, get back on your meds please. You have no understanding of the laws of which you attempt to speak; you're a narcissist (feel free to look up King Narcissus); you're self-absorbed; time for those meds.
Check out how many times you said "I" and "me" and go cry yourself you sleep on your big pillow that has a pink pony and the words "Life is all about me" on it, why don't you.
Note that wasn't a question. You're not even bright enough to sign your name. You KNOW your swill isn't welcome.
In summary, I do not think the internet is working just fine ..
The Internet is a communication medium. If you can communicate (you know, send and receive information) it's working just fine.
If you're upset about content, moderation (or lack thereof) or regulation of content, that's not the Internet's problem.
Think "phone network" for example. You can call up anyone you want and say stupid ****. That doesn't make the phone networks bad, nor your choice of provider nor that of the recipient. It's just a communication medium.
Yes, if Congress repeals CDA §230 they can then pass laws creating liability on content servers regardless of the source of the content. This is bad.
However, the first amendment article seems specious to me.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nothing there prohibits any NON-Congress [legal] body from creating such laws.
Nothing there prohibits a site from having its own T&Cs [advertised or not] and working according to same.
Section (e) goes into great lengths as to what is NOT covered, including (1) criminal law, (2) intellectual property law, (3) state law[s], (4) privacy laws, (5) "Sex trafficking" [anything they don't like apparently], etc.
SO again, I'm confused. Other than PREVENTING CONGRESS from passing laws, how is CDA Section 230 creating the open Internet?
The Internet was invented in the 1970s. That's a fact.
Internet access was available to supercomputer centers and the agencies that needed access in the 1980s.
The commercial Internet was enabled in 1993.
The telecommunications act that enacted a bunch of stuff but was repealed except for the CDA was 1996.
It's 2021. Pick your start date and figure out if the 25 year old act that prevented the US Congress from passing laws changed anything. If they allow themselves (don't they "represent 'us'"?) to pass whatever laws they want, how does this fundamentally change the Internet?
Very fashionable to complain that my first amendment rights are being trampled... but Congress has passed no law doing so. They sure could, and first they'd have to trample §230. Not a high hurdle to jump.
Very fashionable to complain that without the CDA 230 "protections" there would be no user-generated content (UCG) such as Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Techdirt comments, etc.
I would love to see a post that describes in detail how CDA 230 provides protection to private sites from having T&Cs. That's not in there.
All I see is that Congress wants to pass laws about sites hosting content, so first they want to remove the protections (§230) that prevent them from doing so. I disagree with the entire effort.
That having been said I still am not grokking any 1AM issue here.
Can someone explain that last part? How is 1AM part of this discussion?
. The Oversight Board is just a way for Facebook and Zuckerberg not to take real responsibility
Facebook is a public corporation with stock. Its stockholder are not personally liable for what the corporation does -- that's the whole point of a corporation, public or private.
Mark Zuckerberg is a shareholder, and in that respect is also not personally liable. He's also the CEO and even in that respect is not personally liable.
There's no "real responsibility" other than the management team (day to day) which includes MZ as its head, or the BoD (long term management).
Attempting to "put this on" MZ (or JB and Amazon) ignores the whole point of a corporate structure. Could JB give his personal fortune to increase AMZ employees' pay? Sure. Is he required to? No. Could MZ effect changes to FB? Sure. Is he required to? No.
If any CEO of a publicly traded corporation unilaterally made changes which appeared to reduce shareholder value... that person would be responsible for that loss. When discussing FB, the "value" of FB (not a member for years) to the stockholders can be vastly different than the "value" of what FB does with its content.
If the argument is that MZ should change FB, then FB (Inc.) should put out PR saying roughly that "In N months we'll be focusing more on X and less on Y" and giving those stockholders an opportunity to exit that market. THEN and ONLY THEN make changes.
This might make sense except that FB makes money doing what they do. This makes money for the shareholders. This makes money for the management team. Changing this would require a reduction in the top line and the bottom line. Shareholders (including #1 MZ) wouldn't want that, as "growth" is the golden goose.
