Sorry, I couldn't get passed you ignoring both basic sense and what the law says when you incorrectly used the word "steal". There is also of course your laughable remaking of history into the exact opposite of what actually got us where we are today.
Copyright is an infringement upon the natural right and power of everyone to create whatever the crap they want using their own time and materials. It has absolutely zero to do with protecting anyone's property because it's not dealing with property. Copyright doesn't say I can't take something that belongs to you. It says I can't create the EXACT SAME THING YOU DID. It's a selfish, greedy and prideful idea that has held society back more than any other idea I can think of right now. Preventing others from building on the ideas of those who came before them is the very definition of preventing progress.
Please point to where the 2015 rules ever forced ISPs to give anything free to anyone? I cannot see anything in those rules that makes this comment make any kind of sense.
You're really comparing apples and oranges here (massively multipurpose computer vs extremely limited purpose IoT device), but even in the areas where the two are similar the situation isn't actually different.
The major manufacturers of all 3 major OSes have all made huge efforts to secure their software. They are also facing a much larger problem than simpler IoT OSes do.
In neither case is it only the manufacturer or only your responsibility. No one has argued that. The issue here is that these manufacturers have made no effort whatsoever to secure these devices. You certainly should make your own efforts to secure anything that can talk to the internet as well, but the manufacturer should do what it can to reasonably secure their software.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you say "curating". Because I don't see a dang thing Twitter did that makes it make an ounce of sense to blame them for what the users on their site decided to do.
How on earth do you get that they "enabled the mob riot"??? Just because they provided a location for people to speak? Because automated algorithms designed to show people what other people are liking right now showed people what they were choosing to want? In what way does that make Twitter responsible for other people's choices?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like a situation ripe for a lawsu
Of course it is. When the government murders innocents it's not considered a crime. You're completely ignoring what people are actually saying to bring up a strawman that has nothing to do with the point they're making.
tens of millions of immigrants caused in large part by your endless wars and support for terrorist groups in the Middle East*
[Citation needed]
In all seriousness, my father served in one of those wars you love to hate just because it's a war and with no other meaningful context whatsoever. You know what he saw? Tons of normal people mortally afraid of the actual terrorist groups they've had to live with among them for centuries and immensely grateful at the help he was there to provide. And I'm not talking about the military force he certainly sometimes had to use. I'm talking about just day to day assistance with whatever they needed.
So you can go on with your delusional life thinking you're helping people just because you give some help to those that manage to find a way to escape these nightmare countries without getting caught and tortured in the process. We will continue to fight to actually do something about the problem itself.
You might be arguing that it should become the law. Those quoted in the article have clearly said on multiple occasions that it is already the law. You can't pretend that they somehow meant "this is what the law should be". There is no way to twist their statements to mean that without breaking the English language.
As for the idea that it should become the law, aside from the fact that that would be pretty unconstitutional from my point of view it would also be an impossible law to obey. Expression is an act of opinion. Even stating facts is expressing your opinion of what is factual. Nevermind the issue that anyone will think that any expression they disagree with is not neutral purely because they don't agree with what was said.
If you honestly think that platforms should be blamed for the acts of their users then I want a law that throws the President in prison for every crime committed in the US. That idea is no dumber than what you're asking for.
That's funny, because in this very article (not to mention all the other articles where he has previously encouraged this same idea already) he proves you wrong.
His answer is that it would be far better to empower individuals to moderate for themselves than to try to push that responsibility on central entities. Now you can have a good discussion on the merits or not of that idea, but flatly lying about what he says isn't getting you anywhere.
There is such a thing as Fiduciary Responsibility. While it doesn't directly require that they maximize revenue, not at least trying to do that for your stakeholders can be seen as not acting in their best interests which would violate your obligations to them.
You are certainly right that it generally appears to be a selfish motivation, but the implication of your statement seems to be that that's a bad thing. The entire advantage of a capitalistic system is that the rich getting richer makes everyone else richer too. Just because something is selfish doesn't always mean it's wrong. Sure it would be better if they chose to act with higher moral values but that's true of all of us to some degree.
I find your answer far worse than his. You combat bad speech with good speech, not shutting those people up. Hiding their speech away does no one any good at all and does very real harm by not allowing people to view the bad with the good and make decisions for themselves.
*Using surveillance as a protection mechanism is like the argument that to stay safe from guns your need more guns.
God damn insane.*
It's fun to just insult those you disagree with, isn't it? Much easier than actually talking to them and maybe even have the maturity to politely disagree with each other.
