Facebook has an "anti-conservative bias" is bullshit. It constantly shows top "conservative" personalities like Ben Shapiro, Don Bongino, and others as having the most engagement on the site.
If someone personally leans left in their political beliefs, but then sees that perhaps Foxnews had the best viewership numbers last week, it doesn't mean that this individual now approves of Foxnews' presentation. This person likely still legitimately disagrees with Foxnews, despite its popularity.
Similarly, engagement numbers do not rule out bias. It is possible for a site to be biased, and yet the thing that they are biased against may still experience high engagement, despite their best efforts to shape a different outcome.
Instead, everyone just wants to focus on Facebook, Facebook, Facebook.
Anyone can write it. But only FB is in a position position to put their thumb on the scale. They want FB to press harder.
I mean, this just feels totally arbitrary. They're not establishing the actual competitive market here. They're basically defining the market as "exactly what Facebook does, and only if someone else does all Facebook does." But that's not how competition works.
Just as having a stale pizza spinning around inside of a warming oven will not convert a gas station building into a restaurant, being able to post your resume on Pinterest will not convert it into a job networking site that can overtake Linkedin. It's not arbitrary, it's exactly how users use social media. Facebook is a monopoly for its segment, and has been ever since MySpace got crushed circa 2010.
The company is saying that many of its partners -- especially in the financial world -- were getting cold feet.
I'm reminded of the 2011 "Black Friday" event of online poker, where numerous online poker venues were suddenly shut down by the U.S. government. Investors want assurances that the same won't happen to them. Recently, more states have legalized casino gambling and marijuana, enticed by the lure of tax dollars. Currently, it is my understanding that most of these OF content creators are not paying taxes on their income. There may be a possible solution if questionably legal sites such as OF begin generating significant revenue for the government. The government may change its tune, as it has done before.
For decades, politicians have embedded certain news outlets on the campaign trail. The price for this access was that the media organization needed to write favorable stories to stay on board. It looks powerful corporations are learning from the best at staying in power.
As a precondition of a merger, companies should be required to create a plan to undo the merger, if ordered by a court. Perhaps an attempted merger could result in financial disaster for investors, but it need not be so for everyone else. Hire back the workers, put back the customers, and restore competition.
Facebook isn't the entire internet, but it has a near monopoly in its sector. Rather than trying to create a set of rules that applies to everything, it is probably more useful to target the near monopoly itself. Perhaps by breaking up the company, or declaring it a common carrier would be a better approach.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
And death threats from terrorist organizations are also not political opinions, therefore making it not protected speech. The tagline stands strong for as long as it remains an accurate predictor of censorship behavior.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
Fear not. Death threats from nazis are also not political opinions, and are not covered as protected speech either. I'm sure Maz will get around to explaining this in one of his articles in the near future.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
As for child sex-abuse material, that's got nothing to do with Section 230. CSAM content already violates federal criminal law and Section 230 has always exempted federal criminal law.
I appreciate you pointing out that CSAM is not an opinion, but is a criminal activity, and isn't even something protected by Section 230 or the 1st amendment.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
Some might argue that the obvious bad faith nature of MTG's arguments mean that Twitter should just have a policy of banning bad faith grifters. And that's certainly tempting, but how do you define bad faith grifter within a policy such that a large team of content moderation professionals can apply it consistently? The problem is that you really can't.
Twitter's SJW rulemakers and other pro-censors are constantly trying to come up with new and more detailed rules that would somehow allow them to ban the people that they don't like, while allowing those that they do, and somehow be able to remain consistent. This cycle of complexity is never-ending. The solution is for Twitter to just be honest and admit that they hate conservative political viewpoints, and publicly and openly declare that they are going to ban anyone who espouses them. Of course, this would do significant damage to their near monopoly on market share for their category, so the deception will continue.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
Of course, when the topic is something we can all agree on, such as fighting against antisemitism, the old mantra of "their platform, their rules" goes out the window.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
This might open an avenue to subversion. Get a burner phone, acquire some prohibited material, and send it to a judge or prosecutor. Someone else could then "leak" some rumor about the subject. Lo and behold, the proof is on their device. If it is demonstrated that their system is untrustworthy, then perhaps the manufacturer will decide to discontinue it.
I remember during the Obamacare debate years ago that they swore Obamacare would not be a tax. Then, a few years later during the Supreme Court hearings, the solicitor general begged the court to consider the law to be a tax.
