I told no lies, Chozen. I said the bill was unconstitutional, because it says how a website can and cannot moderate. That's the unconstitutional part. As we already saw in Florida (which you falsely insisted would be found constitutional).
Why are you so bad at this?
Also, I have no "bigtech overlords". I'm working to help undermine "big tech" as we speak, so if they're my overlords, they can't be very happy with my writing on how to destroy them. That would be weird.
Finally, how is "big tech" "off the rails" with "how they enforce their terms of service." Be specific.
A new batch of legislators every 4 or 12 years would allow newcomers to campaign on policies, instead of branding.
I hear this, but it makes no sense. Some of the best legislators (Ron Wyden?) have been around for a long time, and some of the most batshit crazy ones are new.
Also, if you had such term limits that opens up many, many more avenues for corruption, including wink wink nudge nudge promises of lucrative jobs when your term limited out.
A "general" warrant has the word "general" in front of it. A "reverse" warrant has the word "reverse." Apparently that seems to be the primary difference that prevents reverse warrants from being seen as general warrants and thus being unconstitutional. Simple.
I got fed up with they cheered the demise of Parler.
Where did I "cheer" the demise of Parler? Ignoring that Parler is still around, and therefore, there was no actual "demise," I explained why it made me uncomfortable and that I thought it was good that there was competition. What I did explain was the many reasons why the separate decisions by private companies made sense, including noting that Parler had many alternatives to setup systems to return (as it has since done).
That commenter showed up and left 3 comments in a row on 3 recent Cushing posts, screaming similar things (with nothing to back it up) in all 3. It appears that Tim has an admirer.
Because FaceBook has billions of users, far more than the Sun Sentinel or Chigago Tribune?
I'm not sure how that changes the fact that if the original article were written better none of this would have been a problem. You ignore the point of the article, that Facebook is not the one in the best position to fix this.
Because they buried the first report when they didn't like what it revealed?
Yes. I called them out for that bullshit act. Did you not read the fucking article?
Because Facebook is where this stuff gets contextualised as anti-vax?
Yes, because the original articles were poorly written. Note that Facebook is not the one who contextualized it. Why do you blame the tool?
Because sometimes you're so busy going on about other people missing nuance that you ignore it yourself?
Nothing you point out refers to any nuance I missed. Care to try again?
But... this is techdirt. They will support ANYTHING - censorship, reeducation camps, spying and warrantless search and seizure, indefinite detention, etc.,etc. as long as the target is "the right wing"
Lol wut? When have we ever supported any such thing?
We're completely anti-partisan. We stand by our principles on all of those things -- we're against censorship, reeducation camps, spying, warrantless searches, indefinite detention for anyone of either party.
Hell, we're frequently accused of being right wing ourselves. What a lazy troll.
I already said I don't believe it is defamation because its an opinion show.
That's not why.
But on the matter of it being a ridiculous laughable opinion. It fails the shoe on the other foot test.
It does not. As I said, the end result would be the same if it were "on the other foot." You cannot cite an example to the contrary.
There a multiple state media outlets in this world. Working for one does not make someone and whoever hires them paid propaganda.
And that was not the issue at the heart of the case, because the case is about defamation. The issue is was anything said defamatory. And it was not.
I think in the wake of how the ABC is reporting on Australia's draconian tactics, you would have a hard time arguing that the ABC isn't a government propaganda outlet.
Again, that makes no fucking difference at all in this case. You keep moving goalposts because you're a shitty pathetic troll who doesn't know the first thing about defamation law. I note that you have moved on from your laughably wrong statements about "dismissal with prejudice" being rare. It is not. You don't know what you're talking about, and if you weren't a sad little troll child, you'd educate yourself. But you are. So fuck off.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
I think you are a biased actor as illustrated by how your bias has effectively killed your career.
My career has been killed? When? How?
The 9th circuit is trying their best to tip toe around the issue but the obvious inference in their decision is that anything said on the show is opinion and cannot be libel.
That is not, at all, what the 9th circuit is saying. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
I agree with this and I'm glad the court agrees that nothing said on Maddow or any other opinion show can be taken as fact.
That is not at all what the court said.
I'll note you didn't respond to the other points I actually raised, which leads me to conclude that you're just a troll. What a pathetic piece of shit you are. When you grow up one day, maybe you'll regret your wasted life.
