Fortunately, we do know how that section 230 fence was built. Half of the people voting for the 1996 CDA preferred that content hosts be able to censor profanity and obscenity. But this was at risk due to the Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy court decision. The 1996 CDA passed with multiple aspects, some of which were attempts at blocking indecent materials to children. Another part was where section 230 got built, which gave service providers immunity for blocking material. It was designed as a tradeoff, that corporations would be able to engage in censorship, in exchange for obscenity being segregated to particular internet domains. However, this exchange was destroyed by Reno v ACLU. Now, all we're left with is the censorship part.
It's time to tear down the other half of the fence.
Fact checking is not moderation; it is an attempt by the platform to engage speech with which they disagree by making their own statements. Except that, in this case, FB's own official determination of fact was non-factual. I predict that this lawsuit will not be seen as frivolous by FB, on the basis that they will not try to win the case on the merits. Instead, they will seek a dismissal based on grounds that their speech did not reach the level of actual malice, or perhaps 230. FB definitely won't be willing to take that fact check to trial.
Re: southwest may not have standing -- but I might
So a service that assists those who are booking flights they don't intend to travel on raise costs for real passengers and simultaneously lower revenue for the operator.
The customer already paid for the flight, whether they choose to sit in the seat or not. In fact, if the passenger does not board the flight, the airline is probably saving a little bit on fuel.
The real reason the carriers are upset is that passengers with more direct routes, which therefore should be lower priced, are subsidizing those with additional legs, which should be more expensive. And now these websites have discovered how to exploit the pricing model.
The so-called judges have once again taken written law into their own hands, and have unilaterally appended the words "unless a spy agency is involved" to the end of the 4th amendment.
More clarification and comment was sought, but Microsoft apparently had nothing more to say about this "human error" and its conspicuous timing....
When the mysterious "glitch" occurs, and there's no explanation, we know that they're lying. This is obvious if it favors a repressive government. But for some strange reason, when it's utilized over here in the United States for political censorship, suddenly a lot of folks begin apologizing for the tech corporation.
A number of companies have offered bounties for finding exploits in their software, but some of the dollar figures that I've seen look kind of piddly for finding a somewhat serious zero day. The paid news feed, at $250k per year per subscriber, seems to be earning a lot more that what a white hat hacker would get. It's fascinating how mercenary this is, in that everyone concerned needs to pay for the information and then race to use it before it gets exploited or patched. Both sides get played off one another, for which Exodus can charge a lot of money, and also avoid liability. Personally, I doubt that Exodus doesn't realize exactly what they're doing.
Companies that do lobbying don't want to take sides. The best way to rig the game is to give money to both sides, so that it doesn't matter who wins the next election.
Interestingly, if Democrats can successfully stop telecom companies from donationing to Republicans, then the best bet for ending corporate welfare and regional monopolies will be to support Texas style Republicans. I'd love to see this happen, simply on the basis that we could watch some peoples' heads explode.
How in the hell would they manage to verify I am the one true TAC anyways? Is it like a secret society where other people with blue checkmarks can vouch for a person being the pseudonym they claim to be?
For twitter, authenticity doesn't matter as much as agreement does.
There's also the case of Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, which had the opposite ruling.
The Rupert Murdoch situation seems more analogous to Cubby, since they apparently weren't even aware of what was being said in the comments. Stratton Oakmont was different because they were actively monitoring and aware of the comments. So they knew.
The United States didn't need such a law. Cubby v Compuserve was from 1991, predating section 230 by several years. Australia must have some very backward legal precedents if they find someone liable for comments of which they were unaware.
There's a handful of two party consent states when it comes to recording. I bet the LED feature is there primarily to appease the lawyers. If someone files a lawsuit, FB can at least sort of claim that they took steps to notify everyone in the area that their glasses were actively recording. Because of their policy, they might be successful in court at shifting liability onto the users, and could maybe get regulators off their back.
Either way, this has to be seen as a pretty big victory for Apple, and I'm confused by some reports saying it's a "major win for Epic Games." It's not.
Apple took a pretty significant hit to its stock price today. Perhaps that's the perspective that they're coming from -- a financial one. From their view, it doesn't matter if it's an antitrust violation, or an injunction as a result of unfair steering practices. If customers escape from the Apple app store and take their money elsewhere, then they figure that Apple suffered a big loss.
The cynic in me says that if the city can't enforce its parking laws by chalking, then it's probably going to attempt enforcement through a more heavy handed measure. My hope is that it can be done with something less invasive, such as constant video camera surveillance, but in reality the business patrons are just going to be forced to feed a parking meter.
It seems to me like any medical misinformation is being removed, even if it gets debunked. YouTube wants complete radio silence. But what if YouTube is playing the long game? This decision to retract opens the possibility that a bad faith pro-conspiracy individual will begin posting more misinformation, and then do a deliberately bad job of debunking it.