Summarizing, if "society" wants FB to change the way it does business, "society" can de-reward FB by not participating, by not viewing ads, by not allowing FB tracking on other sites. "Society" has failed to do so for over a decade, and calling on one man -- in the unenviable position of being a market maker, CEO, and shareholder -- to do so is hypocritical.
I own IBM stock. IBM bought Redhat. Redhat got CentOS. CentOS got switched to a rolling distribution by RH. Am I somehow responsible for this? Of course not. What can I do? Divest from IBM? Write a letter? If I was CEO of IBM and divested CentOS would shareholders sue me for reducing their value?
Wiki says "Big Tech" is Amazon (a store), Google (a search engine, online forms, etc.), Facebook (Yum, social site), Apple (um, they make computers and phones), and Microsoft (they were relevant years ago).
This not only isn't the same market sector but these companies don't control content. Perhaps FB could count but then you'd have to add IG, Discord, etc.
There's no "Big Content" and pandering to "cancel culture" Republicans who pretend there is just adds fuel to a fire that should never have been lit.
I'm reminded of the South Park episode where Cartman has Tourettes Syndrome. HE gets to say what he likes, but if others say it, they get in trouble.
For the record, my audio player uses the Portable Electronic Network Interactive Sound codec. I guess I'll just go delete the codebase and start again.
My perspective, borne out by many news reports:
The ACA has provided health care options for people who were not and could not afford to be covered before. This is important.
Your perspective (also true):
The ACA raised rates and lowered coverages.
As with all insurance programs - even mandatory vehicle insurance - if the government requires its purchase, the government should regulate the price. The restaurant menu metaphor doesn't apply because you're not required to purchase from that restaurant.
Step 4: Deny that the orange guy did anything wrong, and say his trial is dead on arrival. Any "juror" (and senators are all jurors in this trial) who said this in a regular court would be dismissed and replaced immediately.
What's next?
Deny that the ACA is helping millions of people
Cut off aid to people making less than $2,000,000/yr
Move education funds to Betsy Devoss' friends' private schools
Statistics are only meaningful to people interested in real data.
The person who said "mansplaining" misrepresents the term to mean "any explanation uttered by a male" (and I'm sure this post would qualify as well.)
Mansplaining is one thing. Talking down to someone is another. Often the former is conflated with the latter because "a man did it." If the same sentence was uttered by a MOTSS if that's not "mansplaining" or "womansplaining" then it's not.
My original questions:
Why can not ANY lawyer equally represent men and women???
Why can not ANY person become a lawyer???
I don't see these as sexist. I think the question is fair when asked by a man or a woman (hence not mansplaining).
The stats posted above seem to bear out that women DO get to have a large number of patent submissions approved. I don't have ABA stats to see if there are more women lawyers, but quantity doesn't reflect a lack of diversity. For example, there are more ITALIAN F1 drivers than there are Americans (0). That doesn't mean F1 is anti-America. Sure, this is an EXAMPLE but you can get the point... a lack of "diversity" in F1 drivers doesn't mean Americans are being discriminated against. Similarly a lessor amount of female IP lawyers is a datum, but it doesn't mean discrimination.
It's disgusting that nowadays any opinion uttered by a male is called "mansplaining." It's not. It's when that same opinion -- when uttered by a woman -- would be OK -- that it should be a consideration. Then we can get on to "why is it OK for a woman to say this but a man can't" but that's another topic.
I'll end as I started the previous post.
What prevents female patent authors to get proper representation?
What prevents female patent attorneys to be able to provide this?
I'm no mansplainer, manspreader, or any stupid PC word that seeks to discriminate against me because I'm male. I treat everyone as equally as I can, and no, this is not about me, but it's tiresome to hear these terms being bandied about to dismiss discussions without actually discussing them.
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Fee shifting under federal law for content lawsuits would win.
The evidence for a 230 law would be a lot of cases against websites over contents, and lack of that evidences means 230 is working just fine.
