Fortunately, it sounds like the plan is to do what I've been suggesting all along: remove profanity, pornography, and threats of violence, while staying neutral on the political arguments.
Please explain both a) how a cartoon of a cow holding a sign that says “Devin is a loser” by therealdevincow (obviously referring to Congressman Devin Nunes) is either “profanity, pornography, or [a] threat[] of violence,” and b) how banning that user for that post is “staying neutral on the political arguments,” because I’m not seeing it.
I'm detecting a lot of animosity towards such a platform. Wierd!
Any animosity is regarding the hypocrisy for praising that platform while it does the same things they criticize Twitter for and for the platform trying to say it sticks to banning what wouldn’t be allowed by the 1A despite the fact that it has banned plenty of content that is protected by the First Amendment. That it draws the line differently or even at all is not the point; it’s the dishonesty and hypocrisy about it.
Yes, what's the difference between moderating other people's content or producing your own? Because "producing your own" isn't about the restricted case of some real human producing content all by himself.
Technically, yes it is restricted to some real human(s) producing content. Not one by himself, no, but moderation of others’ content is not really part of the creation process.
Traditional media companies have employees, who produce content, or get content from from freelancers and other companies.
This involves negotiated contracts, monetary transactions for specifically chosen content, and/or solicitation of specific content. Basically, the traditional media companies actively choose which content to publish. ISPs don’t. Even more simply, there’s a difference between deciding what to include and deciding what to exclude, and there’s a difference between hiring someone or purchasing their content outright and allowing others unconnected to you to put their content on your platform at their leisure.
Is the deciding difference that "moderation" means only removal after content has already been published by automatic means?
That’s part of it, though automated filters are also considered moderation. Basically, is the default decision to publish or not?
By the way, I'm also puzzled about the strange wording of §230(c)(2). If it was originally meant to say "moderate as you want", it's an extremely cumbersome and misleading way to put that.
Welcome to lawspeak. Laws are very much not written in the simplest way possible for various reasons, whether it be to make carefully crafted loopholes or avoid unintended consequences, overbreadth, or misinterpretation by the courts. I wouldn’t say it’s misleading in this case, though.
The context of "otherwise objectionable" in there is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing". So one would assume this "otherwise objectionable" is about something quite drastic, too, and not just "I personally don't like this opinion".
According to the courts and some dictionaries, “otherwise objectionable” basically means “speech I don’t like”. Again, lawspeak doesn’t always conform to our expectations. I also don’t really consider “lewd” or “filthy” to be “drastic”, and it’d be impossible to define “otherwise objectionable” any other way that would still be fair without making the inclusion redundant. I, for one, never assumed that “otherwise objectionable” was particularly drastic like you did.
If there is a difference between moderation and content curation, it’s that moderation is after the fact while curation is before the fact. However, as far as §230 is concerned, it’s a distinction without a difference. Curation is immunized. And no, I don’t think content curation is limited to content providers and not interactive service providers, so your premises are heavily flawed.
If you look at section 230 cases you see that it applies to defamatory statements, IP and a select few other situations.
No, it very explicitly does not apply to IP. In fact, it applies to most federal civil laws and nearly all state or local laws that treat an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or user of an ISP as a publisher of illegal or unlawful content provided by a third party, but not IP laws, federal criminal laws, or (as of FOSTA) sex trafficking laws. I’m fairly sure those are the only exceptione as far as culpability for third-party content goes.
(It also immunizes moderation decisions regarding objectionable content and the provision or use of tools to allow users to block certain content.)
They aren't liable for defamatory statements […]
Unless they wrote the statements, but other than that yes.
[…] and only really lose immunity if they promise to remove [what is posted] and don't[…]
False. Failure to remove content they promised to doesn’t change the applicability of §230. Maybe they could be sued for breach of contract, but I’m pretty sure that §230 also protects from that since it’s a moderation decision, and either way, they are still immune from suits that treat them as the publisher of that content.
[…]or materially change what is posted.
This is a somewhat gray area (I think) in that it depends on the particular changes made, and even then it’s only for the changes made (I think). Furthermore, automated changes (like replacing all instances of a specific word or phrase to another using an algorithm) are also protected.
There is nothing I can find relating to criminal activity beyond that. At least, nothing seems to be mentioned in the brief material on case laws regarding 230.
As I said, federal criminal laws are explicitly exempted from §230, as are IP laws—there is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement.
It took you that long to realize you could actually see the hidden comments? And how is that censorship? If you can still see the content, and no one has been punished by the government for it, it hasn’t been censored.
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Benchslapped And Sanctioned AGAIN In A Massive Filing Detailing Pages Upon Pages Of Him Lying Under Oath
Re: Re: Re:
It’s a historical term from when votes for removal were done by putting a white or black ball into a container.
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Benchslapped And Sanctioned AGAIN In A Massive Filing Detailing Pages Upon Pages Of Him Lying Under Oath
I used to bookmark all the Liebowitz articles. Now I removed those bookmarks and just bookmarked the tag to save space.
