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.
Lol, Koby, seeking dismissal on either of those grounds is challenging the lawsuit on its merits. It is meritless. It is bringing a ridiculous claim of defamation that cannot stand up to any level scrutiny, and seeking a 12(b)(6) dismissal is entirely appropriate.
You corporate bootlickers will gladly tolerate censorship as long as it's Google doing it and not the government.
Who are you even talking about?
When Google censors opinions offensive to its investors and advertisers, it's their right because muh private property.
It is their right, just as it is our right to criticize them OR TO USE ANOTHER PLATFORM.
When the government demands everyone be given a fair platform, suddenly you're all MUH RETHUGLICANS and LITERALLY HITLER.
Where have we ever said that?
Thankfully I'm sure the giant corps are on your side and you will never be the target of your own short sightedness... right?
I mean, literally we were demonetized by Google, and have a story coming next week about another company that took down our speech, so, uh, no? But we still recognize the reality of why they should be able to do this.
Maybe because we're not on any "team" but rather believe in basic rights. You should try it.
Yeah, it sounds like it was a poor choice of defendants in the initial case,
Nah. Texas made the law so they could make this argument, but it was nonsensical. The Court basically punted by saying that since the enforcement mechanism was any random numbskull who sued someone else, that there was no standing. But there clearly was standing against the government agents who would enforce this law: in this case judges. That's why the defendant in the case was a judge. There was no reason why, as the minority noted, SCOTUS couldn't live up to its belief in the status quo until there was a full briefing on the manner, and therefore issue an injunction for such purpose.
Re: This article makes a number of bias statements
While I have not read through the filing for this case, your article makes a number of bias statements.
It's an opinion piece. And my opinion is that this lawsuit is frivolous nonsense. And that your comments here are uninformed garbage.
First it treats "misinformation" as if it was an appropriate reason to block a public forum - even though these companies are private, they misrepresent the protections they have under 47 US Code Section 230, and definitely are violating the purpose of that code "to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools".
This is false. As the very authors of Section 230 have noted repeatedly, the intent of the law was to allow websites to moderate as they see fit and that the end result of different websites moderating in different ways that were appropriate to the communities they were targeting, that was how they would maximize the situation in which individuals could have control over what information was received. You are misrepresenting the intent of Section 230 (and reading way too much into your misreading). Thankfully, the courts have debunked this view.
Second it misrepresents the state doctrine. Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702, 587 U.S. ___ (2018) states a three point rule, and the third point is "... a private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances... (iii) when the government acts jointly with the private entity"
Lol. Halleck also makes it crystal clear that Facebook is not a state actor. First, it says that state action doctrine is limited to situations in which the private actor is performing services typically reserved to the government. That's not the case here. Second, there is NO evidence whatsoever that FB is acting "jointly" with the US government -- as explained in the article.
Third it misrepresents the certain claim that masks would be effective (whether for adults or kids) - it certainly partakes in confirmation bias.
I linked to sources and explained why it was you and your friends misrepresenting things. Don't come on my site and spew your nonsense.
The page can't simultaneously be a public forum (for NIH) and not a public forum (for Facebook).
Yes, it absolutely can. In the same way that a private event hall is not normally a public forum, but absolutely is a public forum when a government official holds a town hall there. The issue, under the law (and basic common sense) is not the place, but who is using it for what.
I don't understand the difference between "antitrust" and "anticompetitive". In fact, "Antitrust" and "Anti-trust law" redirect to "Competition law" on Wikipedia.
California has an unfair competition law, which doesn't rely on antitrust violations to underpin it. It's a fine line... but that's the distinction.
Yeah, I wrote about that -- that's the anti-steering provisions. I think that part of the ruling makes perfectly good sense, and yes, it can allow developers to route around Apple's payment setup.
But Epic was asking for a hell of a lot more. And they got almost none of it.
It should be noted that the judge was appointed by Democratic Governor Dan Malloy.
Why?!? Political party has literally nothing to do with this story in any way whatsoever.
Hell, we go out of our way to not even mention the political party of politicians unless the party is central to the story. In this case, there is no reason whatsoever to mention that at all, and in fact, it makes me wonder how the hell you could possibly think it matters?
Hey Koby: you never responded to the questions on the other thread, in which you had 24 hours to back up your nonsense, so now we know you're posting in bad faith.