Actually looking at history and the data around the claims you're making of course completely destroys your claim so that's clearly not an option.
The difference is in display which is what copyright is (or should be) aimed at
This is flatly wrong. Copyright has never been and never should be aimed at who sees the copyrighted object. It's about who made the copy you're seeing. Which is EXACTLY what it should be about.
The fact that the end user doesn't know by just looking at the page that the image was actually copied by a different server entirely is not relevant at all. The only important detail is who made the copy. The browser was told to go to another server to get a copy of the image and it went and asked that server for one. The server then chose to create a copy and hand it over to your browser. The only person who has any business being on the line for copyright infringement is the one who setup the server that's actually making copies of the copyrighted content.
This is also why the "looks like a duck" ruling is so incredibly wrong. The whole freaking point of our courts is to take things that look like something might have been done against the law and DETERMINE IF THE LAW WAS ACTUALLY BROKEN. Choosing to say that because it looks like the law might have been broken we're going to charge you as if it were is literally choosing not to do the job the justices were put in that position to do.
Re: So full of mistaken premises, nonplused where to start!
The only mistaken premise here is yours. Your belief that Facebook is required by any law or ever should be required to allow speech they don't want is false. You're allowed to kick anyone out of your home for saying things you don't like. For the exact same reason Facebook is allowed to kick anyone off of their site.
Conflating forcing companies to provide service to meet basic human needs with forcing companies to let you say whatever you want in their space is just flatly wrong. You're trying to extend protections to online companies that were explicitly not extended to physical stores in the very civil rights laws you reference for a dang good reason. Making people listen to you is NOT A CIVIL RIGHT. Even a physical store that has to obey those very laws is free to kick you out if you start spouting out things in their store they don't want you to.
You act like civil rights are entirely a one sided issue. You are very wrong. Whenever you try to protect any side from any act you have to very carefully balance the "rights" of both parties. You have to recognize that even morally wrong acts do not always deserve protection under the law. You want to completely ignore Facebook's very real moral right to only let people they want to on their online property on the sole excuse that they're not allowing some speech within that very limited space and with no more excuse than "they're big". The simple fact is that no companies influence and power is anywhere near as big as the government's always will be. No matter how much you complain about it it is easy to create your own space to speak whatever you want in. The fact that not many people may want to come to your space to listen to you is not a good enough reason to tramp all over Facebook's basic rights.
You also can't even be consistent within your own arguments:
Government doesn't need to regulate these wealthy and powerful corporations, but they do need to give our citizens a private right of action when they are treated unfairly
You can't create a right of action without regulation. So which one is it? Do you let the government regulate these very real basic rights by tramping all over one parties rights to satisfy another party? Everyone recognizes that there are times where you do have to limit some parties rights. We just also recognize that that is a balancing act and that it is very rare that that balance is honestly far enough to one side to justify forcing it.
Considering they are the platform owners, they have every right to remove folks with different politics than they hold.
This is simply false for many reasons, though. It's used for more often as way for platforms to allow their users to speak more openly than anything else. It's just that banning users presents a much more high profile case then all the speech going on as a direct result of having this protection.
On the post: Can't Have Copyright Enforcement Without Destroying Privacy Protections
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copytheft
Sorry, I couldn't get passed you ignoring both basic sense and what the law says when you incorrectly used the word "steal". There is also of course your laughable remaking of history into the exact opposite of what actually got us where we are today.
Copyright is an infringement upon the natural right and power of everyone to create whatever the crap they want using their own time and materials. It has absolutely zero to do with protecting anyone's property because it's not dealing with property. Copyright doesn't say I can't take something that belongs to you. It says I can't create the EXACT SAME THING YOU DID. It's a selfish, greedy and prideful idea that has held society back more than any other idea I can think of right now. Preventing others from building on the ideas of those who came before them is the very definition of preventing progress.
On the post: Supreme Court Signals Loud And Clear That Social Media Sites Are Not Public Forums That Have To Allow All Speech
Re:
The relevant question is not at all whether social media sites are legally "public forums" that "have to allow all speech"
Ok.
And whether they de facto already are.
Wait....but...but...you just said the question wasn't about that???
On the post: None Of The Claimed Benefits Of Killing Net Neutrality Ever Arrived
Re:
Please point to where the 2015 rules ever forced ISPs to give anything free to anyone? I cannot see anything in those rules that makes this comment make any kind of sense.
