This is not Congress trying to fix the "problems" of social media. This is Congress wanting to grandstand on social media while pretending to do real work.
Congress never fails to disappoint. Did you have any expectation that they would do anything other than grandstand in a dog-and-pony show? The year isn't 1994 anymore and the only congresscritter who seems to know about the consequences of legislation affecting the internet is Ron Wyden but he's in the Senate now.
Who would they be liable to in civil court, if their users committed speech crimes and they failed to police it? Those users would be liable. No one else. That comes down to section 230, does it not?
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
So, it’s hard to retain the works that don’t sell in such a way, because Nintendo want to sell you your 8th copy of the original Super Mario Bros and they think your attempt to salvage a game that it outsold 30 years ago might interfere with that.
That's 35 years ago (which actually makes your argument stronger).
Sometimes–but rarely–the phone numbers that isn't on your phone is legitimate and from somebody you want to call you. Still, like I said, they're the exception to the rule. That being said, that very exception is why I don't auto-block the number that's on my phone. What I do instead is add the number to a "Scam Likely" contact which I could just ignore.
I agree with That One Guy and Stephen T. Stone more than you on this matter. Principles matter, even if you far more prefer the offending entity than the defending one.
I realize Content Moderation at Scale is Impossible™, and that's why there are these moderation snafus listed. However, I just find it interesting that Nintendo has the fully nude renaissance masterpieces (as well as their fun counterfeits) in their Animal Crossing: New Horizons game and Nintendo, as you know, is a family-friendly company, so I think they could clearly see that The Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli and David by Michelangelo are nude in an artistic fashion and not in a pornographic one.
That being said, if David were fucking Botticelli's Venus doggystyle, then we'd know what's up. Considering rule 34, it's probably on the internet.
On the post: Why Did Not A Single Representative Want To Discuss Jack Dorsey's Plans For Dealing With Disinformation?
How naïve.
Congress never fails to disappoint. Did you have any expectation that they would do anything other than grandstand in a dog-and-pony show? The year isn't 1994 anymore and the only congresscritter who seems to know about the consequences of legislation affecting the internet is Ron Wyden but he's in the Senate now.
On the post: Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI
Re: Re: Re:
Not really. §230(e)(1) specifically exempts Federal Criminal law:
[ED: emphasis mine]
On the post: Good Idea: As Video Game Preservation Often Falls To Fan Groups, Release Every Game's Source Code
Re: Re: free the relics!
That's 35 years ago (which actually makes your argument stronger).
On the post: Good Idea: As Video Game Preservation Often Falls To Fan Groups, Release Every Game's Source Code
Re: Re: Re:
[renewable for two terms] should be [renewable for a second term]. That is all.
On the post: Good Idea: As Video Game Preservation Often Falls To Fan Groups, Release Every Game's Source Code
Re: Re:
Better yet, make © opt-in, and renewable for two terms again like the US used to have. Making © opt-out and for one long term means that piracy would be rampant because simply copying something without permission when the © owner can't even be tracked down would make one a pirate.
On the post: Appeals Court Actually Explores 'Good Faith' Issue In A Section 230 Case (Spoiler Alert: It Still Protects Moderation Choices)
Re: Re: Censored in 5 min, then browser session poisoned!
§230 regulates more than just those three web sites.
On the post: Appeals Court Actually Explores 'Good Faith' Issue In A Section 230 Case (Spoiler Alert: It Still Protects Moderation Choices)
Re:
You know, I was thinking "What would Koby think about this ruling on §230?"
But I was mistaken; Koby really doesn't think at all.
On the post: Wireless Industry Eyes Nontransparent 'Trust Score' To Determine Who Can Market Via Text Message
Re:
Sometimes–but rarely–the phone numbers that isn't on your phone is legitimate and from somebody you want to call you. Still, like I said, they're the exception to the rule. That being said, that very exception is why I don't auto-block the number that's on my phone. What I do instead is add the number to a "Scam Likely" contact which I could just ignore.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: The feeling when you get
Musical shit-posting is awesome too, I agree. Some of my friends in the chiptune scene have done so.
On the post: Wireless Industry Eyes Nontransparent 'Trust Score' To Determine Who Can Market Via Text Message
Re:
AT&T has got to pay back the debt from all those mergers somehow! 😉
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
The feeling when you get a funniest/insightful-of-the-week on TechDirt is unmatched.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Facebook Removes A Picture Of A Famous Danish Mermaid Statue (2016)
Re: Re: Re: Waiting for it.
I'm wondering if it's anything like 17 Corinthians in Constantine.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: March 21st - 27th
Sixty-eight years ago…
Jonas Salk announced the Polio Vaccine and didn't fucking patent it!!!
On the post: Senator Elizabeth Warren Goes Over The Line; Threatens To Punish Amazon For 'Snotty Tweets'
Re: Re:
I agree with That One Guy and Stephen T. Stone more than you on this matter. Principles matter, even if you far more prefer the offending entity than the defending one.
On the post: How Mark Warner's 'SAFE TECH Act' Will Make Many People A Lot Less Safe
Re: Re: No, what's "sad" is that think you're being "kind" to th
Oh look, a SWERF. Pass.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Facebook Removes A Picture Of A Famous Danish Mermaid Statue (2016)
Re: hehe
Shut up, Beavis.
On the post: Poof! Taylor Swift, Evermore Theme Park Lawsuits Dropped With No Money Exchanged
Wait, what?
So the lawsuits just…canceled each other out?
Is that how it worked?
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Facebook Removes A Picture Of A Famous Danish Mermaid Statue (2016)
Artistic Nudity versus pornography.
I realize Content Moderation at Scale is Impossible™, and that's why there are these moderation snafus listed. However, I just find it interesting that Nintendo has the fully nude renaissance masterpieces (as well as their fun counterfeits) in their Animal Crossing: New Horizons game and Nintendo, as you know, is a family-friendly company, so I think they could clearly see that The Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli and David by Michelangelo are nude in an artistic fashion and not in a pornographic one.
That being said, if David were fucking Botticelli's Venus doggystyle, then we'd know what's up. Considering rule 34, it's probably on the internet.
On the post: 2 Years Later, Valve's Hands Off Approach To Adult Games Is Still Confusing, Still Very Much Not Hands Off
Re:
Well, Cyberpunk 2077 could be a case study in that: the launch was disastrous, true, but there are indeed a lot of erotic elements in the game.
On the post: Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law
Rupert Murdoch
Fox Business, Wall Street Journal: All of the press in question is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Why report the news when you can distort the news?
Next >>