Never trust politicians if they won't put it in writing.
Some states here in the U.S. have created a publicity right, whereby famous individuals can file a lawsuit against others if they use their likeness without permission for commercial gain. While I wouldn't say that I'm a big fan of these laws, perhaps they could be used by athletes to turn the tables against the Olympic Committee. Athletes might be able to bargain for a little bit of sanity this way.
When the DRM crackers emerge victorious, the tool makers will then demand an "always connected" device. Learning from the tech sector, they can can create an internet of things system for power tools, and force owners to create an account and register their devices. After the inevitable data leak, power tool makers can enter the final phase, modeled after the printer ink industry, and switch over to a subscription model.
There was no internet in 1959. Smith ran a bookstore. No moderation was occurring. In fact, the court found that Smith probably wasn't even aware that an allegedly obscene book was in his possession.
*-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest
So Hamburger's new response, written with former Trump DOJ official Clare Morell, tries to argue that the 1st Amendment doesn't actually protect website content moderation choices.
Prior to the CDA of 1996 that established section 230, there was no established first amendment right to moderate content. Aside from reading the first amendment and finding no such language, there were lawsuits that occurred prior to 1996. Among the most notable was Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy, in which Prodigy was found liable for defamation because it engaged in content moderation. Prior to that was Cubby v Compuserve, in which Compuserve escaped from liability because it did not engage in moderation. No first amendment right could be used in these cases.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
Prove that they are legitimate death threats that would be followed up by an investigation from LEOs
The proof is that you won't be visiting eastern Syria/western Iraq in the foreseeable future to test it out. We all know that the folks posting this stuff as propaganda will attempt it if given the opportunity. They mean what they say.
On the post: NY Times And Washington Post Criticize Facebook Because The Chicago Tribune Had A Terrible Headline
Clamoring For A Gatekeeper
If someone personally leans left in their political beliefs, but then sees that perhaps Foxnews had the best viewership numbers last week, it doesn't mean that this individual now approves of Foxnews' presentation. This person likely still legitimately disagrees with Foxnews, despite its popularity.
Similarly, engagement numbers do not rule out bias. It is possible for a site to be biased, and yet the thing that they are biased against may still experience high engagement, despite their best efforts to shape a different outcome.
Anyone can write it. But only FB is in a position position to put their thumb on the scale. They want FB to press harder.
On the post: FTC Tries Tries Again With An Antitrust Case Against Facebook
Just as having a stale pizza spinning around inside of a warming oven will not convert a gas station building into a restaurant, being able to post your resume on Pinterest will not convert it into a job networking site that can overtake Linkedin. It's not arbitrary, it's exactly how users use social media. Facebook is a monopoly for its segment, and has been ever since MySpace got crushed circa 2010.
On the post: OnlyPrudes: OnlyFans, The Platform For Sexually Explicit Content, Says No More Sexually Explicit Content (Except For Nudes)
Government Beneficiary
I'm reminded of the 2011 "Black Friday" event of online poker, where numerous online poker venues were suddenly shut down by the U.S. government. Investors want assurances that the same won't happen to them. Recently, more states have legalized casino gambling and marijuana, enticed by the lure of tax dollars. Currently, it is my understanding that most of these OF content creators are not paying taxes on their income. There may be a possible solution if questionably legal sites such as OF begin generating significant revenue for the government. The government may change its tune, as it has done before.
On the post: There's a Growing Backlash Against Tech's Infamous Secrecy. Why Now?
Copied
For decades, politicians have embedded certain news outlets on the campaign trail. The price for this access was that the media organization needed to write favorable stories to stay on board. It looks powerful corporations are learning from the best at staying in power.
On the post: California Regulators Say T-Mobile Lied To Gain Sprint Merger Approval
Re: I've said it before, I'll say it again
As a precondition of a merger, companies should be required to create a plan to undo the merger, if ordered by a court. Perhaps an attempted merger could result in financial disaster for investors, but it need not be so for everyone else. Hire back the workers, put back the customers, and restore competition.
On the post: Facebook Is NOT The Internet; Stop Regulating As If It Was
Re: Re: One Size Doesn't Fit All
No problem. CRT should not be censored.