But without a clear pattern of deliberately pushing misleading or out of context information
I recall Rolling Stones having to retract a UVA article that made major headlines.
and whether organizations are willing to correct mistakes and admit to errors.
Currently, they haven't retracted the ivermectin story. Instead, they appended an "update", with the hospital press release, as if maybe the article could still be true. They're clearly trying to push a narrative, which is why they are Fake News.
Techdirt here would have been censored for several months if subjected to the Vaccine Talk rules regarding high speed internet availability back in 2018.
Personally, I don't think Techdirt or anyone else should get censored because they disagree with some official FCC coverage map, or any other government study. Indeed, there was no counter "study" available to refute the FCC for some time, certainly not within 24 hours. When it comes to censorship, social media companies are looking to government as to what can and cannot be said, whether the topic is coronavirus, CSAM, terrorism, or any other political hot button issue. Trying to eliminate bad faith arguments by saying that you can't contradict the official government study is in bad faith.
On the post: The Rule Of Fences, And Why Congress Needs To Temper Its Appetite To Undermine Internet Service Provider Liability Protection
Remember The First Half
Fortunately, we do know how that section 230 fence was built. Half of the people voting for the 1996 CDA preferred that content hosts be able to censor profanity and obscenity. But this was at risk due to the Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy court decision. The 1996 CDA passed with multiple aspects, some of which were attempts at blocking indecent materials to children. Another part was where section 230 got built, which gave service providers immunity for blocking material. It was designed as a tradeoff, that corporations would be able to engage in censorship, in exchange for obscenity being segregated to particular internet domains. However, this exchange was destroyed by Reno v ACLU. Now, all we're left with is the censorship part.
It's time to tear down the other half of the fence.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
Defamation is not Moderation
Fact checking is not moderation; it is an attempt by the platform to engage speech with which they disagree by making their own statements. Except that, in this case, FB's own official determination of fact was non-factual. I predict that this lawsuit will not be seen as frivolous by FB, on the basis that they will not try to win the case on the merits. Instead, they will seek a dismissal based on grounds that their speech did not reach the level of actual malice, or perhaps 230. FB definitely won't be willing to take that fact check to trial.
On the post: Investigation: Minneapolis Cops Responded To George Floyd's Murder By Refusing To Do Their Jobs While Still Collecting Their Paychecks
Hitting Home
After years of denying the Ferguson Effect, it's totally here. I think Tim owes us an apology for previously calling it a myth.
On the post: Southwest's Bizarrely Antagonistic Lawsuit To Stop Consumers From Finding Better Deals
Re: southwest may not have standing -- but I might
The customer already paid for the flight, whether they choose to sit in the seat or not. In fact, if the passenger does not board the flight, the airline is probably saving a little bit on fuel.
The real reason the carriers are upset is that passengers with more direct routes, which therefore should be lower priced, are subsidizing those with additional legs, which should be more expensive. And now these websites have discovered how to exploit the pricing model.
On the post: Appeals Court Says State Secrets Privilege Means NSA Can Avoid Wikimedia Foundation's Unlawful Surveillance Allegations
Judicial Fiat
The so-called judges have once again taken written law into their own hands, and have unilaterally appended the words "unless a spy agency is involved" to the end of the 4th amendment.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Bing Search Results Erases Images Of 'Tank Man' On Anniversary Of Tiananmen Square Crackdown (2021)
Obvious
When the mysterious "glitch" occurs, and there's no explanation, we know that they're lying. This is obvious if it favors a repressive government. But for some strange reason, when it's utilized over here in the United States for political censorship, suddenly a lot of folks begin apologizing for the tech corporation.
On the post: American Malware Purveyor That Did Nothing To Limit Misuse Now Horrified To Find Gov't Of India Misused Its Products
Gray Hat Hacker
A number of companies have offered bounties for finding exploits in their software, but some of the dollar figures that I've seen look kind of piddly for finding a somewhat serious zero day. The paid news feed, at $250k per year per subscriber, seems to be earning a lot more that what a white hat hacker would get. It's fascinating how mercenary this is, in that everyone concerned needs to pay for the information and then race to use it before it gets exploited or patched. Both sides get played off one another, for which Exodus can charge a lot of money, and also avoid liability. Personally, I doubt that Exodus doesn't realize exactly what they're doing.
On the post: AT&T Hopes You'll Ignore It Routinely Finances Terrible Politicians Doing Terrible Things
Heads I Win
Companies that do lobbying don't want to take sides. The best way to rig the game is to give money to both sides, so that it doesn't matter who wins the next election.