It appears that WhatsApp is a lot less secure than some competitors, such as Signal, and a lot less secure than Facebook likes to admit or users are lead to believe.
I just don't think that's even remotely accurate, though. You can always forward decrypted messages or take a screenshot of them. This reporting makes people believe things that just aren't true.
On the post: Techdirt's 'Plagiarism Collection': A Plagiarized Set Of NFTs About Plagiarism
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm. Seems like an OpenSea setting rather than an us setting. We don't see any reason why that should be happening...
And, it does look like others around the globe are seeing the same thing with OpenSea... https://www.reddit.com/r/opensea/comments/n6s3yb/access_is_denied_to_opensea_site/
That's... frustrating.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
Re: Re:
But under your plan, every site would HAVE to be just like 4chan because if they attempt not to be, you think that they've done a bad thing.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
Re: Defamation is not Moderation
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.
Lol, Koby, seeking dismissal on either of those grounds is challenging the lawsuit on its merits. It is meritless. It is bringing a ridiculous claim of defamation that cannot stand up to any level scrutiny, and seeking a 12(b)(6) dismissal is entirely appropriate.
On the post: Techdirt's 'Plagiarism Collection': A Plagiarized Set Of NFTs About Plagiarism
Re: Re:
Hmm. Can you provide any details on this? We're not seeing this anywhere...
On the post: Techdirt's 'Plagiarism Collection': A Plagiarized Set Of NFTs About Plagiarism
Re:
Did we finally break TAC?
On the post: Texas' Unconstitutional Social Media Censorship Bill Challenged In Court, Just As Texas Joins The Legal Fight For Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Bill
Re: Abbott is right though.
Lol wut?
You corporate bootlickers will gladly tolerate censorship as long as it's Google doing it and not the government.
Who are you even talking about?
When Google censors opinions offensive to its investors and advertisers, it's their right because muh private property.
It is their right, just as it is our right to criticize them OR TO USE ANOTHER PLATFORM.
When the government demands everyone be given a fair platform, suddenly you're all MUH RETHUGLICANS and LITERALLY HITLER.
Where have we ever said that?
Thankfully I'm sure the giant corps are on your side and you will never be the target of your own short sightedness... right?
I mean, literally we were demonetized by Google, and have a story coming next week about another company that took down our speech, so, uh, no? But we still recognize the reality of why they should be able to do this.
Maybe because we're not on any "team" but rather believe in basic rights. You should try it.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re:
None of those images in your link match the images above -- who both match each other pretty closely.
On the post: The Night The United States Supreme Court Cancelled Law
Re: Re: In law, fine points matter.
Yeah, it sounds like it was a poor choice of defendants in the initial case,
Nah. Texas made the law so they could make this argument, but it was nonsensical. The Court basically punted by saying that since the enforcement mechanism was any random numbskull who sued someone else, that there was no standing. But there clearly was standing against the government agents who would enforce this law: in this case judges. That's why the defendant in the case was a judge. There was no reason why, as the minority noted, SCOTUS couldn't live up to its belief in the status quo until there was a full briefing on the manner, and therefore issue an injunction for such purpose.
On the post: Angry Anti-Masker Sues Joe Biden, Facebook, And Twitter Because His Social Media Was Taken Down For Disinfo
Re: Re: Re: This article makes a number of bias statements
Bye. Don't come back. Wallow in your own ignorance if you must. But go the fuck away.
On the post: Hongkongers Battle Supporters Of Beijing For The Soul Of The Chinese-Language Wikipedia
Re: chinese wikipedia
Lol wut?
On the post: Turner Entertainment Forces Name Change Of 'Surrender Dorothy' Beer, Which Isn't Actually Referencing Wizard Of Oz
Re:
I've corrected the post and sent Tim a map of the United States...
On the post: As We're Told That No New Social Media App Can Make It, TikTok Surpasses Facebook Downloads & YouTube Watch Time
Re: Typo?
Oops. Yes. Fixed. Sorry. Thanks.
On the post: Angry Anti-Masker Sues Joe Biden, Facebook, And Twitter Because His Social Media Was Taken Down For Disinfo
Re: This article makes a number of bias statements
While I have not read through the filing for this case, your article makes a number of bias statements.