That sophistry aside, if litigation law were changed to provide speedy adjudication for quick dismissal (like SLAPP laws) and if costs and fees were awarded to the victor, THAT would probably help more than 230.
E
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
^^^^ That.
E "Jewish but don't control space lasers dammit" Gavron
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Re: Re: Re: Call your GP
Go get your meds, troll.
When you have conversations with yourself on TD you just create noise. For those of us who are actually hear to learn that's like misophonia.
Meds. Get them. Stop trolling. Do what mom says. Your homework needs doing.
E
P.S. You're not an anonymous coward. You're just a coward.
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
More Troll Stuff
No, you can go look. You're a nobody with claims that aren't held up by either history (what's on the books) words (what Wyden and Cox have said for years) or anything.
If you can't be competent enough to
Go find a place where an audience will support you. I hear Marjorie Greene has one. If not, maybe Fox News. On this one we actually read real news and even unaffiliated readers (like me) try to keep the record straight.
Bye Troll. [Feel free to read that as "Bye, Felicia."]
E
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Lawsuits
Dominion sued for 1.7B.
Smartmatic sued for 2.3B.
Are you still "can't wait"[ing] or does this scratch that itch?
BTW, Smarmatic's filing is 285 pages, a bit repetitive, but quite brilliant. I'd give their lawyers a 98% on that one. Masterful filing. I'm sure Fox's litigation insurance will have a great number of days going through that one.
Did I mention the FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in two lawsuits? You can stop waiting now.
E
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Chickenshit
I know why TD offers anon postings and it's not for worthless trolls.
Face facts. Anonymous trolls waste time in front of everyone's eyes. You have no idea what is in front of anyone's eyes or what we (readers) are absorbed "in".
You're just anonymous trash.
Time to take out the trash.
E
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Call your GP
Tell your GP you took yourself off the meds and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder is back. You would like your prescription renewed.
So, politely, get back on your meds please. You have no understanding of the laws of which you attempt to speak; you're a narcissist (feel free to look up King Narcissus); you're self-absorbed; time for those meds.
Check out how many times you said "I" and "me" and go cry yourself you sleep on your big pillow that has a pink pony and the words "Life is all about me" on it, why don't you.
Note that wasn't a question. You're not even bright enough to sign your name. You KNOW your swill isn't welcome.
Bye troll.
E
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Internet working fine (or not)
The Internet is a communication medium. If you can communicate (you know, send and receive information) it's working just fine.
If you're upset about content, moderation (or lack thereof) or regulation of content, that's not the Internet's problem.
Think "phone network" for example. You can call up anyone you want and say stupid ****. That doesn't make the phone networks bad, nor your choice of provider nor that of the recipient. It's just a communication medium.
The Internet is the same way.
Stop blaming it for stupid **** politicians do.
E
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Re: Re: First Amendment
Aha! That struck a chord. Thank you!!
E
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
First Amendment
Yes, if Congress repeals CDA §230 they can then pass laws creating liability on content servers regardless of the source of the content. This is bad.
However, the first amendment article seems specious to me.
Nothing there prohibits any NON-Congress [legal] body from creating such laws.
Nothing there prohibits a site from having its own T&Cs [advertised or not] and working according to same.
CDA Section 230, specifically found at 47 U.S. Code § 230 found at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 has section (b) about the Policy of the United States.
Section (e) goes into great lengths as to what is NOT covered, including (1) criminal law, (2) intellectual property law, (3) state law[s], (4) privacy laws, (5) "Sex trafficking" [anything they don't like apparently], etc.
SO again, I'm confused. Other than PREVENTING CONGRESS from passing laws, how is CDA Section 230 creating the open Internet?
The Internet was invented in the 1970s. That's a fact.
Internet access was available to supercomputer centers and the agencies that needed access in the 1980s.
The commercial Internet was enabled in 1993.
The telecommunications act that enacted a bunch of stuff but was repealed except for the CDA was 1996.