Craigslist's free classifieds destroyed print media, and while you might agree, it seems to support the notion that one cannot compete with free.
Lol wut? It does nothing of the sort. No one ever said that "free always loses." Indeed, the point is you can compete with free but you need to actually compete. The problem the newspapers had was that they didn't even try. They just whined or disparaged the internet.
I think you are confusing dismissal with prejudice following a settlement with dismissal
I am not. I write about these cases as part of my job. Dismissal with prejudice happens all the time. And I'm not talking about after a settlement.
When you boil down what the court wrote in order to dismiss with prejudice is that if Rachel Maddow said it, it cannot be taken as factual.
That is not even remotely close to what the judge said, nor the 9th circuit in affirming it. You are either too fucking stupid, or willfully misreading the ruling, which is a very standard defamation dismissal.
I dont disagree with this. I believe that this should be the law of all opinion shows. I simply don't agree that Alex Jones should be held to a higher standard than Rachel Maddow.
You are completely misrepresenting this. I'm just trying to figure out if you're a fucking fool, or deliberately misrepresenting stuff because you're a trollish asshole. I'm leaning towards the latter, but it's possible it's the former.
Correct, would this survive the shoe on the other foot test? If someone is working for, or has worked for the BBC, ABC, PBS, etc. and also working for a private US news agency does that make that entire news agency "literally British/Australian/American" propaganda?
That also would not be defamation and would easily get dismissed. So, yes, it would "survive the shoe on the other foot test." I know this because I actually understand how defamation law works.
I don't know how defamation works in Russia, restless, but that is not at all how it works in the US.
Instead of celebrating corruption in the judiciary, why not support justice.
There was no corruption of the judiciary. This was a very, very straightforward application of the 1st Amendment. Why do you hate the Constitution restless?
None of your criticisms, however, address the fundamental question: how do you hold a platform accountable for misinformation that it amplifies?
I've addressed that numerous times. The problem with YOUR piece is it assumes, totally incorrectly, that the only way to hold a platform accountable is... by law. It's not. Users migrating away from garbage dumps, advertisers refusing to advertise next to conspiracy theories, have been shown to be much more effective in pressuring companies to curb their behavior.
Even more to the point, holding a platform accountable for misinformation is a recipe for disaster. How do you define misinformation? How do you define it in a way that doesn't make mistakes? How do you deal with the information that is inevitably not caught? All you're doing is creating a massive liability minefield. End result? LESS EXPERIMENTATION, LESS INNOVATION, and LESS ABILITY TO ADAPT TO BAD ACTORS. Why would you want to do that?!?
The infodemic of antivaxx misinformation is a case in point. Platforms don’t produce this content but they have given it reach and influence and they have monetized the engagement that has attended it.
Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax have given just as much air to those things. Indeed, Yochai Benkler's research shows that the info doesn't go viral on Facebook until after it airs on cable news.
And YOU haven't answered the more pressing question: what is illegal about antivax misinfo? We agree that it's problematic. But (contrary to what you claim) it's pretty much all constitutionally protected speech. There is no underlying cause of action. "Facebook shouldn't share this" is not a legal argument.
If we recognize the “infodemic” as a pollution problem, then we take statistical samples just like we sample factory air for the presence of sulphur dioxide or water for the presence of DDT. We don’t measure every cubic centimeter of effluent as that’s just not practical. A doctor doesn’t check your cholesterol by checking all your blood, she/he takes a sample.
Marshall, this all sounds neat and sciency, but PROTECTED SPEECH IS NOT POLLUTION. And that's where your entire argument breaks down. You can't ignore the fact that we're talking about speech.
Under a modified S230, with a duty of care, we just hold platforms accountable for pollution levels above a reasonable threshold.
Too much constitutionally protected speech above a certain level cannot violate the law. That fundamentally sinks your entire argument. You really ought to have spoken to at least someone who understands the 1st Amendment.
To succeed, a good critique needs to convince us that (a) no problem exists and (b) no better design exists. Respectfully, the above critiques fall short on both counts.
You leave out that YOUR suggestion is easily proven as (c) a MUCH worse design with SIGNIFICANT downsides you ignore or don't understand. I made that argument, and I stand by it because it's correct. If it were only (a) and (b) as you lay out then you've done a classic "we must do something, this is something, we will do it," ignoring that your solution will make things significantly worse (as I DID show).