On the post: We're Apparently Scanning Our TVs For Viruses Now
Re:
You're really comparing apples and oranges here (massively multipurpose computer vs extremely limited purpose IoT device), but even in the areas where the two are similar the situation isn't actually different.
The major manufacturers of all 3 major OSes have all made huge efforts to secure their software. They are also facing a much larger problem than simpler IoT OSes do.
In neither case is it only the manufacturer or only your responsibility. No one has argued that. The issue here is that these manufacturers have made no effort whatsoever to secure these devices. You certainly should make your own efforts to secure anything that can talk to the internet as well, but the manufacturer should do what it can to reasonably secure their software.
On the post: Once More With Feeling: There Is No Legal Distinction Between A 'Platform' And A 'Publisher'
Re: Liability
Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you say "curating". Because I don't see a dang thing Twitter did that makes it make an ounce of sense to blame them for what the users on their site decided to do.
How on earth do you get that they "enabled the mob riot"??? Just because they provided a location for people to speak? Because automated algorithms designed to show people what other people are liking right now showed people what they were choosing to want? In what way does that make Twitter responsible for other people's choices?
On the post: ICE Is Cramming Immigrants Into Filthy, Overcrowded Facilities
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like a situation ripe for a lawsu
Of course it is. When the government murders innocents it's not considered a crime. You're completely ignoring what people are actually saying to bring up a strawman that has nothing to do with the point they're making.
On the post: ICE Is Cramming Immigrants Into Filthy, Overcrowded Facilities
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like a situation ripe for a lawsuit
False assertion. No, they can't since the only result of fighting their situation would be said death/rape/starvation.
On the post: ICE Is Cramming Immigrants Into Filthy, Overcrowded Facilities
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like
[Citation needed]
In all seriousness, my father served in one of those wars you love to hate just because it's a war and with no other meaningful context whatsoever. You know what he saw? Tons of normal people mortally afraid of the actual terrorist groups they've had to live with among them for centuries and immensely grateful at the help he was there to provide. And I'm not talking about the military force he certainly sometimes had to use. I'm talking about just day to day assistance with whatever they needed.
So you can go on with your delusional life thinking you're helping people just because you give some help to those that manage to find a way to escape these nightmare countries without getting caught and tortured in the process. We will continue to fight to actually do something about the problem itself.
On the post: Appeals Court Issues Strong CDA 230 Ruling, But It Will Be Misleadingly Quoted By Those Misrepresenting CDA 230
Re:
You might be arguing that it should become the law. Those quoted in the article have clearly said on multiple occasions that it is already the law. You can't pretend that they somehow meant "this is what the law should be". There is no way to twist their statements to mean that without breaking the English language.
As for the idea that it should become the law, aside from the fact that that would be pretty unconstitutional from my point of view it would also be an impossible law to obey. Expression is an act of opinion. Even stating facts is expressing your opinion of what is factual. Nevermind the issue that anyone will think that any expression they disagree with is not neutral purely because they don't agree with what was said.
If you honestly think that platforms should be blamed for the acts of their users then I want a law that throws the President in prison for every crime committed in the US. That idea is no dumber than what you're asking for.
On the post: The Impossibility Of Content Moderation: YouTube's New Ban On Nazis Hits Reporter Who Documents Extremism, Professor Teaching About Hitler
Re:
That's funny, because in this very article (not to mention all the other articles where he has previously encouraged this same idea already) he proves you wrong.
His answer is that it would be far better to empower individuals to moderate for themselves than to try to push that responsibility on central entities. Now you can have a good discussion on the merits or not of that idea, but flatly lying about what he says isn't getting you anywhere.
On the post: The Impossibility Of Content Moderation Plays Out, Once Again, On YouTube
Re: Re: Who Can't Get no Satisfaction?
The issue is not nearly that simple.
There is such a thing as Fiduciary Responsibility. While it doesn't directly require that they maximize revenue, not at least trying to do that for your stakeholders can be seen as not acting in their best interests which would violate your obligations to them.
You are certainly right that it generally appears to be a selfish motivation, but the implication of your statement seems to be that that's a bad thing. The entire advantage of a capitalistic system is that the rich getting richer makes everyone else richer too. Just because something is selfish doesn't always mean it's wrong. Sure it would be better if they chose to act with higher moral values but that's true of all of us to some degree.
On the post: The Impossibility Of Content Moderation Plays Out, Once Again, On YouTube
Re: Re: Crowder is an asshole?