On the post: Facebook Is NOT The Internet; Stop Regulating As If It Was
One Size Doesn't Fit All
Facebook isn't the entire internet, but it has a near monopoly in its sector. Rather than trying to create a set of rules that applies to everything, it is probably more useful to target the near monopoly itself. Perhaps by breaking up the company, or declaring it a common carrier would be a better approach.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
On the post: Now It's Harvard Business Review Getting Section 230 Very, Very Wrong
Re: Re:
And death threats from terrorist organizations are also not political opinions, therefore making it not protected speech. The tagline stands strong for as long as it remains an accurate predictor of censorship behavior.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
On the post: Now It's Harvard Business Review Getting Section 230 Very, Very Wrong
Re: Re: Additional Appreciation
Fear not. Death threats from nazis are also not political opinions, and are not covered as protected speech either. I'm sure Maz will get around to explaining this in one of his articles in the near future.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
On the post: Now It's Harvard Business Review Getting Section 230 Very, Very Wrong
Additional Appreciation
I appreciate you pointing out that CSAM is not an opinion, but is a criminal activity, and isn't even something protected by Section 230 or the 1st amendment.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Twitter's SJW rulemakers and other pro-censors are constantly trying to come up with new and more detailed rules that would somehow allow them to ban the people that they don't like, while allowing those that they do, and somehow be able to remain consistent. This cycle of complexity is never-ending. The solution is for Twitter to just be honest and admit that they hate conservative political viewpoints, and publicly and openly declare that they are going to ban anyone who espouses them. Of course, this would do significant damage to their near monopoly on market share for their category, so the deception will continue.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well: Series About Antisemitism Removed By Instagram For Being Antisemetic
Rules Can Be Illegitimate
Of course, when the topic is something we can all agree on, such as fighting against antisemitism, the old mantra of "their platform, their rules" goes out the window.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
On the post: Apple Undermines Its Famous Security 'For The Children'
Re: 'Solving' a sliver by removing the arm
This might open an avenue to subversion. Get a burner phone, acquire some prohibited material, and send it to a judge or prosecutor. Someone else could then "leak" some rumor about the subject. Lo and behold, the proof is on their device. If it is demonstrated that their system is untrustworthy, then perhaps the manufacturer will decide to discontinue it.
On the post: You Can't Be Tough On Big Tech While Killing Off Alternatives To It
Written Law
I remember during the Obamacare debate years ago that they swore Obamacare would not be a tax. Then, a few years later during the Supreme Court hearings, the solicitor general begged the court to consider the law to be a tax.
Never trust politicians if they won't put it in writing.
On the post: Olympics Copyright Insanity Rules Again: Gold Medal Winner Blocked From Sharing Her Own Victory
Negotiating Leverage
Some states here in the U.S. have created a publicity right, whereby famous individuals can file a lawsuit against others if they use their likeness without permission for commercial gain. While I wouldn't say that I'm a big fan of these laws, perhaps they could be used by athletes to turn the tables against the Olympic Committee. Athletes might be able to bargain for a little bit of sanity this way.
On the post: Home Depot Tech Will Brick Power Tools If They're Stolen. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Next Dystopian Evolution
When the DRM crackers emerge victorious, the tool makers will then demand an "always connected" device. Learning from the tech sector, they can can create an internet of things system for power tools, and force owners to create an account and register their devices. After the inevitable data leak, power tool makers can enter the final phase, modeled after the printer ink industry, and switch over to a subscription model.
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: Re: Re: Re: No 1st Amendment Right To Censor
If you aren't even aware of the speech in question, you cannot moderate it one way or another.
Just like the section 230 exception, you are not acting in good faith. Child porn, repetition, and death threats are not opinions.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: Re: No 1st Amendment Right To Censor
There was no internet in 1959. Smith ran a bookstore. No moderation was occurring. In fact, the court found that Smith probably wasn't even aware that an allegedly obscene book was in his possession.
*-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
No 1st Amendment Right To Censor
Prior to the CDA of 1996 that established section 230, there was no established first amendment right to moderate content. Aside from reading the first amendment and finding no such language, there were lawsuits that occurred prior to 1996. Among the most notable was Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy, in which Prodigy was found liable for defamation because it engaged in content moderation. Prior to that was Cubby v Compuserve, in which Compuserve escaped from liability because it did not engage in moderation. No first amendment right could be used in these cases.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
The proof is that you won't be visiting eastern Syria/western Iraq in the foreseeable future to test it out. We all know that the folks posting this stuff as propaganda will attempt it if given the opportunity. They mean what they say.
Next >>