Interestingly, if Democrats can successfully stop telecom companies from donationing to Republicans, then the best bet for ending corporate welfare and regional monopolies will be to support Texas style Republicans. I'd love to see this happen, simply on the basis that we could watch some peoples' heads explode.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Twitter Removes 'Verified' Badge In Response To Policy Violations (2017)
Re:
For twitter, authenticity doesn't matter as much as agreement does.
On the post: Trump Donor Who Propped Up His $2 Billion Hotel Business With $96 Million In COVID Loans Threatens Website For Publishing Facts And Opinions
tax advice
--is far preferable to having no pre-tax income at all, like nearly 100% of his employees.--
Be careful unemployment compensation does get taxed by the irs.
On the post: Commentator Insists That Fact Checking Is An Attack On Free Speech
What Good Is A Phone Call
You can't do that when you get censored for speaking out against the official government narrative that the social media lapdogs accept as dogma.
On the post: I Am Rupert Murdoch's Total Lack Of Shame: Now Demanding Intermediary Liability Protections For News Corp.
Re: Re: Maybe They Should Change
The Rupert Murdoch situation seems more analogous to Cubby, since they apparently weren't even aware of what was being said in the comments. Stratton Oakmont was different because they were actively monitoring and aware of the comments. So they knew.
On the post: I Am Rupert Murdoch's Total Lack Of Shame: Now Demanding Intermediary Liability Protections For News Corp.
Maybe They Should Change
The United States didn't need such a law. Cubby v Compuserve was from 1991, predating section 230 by several years. Australia must have some very backward legal precedents if they find someone liable for comments of which they were unaware.
On the post: Facebook Says It Violates The Terms Of Service Of Their New Snoopervision Glasses If You Cover The 'I'm Recording You' LED
CYA
There's a handful of two party consent states when it comes to recording. I bet the LED feature is there primarily to appease the lawyers. If someone files a lawsuit, FB can at least sort of claim that they took steps to notify everyone in the area that their glasses were actively recording. Because of their policy, they might be successful in court at shifting liability onto the users, and could maybe get regulators off their back.
On the post: Apple Mostly, But Not Entirely, Wins Against Epic; No Antitrust Violation, But Must Tweak Practices To Comply With CA Law
Bottom Dollar
Apple took a pretty significant hit to its stock price today. Perhaps that's the perspective that they're coming from -- a financial one. From their view, it doesn't matter if it's an antitrust violation, or an injunction as a result of unfair steering practices. If customers escape from the Apple app store and take their money elsewhere, then they figure that Apple suffered a big loss.
On the post: Sixth Circuit Reaffirms It's A Fourth Amendment Violation To Chalk Car Tires For Parking Enforcement Purposes
Re: A victory? Maybe not.
The cynic in me says that if the city can't enforce its parking laws by chalking, then it's probably going to attempt enforcement through a more heavy handed measure. My hope is that it can be done with something less invasive, such as constant video camera surveillance, but in reality the business patrons are just going to be forced to feed a parking meter.
On the post: Impossibility Of Content Moderation: Scientist Debunking Vaccine Myths Gets A YouTube Strike For Medical Misinfo
Not Debunking Hard Enough
It seems to me like any medical misinformation is being removed, even if it gets debunked. YouTube wants complete radio silence. But what if YouTube is playing the long game? This decision to retract opens the possibility that a bad faith pro-conspiracy individual will begin posting more misinformation, and then do a deliberately bad job of debunking it.
On the post: Damned If You Do; Damned If You Don't: ProPublica's Bizarre Reporting On WhatsApp Abuse Reports
Non-Sensational
It must have been a slow news day for ProPublica. It's tough to get eyeballs with the headline "Working As Intended".
On the post: The Role Of Confirmation Bias In Spreading Misinformation
I Can See The Pattern
I recall Rolling Stones having to retract a UVA article that made major headlines.
Currently, they haven't retracted the ivermectin story. Instead, they appended an "update", with the hospital press release, as if maybe the article could still be true. They're clearly trying to push a narrative, which is why they are Fake News.
On the post: Lessons Learned From Creating Good Faith Debate In A Sea Of Garbage Disinformation
Re: Re: Fake It Until You Make It
Sorry, BROADBAND maps. But also carriers have been misleading on their 5G coverage maps as well.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210511/07082546773/microsoft-data-shows-that-fccs-broadband-map s-are-fantasy.shtml
Techdirt here would have been censored for several months if subjected to the Vaccine Talk rules regarding high speed internet availability back in 2018.
Personally, I don't think Techdirt or anyone else should get censored because they disagree with some official FCC coverage map, or any other government study. Indeed, there was no counter "study" available to refute the FCC for some time, certainly not within 24 hours. When it comes to censorship, social media companies are looking to government as to what can and cannot be said, whether the topic is coronavirus, CSAM, terrorism, or any other political hot button issue. Trying to eliminate bad faith arguments by saying that you can't contradict the official government study is in bad faith.
Next >>