It's an opinion piece. And my opinion is that this lawsuit is frivolous nonsense. And that your comments here are uninformed garbage.
First it treats "misinformation" as if it was an appropriate reason to block a public forum - even though these companies are private, they misrepresent the protections they have under 47 US Code Section 230, and definitely are violating the purpose of that code "to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools".
This is false. As the very authors of Section 230 have noted repeatedly, the intent of the law was to allow websites to moderate as they see fit and that the end result of different websites moderating in different ways that were appropriate to the communities they were targeting, that was how they would maximize the situation in which individuals could have control over what information was received. You are misrepresenting the intent of Section 230 (and reading way too much into your misreading). Thankfully, the courts have debunked this view.
Second it misrepresents the state doctrine. Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702, 587 U.S. ___ (2018) states a three point rule, and the third point is "... a private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances... (iii) when the government acts jointly with the private entity"
Lol. Halleck also makes it crystal clear that Facebook is not a state actor. First, it says that state action doctrine is limited to situations in which the private actor is performing services typically reserved to the government. That's not the case here. Second, there is NO evidence whatsoever that FB is acting "jointly" with the US government -- as explained in the article.
Third it misrepresents the certain claim that masks would be effective (whether for adults or kids) - it certainly partakes in confirmation bias.
I linked to sources and explained why it was you and your friends misrepresenting things. Don't come on my site and spew your nonsense.
On the post: PETA Sues NIH And HHS Directors For Blocking Comments With 'PETA' And '#StopAnimalTesting'
Re:
The page can't simultaneously be a public forum (for NIH) and not a public forum (for Facebook).
Yes, it absolutely can. In the same way that a private event hall is not normally a public forum, but absolutely is a public forum when a government official holds a town hall there. The issue, under the law (and basic common sense) is not the place, but who is using it for what.
On the post: Malwarebytes Conclusion Shows Section 230's Best Feature: Killing Dumb Cases Before They Waste Everyone's Time And Money
Re: Re: A right you can't afford may as well not exist
Engine Advocacy did a paper on this exact point: https://www.engine.is/news/primer/section230costs
On the post: Apple Mostly, But Not Entirely, Wins Against Epic; No Antitrust Violation, But Must Tweak Practices To Comply With CA Law
Re:
I don't understand the difference between "antitrust" and "anticompetitive". In fact, "Antitrust" and "Anti-trust law" redirect to "Competition law" on Wikipedia.
California has an unfair competition law, which doesn't rely on antitrust violations to underpin it. It's a fine line... but that's the distinction.
On the post: Apple Mostly, But Not Entirely, Wins Against Epic; No Antitrust Violation, But Must Tweak Practices To Comply With CA Law
Re: What About Mandatory IAP?
Yeah, I wrote about that -- that's the anti-steering provisions. I think that part of the ruling makes perfectly good sense, and yes, it can allow developers to route around Apple's payment setup.
But Epic was asking for a hell of a lot more. And they got almost none of it.
On the post: Connecticut Court Orders Blogger To Turn Over Electronic Devices To Cop Suing Over Alleged Defamation By Blog's Commenters
Re: Democrat-appointed judge
It should be noted that the judge was appointed by Democratic Governor Dan Malloy.
Why?!? Political party has literally nothing to do with this story in any way whatsoever.
Hell, we go out of our way to not even mention the political party of politicians unless the party is central to the story. In this case, there is no reason whatsoever to mention that at all, and in fact, it makes me wonder how the hell you could possibly think it matters?
On the post: Impossibility Of Content Moderation: Scientist Debunking Vaccine Myths Gets A YouTube Strike For Medical Misinfo
Re: Not Debunking Hard Enough
Hey Koby: you never responded to the questions on the other thread, in which you had 24 hours to back up your nonsense, so now we know you're posting in bad faith.
On the post: Damned If You Do; Damned If You Don't: ProPublica's Bizarre Reporting On WhatsApp Abuse Reports
Re: Poorly setting up user expectations
It appears that WhatsApp is a lot less secure than some competitors, such as Signal, and a lot less secure than Facebook likes to admit or users are lead to believe.
I just don't think that's even remotely accurate, though. You can always forward decrypted messages or take a screenshot of them. This reporting makes people believe things that just aren't true.
Next >>