It's 2021. Pick your start date and figure out if the 25 year old act that prevented the US Congress from passing laws changed anything. If they allow themselves (don't they "represent 'us'"?) to pass whatever laws they want, how does this fundamentally change the Internet?
Very fashionable to complain that my first amendment rights are being trampled... but Congress has passed no law doing so. They sure could, and first they'd have to trample §230. Not a high hurdle to jump.
Very fashionable to complain that without the CDA 230 "protections" there would be no user-generated content (UCG) such as Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Techdirt comments, etc.
I would love to see a post that describes in detail how CDA 230 provides protection to private sites from having T&Cs. That's not in there.
All I see is that Congress wants to pass laws about sites hosting content, so first they want to remove the protections (§230) that prevent them from doing so. I disagree with the entire effort.
That having been said I still am not grokking any 1AM issue here.
Can someone explain that last part? How is 1AM part of this discussion?
E
On the post: Facebook Oversight Board's First Decisions... Seem To Confirm Everyone's Opinions Of The Board
Zuckerberg
Facebook is a public corporation with stock. Its stockholder are not personally liable for what the corporation does -- that's the whole point of a corporation, public or private.
Mark Zuckerberg is a shareholder, and in that respect is also not personally liable. He's also the CEO and even in that respect is not personally liable.
There's no "real responsibility" other than the management team (day to day) which includes MZ as its head, or the BoD (long term management).
Attempting to "put this on" MZ (or JB and Amazon) ignores the whole point of a corporate structure. Could JB give his personal fortune to increase AMZ employees' pay? Sure. Is he required to? No. Could MZ effect changes to FB? Sure. Is he required to? No.
If any CEO of a publicly traded corporation unilaterally made changes which appeared to reduce shareholder value... that person would be responsible for that loss. When discussing FB, the "value" of FB (not a member for years) to the stockholders can be vastly different than the "value" of what FB does with its content.
If the argument is that MZ should change FB, then FB (Inc.) should put out PR saying roughly that "In N months we'll be focusing more on X and less on Y" and giving those stockholders an opportunity to exit that market. THEN and ONLY THEN make changes.
This might make sense except that FB makes money doing what they do. This makes money for the shareholders. This makes money for the management team. Changing this would require a reduction in the top line and the bottom line. Shareholders (including #1 MZ) wouldn't want that, as "growth" is the golden goose.
Summarizing, if "society" wants FB to change the way it does business, "society" can de-reward FB by not participating, by not viewing ads, by not allowing FB tracking on other sites. "Society" has failed to do so for over a decade, and calling on one man -- in the unenviable position of being a market maker, CEO, and shareholder -- to do so is hypocritical.
I own IBM stock. IBM bought Redhat. Redhat got CentOS. CentOS got switched to a rolling distribution by RH. Am I somehow responsible for this? Of course not. What can I do? Divest from IBM? Write a letter? If I was CEO of IBM and divested CentOS would shareholders sue me for reducing their value?
Yeah, they sure would.
E
On the post: Columbia Law Professor Spews Blatantly False Information About Section 230 In The Wall Street Journal
"Big Tech" is a begged question
Wiki says "Big Tech" is Amazon (a store), Google (a search engine, online forms, etc.), Facebook (Yum, social site), Apple (um, they make computers and phones), and Microsoft (they were relevant years ago).
This not only isn't the same market sector but these companies don't control content. Perhaps FB could count but then you'd have to add IG, Discord, etc.
There's no "Big Content" and pandering to "cancel culture" Republicans who pretend there is just adds fuel to a fire that should never have been lit.
E
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: Google Play Bans Video Player App Over ASS File Extension Support
Re: Your child traumatized by seeing Ted Cruz
In the Indy 500 an (R) after the driver's name means they're a rookie.
In the US Congress an (R) after your name means you're an ass.
E
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: Google Play Bans Video Player App Over ASS File Extension Support
Tourettes
I'm reminded of the South Park episode where Cartman has Tourettes Syndrome. HE gets to say what he likes, but if others say it, they get in trouble.
For the record, my audio player uses the Portable Electronic Network Interactive Sound codec. I guess I'll just go delete the codebase and start again.
