You know, if the industry would just put the exact same amount of effort into reworking their distribution model that they put into coming up with these hideously forced acronym bill titles, the entire problem would probably start to fix itself.
If the removal of content is not neutral, but rather politically motivated, then it is not being done in good faith, and they don't have immunity under the act.
Where on earth does "politically motivated" show up in that law? Nothing anywhere in the actual legal wording references political issues at all. I don't even see a reference to "neutral" in there. Where is the section that explicitly denies protection to a platform shown to lack neutrality? That's the part Cruz is directly referencing, which is problematic since it doesn't seem to exist.
see: e-ventures Worldwide, LLC v. Google, Inc.
This case appears to target Google's use of SEO to prioritize results in its search indexing. The allegations are from a specific company on the basis that Google arbitrarily decided to delist them because they hadn't paid for better search prioritization. The claims here on the basis of anticompetitive practices, not political opinion. While the CDA 230 defense ultimately didn't apply, it's for an entirely unrelated reason.
SEE ALSO: Smith v. Trusted Universal Standards In Electronic Transactions, Inc. (in which Comcast was found to be not acting in good faith when enforcing its terms of service rather than actually screening for objectionable content)).
Again, nothing about political opinion. It looks like the specific reason for the denial of CDA 230 immunity was that Comcast had implied that a subscription to a higher level service was necessary to prevent the arbitrary blocking of the "objectionable" content. So again, nothing to do with political opinion or platform neutrality.
That's three cases you've referenced so far that completely fail to back up any point you're trying to make. Would you like to try pointing to the actual specific wording, or is it possible that you're pulling a Cruz and just referencing wording that doesn't exist?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
You've only vaguely puzzled me. Is that "Yes" agreeing with all of my original comment? Or some sly wit that ripped me a new one?
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Yes, "power." We'll go with that. Well, here's a proper "on-topic" comment responding to the part that was not a jest:
Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Tactic #3? What are the first two, if I might ask? And how many are there total? And, assuming they're true, are they copyrighted? Does TechDirt have standing to sue you for leaking trade secrets? DID YOU DO A RICO?!
Wait, hold on… The court ordered the monkey to scratch his butt? I admit that I haven't read every single document related to this case, but I would think something like that would find its way to the top of the pile pretty fast. O.o
On the post: How The Recording Industry Hid Its Latest Attempt To Expand Copyright (And Why You Should Call Your Senator To Stop It)
Re: Re:
On the post: How The Recording Industry Hid Its Latest Attempt To Expand Copyright (And Why You Should Call Your Senator To Stop It)
On the post: When In Doubt, Blame Terrorists: Patent Attorney Claims Terrorists Are Infringing And Killing Jobs
Re:
On the post: New Hampshire Court: First Amendment Says You Can Call A Patent Troll A Patent Troll
Re: And I can call a Corporatist a Corporatist on one's site.
On the post: Ted Cruz Demands A Return Of The Fairness Doctrine, Which He Has Mocked In The Past, Due To Misunderstanding CDA 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Mark Harrill": Be one comment this year, like last year?
So what's the adequate number of comments an account owner should be expected to make? What's the reasonable standard you're applying?
On the post: More Drug Lab Misconduct Results In Massachusetts Court Tossing Nearly 12,000 Convictions
Re: Today's ONE per year ZOMBIE: "KJ" back after 18 months!
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re: You're actually wrong, though.
Where on earth does "politically motivated" show up in that law? Nothing anywhere in the actual legal wording references political issues at all. I don't even see a reference to "neutral" in there. Where is the section that explicitly denies protection to a platform shown to lack neutrality? That's the part Cruz is directly referencing, which is problematic since it doesn't seem to exist.
This case appears to target Google's use of SEO to prioritize results in its search indexing. The allegations are from a specific company on the basis that Google arbitrarily decided to delist them because they hadn't paid for better search prioritization. The claims here on the basis of anticompetitive practices, not political opinion. While the CDA 230 defense ultimately didn't apply, it's for an entirely unrelated reason.
Again, nothing about political opinion. It looks like the specific reason for the denial of CDA 230 immunity was that Comcast had implied that a subscription to a higher level service was necessary to prevent the arbitrary blocking of the "objectionable" content. So again, nothing to do with political opinion or platform neutrality.
That's three cases you've referenced so far that completely fail to back up any point you're trying to make. Would you like to try pointing to the actual specific wording, or is it possible that you're pulling a Cruz and just referencing wording that doesn't exist?
On the post: Bob Murray Sends Judge Whiny Letter Saying That Losing Case To John Oliver Is Making People Say Mean Things To Him
Re:
On the post: Keeper Security Reminds Everyone Why You Shouldn't Use It; Doubles Down On Suing Journalist
Re: The only important thing is: what does out_of_the_blue think?
In other words, Ars is 100% guaranteed a victory here.
On the post: US Piracy Lawsuits Shoot Out Of The 2018 Gates As The Malibu Media 'Coaching Tree' Spreads Its Seeds
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Yes, exactly that.
On the post: US Piracy Lawsuits Shoot Out Of The 2018 Gates As The Malibu Media 'Coaching Tree' Spreads Its Seeds
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Yes.
On the post: US Piracy Lawsuits Shoot Out Of The 2018 Gates As The Malibu Media 'Coaching Tree' Spreads Its Seeds
Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
On the post: Monkey Selfie Case Reaches Settlement -- But The Parties Want To Delete Ruling Saying Monkeys Can't Hold Copyright
Re: Re: Meanwhile...
Next >>