I agree that there are problems, but you're barking up the wrong tree for a solution.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: I Read the Act
I told no lies, Chozen. I said the bill was unconstitutional, because it says how a website can and cannot moderate. That's the unconstitutional part. As we already saw in Florida (which you falsely insisted would be found constitutional).
Why are you so bad at this?
Also, I have no "bigtech overlords". I'm working to help undermine "big tech" as we speak, so if they're my overlords, they can't be very happy with my writing on how to destroy them. That would be weird.
Finally, how is "big tech" "off the rails" with "how they enforce their terms of service." Be specific.
On the post: States Wouldn't Be Pushing Inconsistent Tech Laws If Congress Wasn't So Corrupt
Re: Term Limits
A new batch of legislators every 4 or 12 years would allow newcomers to campaign on policies, instead of branding.
I hear this, but it makes no sense. Some of the best legislators (Ron Wyden?) have been around for a long time, and some of the most batshit crazy ones are new.
Also, if you had such term limits that opens up many, many more avenues for corruption, including wink wink nudge nudge promises of lucrative jobs when your term limited out.
On the post: Google Report Shows 'Reverse Warrants' Are Swiftly Becoming Law Enforcement's Go-To Investigative Tool
Re:
A "general" warrant has the word "general" in front of it. A "reverse" warrant has the word "reverse." Apparently that seems to be the primary difference that prevents reverse warrants from being seen as general warrants and thus being unconstitutional. Simple.
On the post: Massachusetts District Attorney Delays Forfeiture Proceedings For Years, Some Involving As Little As $10
Re: Re:
Dammit, Tim, I was gonna post that. You beat me to it.
On the post: US Army Now Using Clearview's Unproven Tech To Investigate Crimes
Re: Re: In all Techdirts "wisdom"
I got fed up with they cheered the demise of Parler.
Where did I "cheer" the demise of Parler? Ignoring that Parler is still around, and therefore, there was no actual "demise," I explained why it made me uncomfortable and that I thought it was good that there was competition. What I did explain was the many reasons why the separate decisions by private companies made sense, including noting that Parler had many alternatives to setup systems to return (as it has since done).
I did not "cheer" the demise of Parler.
Why do you lie?
On the post: US Army Now Using Clearview's Unproven Tech To Investigate Crimes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why complain
It's on you to find one (ONE - JUST ONE) civil rights case the ACLU has taken on in the last 10 years where they defended someone to the right of AOC.
Hmm. Okay.
ACLU defended Jason Kessler when Charlottesville tried to remove his permit for the Unite the Right rally: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/09/28/why-we-must-still-defend-free-speech/
ACLU defended Milo Yiannopoulos when the DC metro banned his ads: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170809/17274237969/aclu-sues-dc-metro-banning-first-amendment-li terally-other-controversial-content.shtml
ACLU amicus brief in support of a Tea Party folks who were upset about a Minnesota law banning them from speech at polling places: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/16/16-1435/27750/20180112162636847_16-1435tsacACLU.PDF
ACLU teaming up with the NRA for gun rights: https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair
ACLU defending teacher who posted anti-LGBTQ slures on social media: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/06/aclu-defending-guy-called-death-fs/
ACLU amicus brief against gerrymandering that favored Democrats: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/benisek-v-lamone-amicus-brief
ACLU supporting guns rights advocates being censored by Vermont's governor: https://www.acluvt.org/en/press-releases/aclu-calls-governor-scott-stop-censoring-constituents-socia l-media
ACLU challenging Arkansas State when it tried to stop conservative Turning Point USA from gathering signatures: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/student-speech-and-privacy/when-colleges-confine-free-speech-z one-it-isnt-free
ACLU supporting anti-semitic protests in front of a synagogue: https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/synagogue-protesters
I could go on, but I've got shit to do.
I await your apology.
On the post: Sensitive Data On Afghan Allies Collected By The US Military Is Now In The Hands Of The Taliban
Re: "He's wrong because I said he is!"
That commenter showed up and left 3 comments in a row on 3 recent Cushing posts, screaming similar things (with nothing to back it up) in all 3. It appears that Tim has an admirer.
On the post: NY Times And Washington Post Criticize Facebook Because The Chicago Tribune Had A Terrible Headline
Re:
Because FaceBook has billions of users, far more than the Sun Sentinel or Chigago Tribune?