I find your answer far worse than his. You combat bad speech with good speech, not shutting those people up. Hiding their speech away does no one any good at all and does very real harm by not allowing people to view the bad with the good and make decisions for themselves.
On the post: The Future Of School Safety Includes Round-The-Clock Surveillance Of Students
Re: Re: want safe schools?
Other than the facts that they don't work and only make students feel even more like prisoners?
On the post: The Future Of School Safety Includes Round-The-Clock Surveillance Of Students
Re: want safe schools?
*Using surveillance as a protection mechanism is like the argument that to stay safe from guns your need more guns.
God damn insane.*
It's fun to just insult those you disagree with, isn't it? Much easier than actually talking to them and maybe even have the maturity to politely disagree with each other.
Actually looking at history and the data around the claims you're making of course completely destroys your claim so that's clearly not an option.
On the post: Settlement In Tom Brady Photo Case Leaves Issue Of Copyright On Embedded Images Unsettled
Re:
The difference is in display which is what copyright is (or should be) aimed at
This is flatly wrong. Copyright has never been and never should be aimed at who sees the copyrighted object. It's about who made the copy you're seeing. Which is EXACTLY what it should be about.
The fact that the end user doesn't know by just looking at the page that the image was actually copied by a different server entirely is not relevant at all. The only important detail is who made the copy. The browser was told to go to another server to get a copy of the image and it went and asked that server for one. The server then chose to create a copy and hand it over to your browser. The only person who has any business being on the line for copyright infringement is the one who setup the server that's actually making copies of the copyrighted content.
This is also why the "looks like a duck" ruling is so incredibly wrong. The whole freaking point of our courts is to take things that look like something might have been done against the law and DETERMINE IF THE LAW WAS ACTUALLY BROKEN. Choosing to say that because it looks like the law might have been broken we're going to charge you as if it were is literally choosing not to do the job the justices were put in that position to do.
On the post: Dear Kara Swisher: Don't Let Your Hatred Of Facebook Destroy Free Speech Online
Re: So full of mistaken premises, nonplused where to start!
The only mistaken premise here is yours. Your belief that Facebook is required by any law or ever should be required to allow speech they don't want is false. You're allowed to kick anyone out of your home for saying things you don't like. For the exact same reason Facebook is allowed to kick anyone off of their site.
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Civil Right
What about my statement are you trying to address here?
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Civil Right
I'm not sure why you're replying to me, since my entire post basically agrees with everything you've said.
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re: Civil Right
Conflating forcing companies to provide service to meet basic human needs with forcing companies to let you say whatever you want in their space is just flatly wrong. You're trying to extend protections to online companies that were explicitly not extended to physical stores in the very civil rights laws you reference for a dang good reason. Making people listen to you is NOT A CIVIL RIGHT. Even a physical store that has to obey those very laws is free to kick you out if you start spouting out things in their store they don't want you to.
You act like civil rights are entirely a one sided issue. You are very wrong. Whenever you try to protect any side from any act you have to very carefully balance the "rights" of both parties. You have to recognize that even morally wrong acts do not always deserve protection under the law. You want to completely ignore Facebook's very real moral right to only let people they want to on their online property on the sole excuse that they're not allowing some speech within that very limited space and with no more excuse than "they're big". The simple fact is that no companies influence and power is anywhere near as big as the government's always will be. No matter how much you complain about it it is easy to create your own space to speak whatever you want in. The fact that not many people may want to come to your space to listen to you is not a good enough reason to tramp all over Facebook's basic rights.
You also can't even be consistent within your own arguments:
Government doesn't need to regulate these wealthy and powerful corporations, but they do need to give our citizens a private right of action when they are treated unfairly
You can't create a right of action without regulation. So which one is it? Do you let the government regulate these very real basic rights by tramping all over one parties rights to satisfy another party? Everyone recognizes that there are times where you do have to limit some parties rights. We just also recognize that that is a balancing act and that it is very rare that that balance is honestly far enough to one side to justify forcing it.
On the post: It's One Thing For Trolls And Grandstanding Politicians To Get CDA 230 Wrong, But The Press Shouldn't Help Them
Re: Thought Control Legislation
Considering they are the platform owners, they have every right to remove folks with different politics than they hold.
This is simply false for many reasons, though. It's used for more often as way for platforms to allow their users to speak more openly than anything else. It's just that banning users presents a much more high profile case then all the speech going on as a direct result of having this protection.
Next >>