E
On the post: How Can Conservatives Fight Back Against Big Tech? For A Start, Just Be Sane Again.
Re: Re: Great Old Plan
My perspective, borne out by many news reports:
The ACA has provided health care options for people who were not and could not afford to be covered before. This is important.
Your perspective (also true):
The ACA raised rates and lowered coverages.
As with all insurance programs - even mandatory vehicle insurance - if the government requires its purchase, the government should regulate the price. The restaurant menu metaphor doesn't apply because you're not required to purchase from that restaurant.
E
On the post: How Can Conservatives Fight Back Against Big Tech? For A Start, Just Be Sane Again.
Great Old Plan
Step 1: Call the news media "mainstream media" then "lamestream media" then just put it out there as "fake news."
Step 2: Remove science from the agenda. Science has no place in medicine, epidemiology (what's that werd meenz agin?), or schools.
Step 3: Deny that the insurrections at state capitols and the one in DC to stop the electoral count happened... or that if it did it was a false flag op. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/27/oregon-gop-capitol-riot-false-flag-trump-lah-dnt-ac36 0-vpx.cnn
Step 4: Deny that the orange guy did anything wrong, and say his trial is dead on arrival. Any "juror" (and senators are all jurors in this trial) who said this in a regular court would be dismissed and replaced immediately.
What's next?
And to bring this Full Godwin:
E
On the post: Internet-Connected Chastity Cages Hit By Bitcoin Ransom Hack
Larry Niven said it best
If an idiot wants to lock his genitals up so anyone on the Internet can say "Narp, not unlocking you" that's just evolution in action.
Ehud
P.S. That's from Oath of Fealty, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, 1981, to give credit where credit is certainly due.
On the post: FTC's Misses Opportunity To Understand Social Media; Instead Goes For Weird Fishing Expedition Against Odd Grouping Of Companies
Failure to pay attention causes early demise
Do pay attention. This is not about me. Try and stick to the conversation topic. Hint: It's about the FTC going after companies.
Best regards and all that,
E
On the post: FBI Warns Assholes Are Now Combining Compromised IoT Devices With Swatting Because That's The Hell We Now Live In
Best Headline Ever
Thanks, Tim - needed that!
Ehud
On the post: Senators Tell The USPTO To Remove The Arbitrary Obstacles Preventing Inventors (Especially Women Inventors) From Getting Patents
Statistics
Statistics are only meaningful to people interested in real data.
The person who said "mansplaining" misrepresents the term to mean "any explanation uttered by a male" (and I'm sure this post would qualify as well.)
Mansplaining is one thing. Talking down to someone is another. Often the former is conflated with the latter because "a man did it." If the same sentence was uttered by a MOTSS if that's not "mansplaining" or "womansplaining" then it's not.
My original questions:
I don't see these as sexist. I think the question is fair when asked by a man or a woman (hence not mansplaining).
The stats posted above seem to bear out that women DO get to have a large number of patent submissions approved. I don't have ABA stats to see if there are more women lawyers, but quantity doesn't reflect a lack of diversity. For example, there are more ITALIAN F1 drivers than there are Americans (0). That doesn't mean F1 is anti-America. Sure, this is an EXAMPLE but you can get the point... a lack of "diversity" in F1 drivers doesn't mean Americans are being discriminated against. Similarly a lessor amount of female IP lawyers is a datum, but it doesn't mean discrimination.
It's disgusting that nowadays any opinion uttered by a male is called "mansplaining." It's not. It's when that same opinion -- when uttered by a woman -- would be OK -- that it should be a consideration. Then we can get on to "why is it OK for a woman to say this but a man can't" but that's another topic.
I'll end as I started the previous post.
I'm no mansplainer, manspreader, or any stupid PC word that seeks to discriminate against me because I'm male. I treat everyone as equally as I can, and no, this is not about me, but it's tiresome to hear these terms being bandied about to dismiss discussions without actually discussing them.
Happy New Year.
Ehud
Next >>