I'm not sure how that changes the fact that if the original article were written better none of this would have been a problem. You ignore the point of the article, that Facebook is not the one in the best position to fix this.
Because they buried the first report when they didn't like what it revealed?
Yes. I called them out for that bullshit act. Did you not read the fucking article?
Because Facebook is where this stuff gets contextualised as anti-vax?
Yes, because the original articles were poorly written. Note that Facebook is not the one who contextualized it. Why do you blame the tool?
Because sometimes you're so busy going on about other people missing nuance that you ignore it yourself?
Nothing you point out refers to any nuance I missed. Care to try again?
On the post: US Army Now Using Clearview's Unproven Tech To Investigate Crimes
Re: Re: Re: Why complain
But... this is techdirt. They will support ANYTHING - censorship, reeducation camps, spying and warrantless search and seizure, indefinite detention, etc.,etc. as long as the target is "the right wing"
Lol wut? When have we ever supported any such thing?
We're completely anti-partisan. We stand by our principles on all of those things -- we're against censorship, reeducation camps, spying, warrantless searches, indefinite detention for anyone of either party.
Hell, we're frequently accused of being right wing ourselves. What a lazy troll.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 295: What Oracle/Google Means For Copyright And Interoperability
Re: zenofare?
What is this word? senofair, xenafare? Can't even google it effectively.
Scène à faire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sc%C3%A8nes_%C3%A0_faire
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
I already said I don't believe it is defamation because its an opinion show.
That's not why.
But on the matter of it being a ridiculous laughable opinion. It fails the shoe on the other foot test.
It does not. As I said, the end result would be the same if it were "on the other foot." You cannot cite an example to the contrary.
There a multiple state media outlets in this world. Working for one does not make someone and whoever hires them paid propaganda.
And that was not the issue at the heart of the case, because the case is about defamation. The issue is was anything said defamatory. And it was not.
I think in the wake of how the ABC is reporting on Australia's draconian tactics, you would have a hard time arguing that the ABC isn't a government propaganda outlet.
Again, that makes no fucking difference at all in this case. You keep moving goalposts because you're a shitty pathetic troll who doesn't know the first thing about defamation law. I note that you have moved on from your laughably wrong statements about "dismissal with prejudice" being rare. It is not. You don't know what you're talking about, and if you weren't a sad little troll child, you'd educate yourself. But you are. So fuck off.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
I think you are a biased actor as illustrated by how your bias has effectively killed your career.
My career has been killed? When? How?
The 9th circuit is trying their best to tip toe around the issue but the obvious inference in their decision is that anything said on the show is opinion and cannot be libel.
That is not, at all, what the 9th circuit is saying. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
I agree with this and I'm glad the court agrees that nothing said on Maddow or any other opinion show can be taken as fact.
That is not at all what the court said.
I'll note you didn't respond to the other points I actually raised, which leads me to conclude that you're just a troll. What a pathetic piece of shit you are. When you grow up one day, maybe you'll regret your wasted life.
On the post: Political Consultant Misrepresents Nearly Everything In Arguing That The Gov't Should Make Google/Facebook Pay News Orgs
Re:
Craigslist's free classifieds destroyed print media, and while you might agree, it seems to support the notion that one cannot compete with free.
Lol wut? It does nothing of the sort. No one ever said that "free always loses." Indeed, the point is you can compete with free but you need to actually compete. The problem the newspapers had was that they didn't even try. They just whined or disparaged the internet.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
I think you are confusing dismissal with prejudice following a settlement with dismissal
I am not. I write about these cases as part of my job. Dismissal with prejudice happens all the time. And I'm not talking about after a settlement.
When you boil down what the court wrote in order to dismiss with prejudice is that if Rachel Maddow said it, it cannot be taken as factual.
That is not even remotely close to what the judge said, nor the 9th circuit in affirming it. You are either too fucking stupid, or willfully misreading the ruling, which is a very standard defamation dismissal.
I dont disagree with this. I believe that this should be the law of all opinion shows. I simply don't agree that Alex Jones should be held to a higher standard than Rachel Maddow.