On the post: Parler Speedruns The Content Moderation Learning Curve; Goes From 'We Allow Everything' To 'We're The Good Censors' In Days
Re: Re: Isn't That Why They Left Twitter
That’s not what “free speech” is, but whatever.
Wait, so how are the people deciding?
On the post: Parler Speedruns The Content Moderation Learning Curve; Goes From 'We Allow Everything' To 'We're The Good Censors' In Days
Re: Re: Isn't That Why They Left Twitter
You know that Parley is doing the same thing, right? They’re a corporation too.
On the post: Parler Speedruns The Content Moderation Learning Curve; Goes From 'We Allow Everything' To 'We're The Good Censors' In Days
Re:
Please explain both a) how a cartoon of a cow holding a sign that says “Devin is a loser” by therealdevincow (obviously referring to Congressman Devin Nunes) is either “profanity, pornography, or [a] threat[] of violence,” and b) how banning that user for that post is “staying neutral on the political arguments,” because I’m not seeing it.
Any animosity is regarding the hypocrisy for praising that platform while it does the same things they criticize Twitter for and for the platform trying to say it sticks to banning what wouldn’t be allowed by the 1A despite the fact that it has banned plenty of content that is protected by the First Amendment. That it draws the line differently or even at all is not the point; it’s the dishonesty and hypocrisy about it.
On the post: Senate Waters Down EARN IT At The Last Minute; Gives Civil Liberties Groups No Time To Point Out The Many Remaining Problems
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t child porn already not covered by CSA §230?
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Are you GasLighting Me?
I don’t think you know what “gaslighting” is.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Technically, yes it is restricted to some real human(s) producing content. Not one by himself, no, but moderation of others’ content is not really part of the creation process.
This involves negotiated contracts, monetary transactions for specifically chosen content, and/or solicitation of specific content. Basically, the traditional media companies actively choose which content to publish. ISPs don’t. Even more simply, there’s a difference between deciding what to include and deciding what to exclude, and there’s a difference between hiring someone or purchasing their content outright and allowing others unconnected to you to put their content on your platform at their leisure.
That’s part of it, though automated filters are also considered moderation. Basically, is the default decision to publish or not?
Welcome to lawspeak. Laws are very much not written in the simplest way possible for various reasons, whether it be to make carefully crafted loopholes or avoid unintended consequences, overbreadth, or misinterpretation by the courts. I wouldn’t say it’s misleading in this case, though.
According to the courts and some dictionaries, “otherwise objectionable” basically means “speech I don’t like”. Again, lawspeak doesn’t always conform to our expectations. I also don’t really consider “lewd” or “filthy” to be “drastic”, and it’d be impossible to define “otherwise objectionable” any other way that would still be fair without making the inclusion redundant. I, for one, never assumed that “otherwise objectionable” was particularly drastic like you did.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there is a difference between moderation and content curation, it’s that moderation is after the fact while curation is before the fact. However, as far as §230 is concerned, it’s a distinction without a difference. Curation is immunized. And no, I don’t think content curation is limited to content providers and not interactive service providers, so your premises are heavily flawed.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it very explicitly does not apply to IP. In fact, it applies to most federal civil laws and nearly all state or local laws that treat an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or user of an ISP as a publisher of illegal or unlawful content provided by a third party, but not IP laws, federal criminal laws, or (as of FOSTA) sex trafficking laws. I’m fairly sure those are the only exceptione as far as culpability for third-party content goes.
(It also immunizes moderation decisions regarding objectionable content and the provision or use of tools to allow users to block certain content.)
Unless they wrote the statements, but other than that yes.
False. Failure to remove content they promised to doesn’t change the applicability of §230. Maybe they could be sued for breach of contract, but I’m pretty sure that §230 also protects from that since it’s a moderation decision, and either way, they are still immune from suits that treat them as the publisher of that content.
This is a somewhat gray area (I think) in that it depends on the particular changes made, and even then it’s only for the changes made (I think). Furthermore, automated changes (like replacing all instances of a specific word or phrase to another using an algorithm) are also protected.
As I said, federal criminal laws are explicitly exempted from §230, as are IP laws—there is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: [tautology]
You don’t prove axioms. Axioms are things you assume to be true to build a framework.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
You forget that that would hurt others as well.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please do everyone a favor and don’t tell people to die/kill themselves.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
It took you that long to realize you could actually see the hidden comments? And how is that censorship? If you can still see the content, and no one has been punished by the government for it, it hasn’t been censored.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: This Article Seems Biased
The people claiming it didn’t present that information.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any evidence that it’s not the community?
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as I can tell, many of those who post here are closer to libertarian than leftwing.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re:
Not like yours is any better.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re:
That ruling has zero relevance to anything being discussed here.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Man, you really suck at this, huh? It’s painful to watch.
Next >>