You are completely misrepresenting this. I'm just trying to figure out if you're a fucking fool, or deliberately misrepresenting stuff because you're a trollish asshole. I'm leaning towards the latter, but it's possible it's the former.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
Correct, would this survive the shoe on the other foot test? If someone is working for, or has worked for the BBC, ABC, PBS, etc. and also working for a private US news agency does that make that entire news agency "literally British/Australian/American" propaganda?
That also would not be defamation and would easily get dismissed. So, yes, it would "survive the shoe on the other foot test." I know this because I actually understand how defamation law works.
Unlike you.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Defame
That was a smear. That was pure defamation.
I don't know how defamation works in Russia, restless, but that is not at all how it works in the US.
Instead of celebrating corruption in the judiciary, why not support justice.
There was no corruption of the judiciary. This was a very, very straightforward application of the 1st Amendment. Why do you hate the Constitution restless?
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: More Techdirt GARBAGE
OAN is not in any way funded by Russia. So the Judge's assertions are false. I don't see that added as commentary in the article?
Reading comprehension not your strong suit, then?
Clearly this article is intended to falsely frame OAN in a false context to the readers of techdirt.
Lol. Clearly this comment is intended to falsely frame Techdirt in a false context to the readers of your ignorant comment.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
Dismissing with prejudice is actually something that is very rare.
This is false. Laughably false. Stop cosplaying as a lawyer.
The court is saying that nothing Rachel Maddow ever says can be taken as a statement of fact.
This is false. Laughably false.
On the post: Now It's Harvard Business Review Getting Section 230 Very, Very Wrong
Re: A solution with a better critique
None of your criticisms, however, address the fundamental question: how do you hold a platform accountable for misinformation that it amplifies?
I've addressed that numerous times. The problem with YOUR piece is it assumes, totally incorrectly, that the only way to hold a platform accountable is... by law. It's not. Users migrating away from garbage dumps, advertisers refusing to advertise next to conspiracy theories, have been shown to be much more effective in pressuring companies to curb their behavior.
Even more to the point, holding a platform accountable for misinformation is a recipe for disaster. How do you define misinformation? How do you define it in a way that doesn't make mistakes? How do you deal with the information that is inevitably not caught? All you're doing is creating a massive liability minefield. End result? LESS EXPERIMENTATION, LESS INNOVATION, and LESS ABILITY TO ADAPT TO BAD ACTORS. Why would you want to do that?!?
The infodemic of antivaxx misinformation is a case in point. Platforms don’t produce this content but they have given it reach and influence and they have monetized the engagement that has attended it.
Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax have given just as much air to those things. Indeed, Yochai Benkler's research shows that the info doesn't go viral on Facebook until after it airs on cable news.
And YOU haven't answered the more pressing question: what is illegal about antivax misinfo? We agree that it's problematic. But (contrary to what you claim) it's pretty much all constitutionally protected speech. There is no underlying cause of action. "Facebook shouldn't share this" is not a legal argument.
If we recognize the “infodemic” as a pollution problem, then we take statistical samples just like we sample factory air for the presence of sulphur dioxide or water for the presence of DDT. We don’t measure every cubic centimeter of effluent as that’s just not practical. A doctor doesn’t check your cholesterol by checking all your blood, she/he takes a sample.
Marshall, this all sounds neat and sciency, but PROTECTED SPEECH IS NOT POLLUTION. And that's where your entire argument breaks down. You can't ignore the fact that we're talking about speech.
Under a modified S230, with a duty of care, we just hold platforms accountable for pollution levels above a reasonable threshold.
Too much constitutionally protected speech above a certain level cannot violate the law. That fundamentally sinks your entire argument. You really ought to have spoken to at least someone who understands the 1st Amendment.
To succeed, a good critique needs to convince us that (a) no problem exists and (b) no better design exists. Respectfully, the above critiques fall short on both counts.
You leave out that YOUR suggestion is easily proven as (c) a MUCH worse design with SIGNIFICANT downsides you ignore or don't understand. I made that argument, and I stand by it because it's correct. If it were only (a) and (b) as you lay out then you've done a classic "we must do something, this is something, we will do it," ignoring that your solution will make things significantly worse (as I DID show).
I agree that there are problems, but you're barking up the wrong tree for a solution.
On the post: FTC Tries Tries Again With An Antitrust Case Against Facebook
Re:
You really ought to stop arguing with the strawman Mike in your head, because he isn't me.
Next >>