A beta tester who goes by the Reddit username Wandering-coder brought his new Starlink equipment and a portable power supply to a national forest in Idaho, where he connected to the Internet with 120Mbps download speeds.
Starlink "works beautifully," he wrote yesterday. "I did a real-time video call and some tests. My power supply is max 300w, and the drain for the whole system while active was around 116w." Starlink pulled that off in a place where Wandering-coder couldn't get any cellular service from Google Fi, which relies on the T-Mobile and US Cellular networks. "There is no cell here with any carrier," he wrote.
With the Starlink user terminal/satellite dish placed on the ground in a relatively open part of the forest, Wandering-coder did a speed test that measured downloads of 120Mbps, uploads of 12Mbps, and latency of 37ms. He got worse results in a different, more heavily forested location where he placed the dish closer to the trees because Starlink needs a clear line of sight to SpaceX satellites. "It didn't work well with a heavy tree canopy/trees directly in the line of sight, as expected," Wandering-coder wrote. "I would be connected only for about 5 seconds at a time. Make sure you have as clear a view of the sky as possible!"
At home, Wandering-coder says he got 135Mbps download speeds, 25Mbps uploads, and 21ms latency when the dish was placed in a ground-level spot with "limited obstruction" between the dish and sky. He also tested the user terminal in a different spot with "significant obstruction" in the form of "bad weather, treetops, fences, [and] houses," he wrote. Even in that scenario, he reported download speeds of 46Mbps, upload speeds of 15Mbps, and 41ms latency. He hadn't placed the antenna on his roof yet when he conducted the tests.
New speed-test data collected by Ookla and published by PCMag last week found average Starlink download speeds of 79.5Mbps and average upload speeds of 13.8Mbps in October, when the service was in a more limited beta. The same data found average download speeds of 24.75Mbps for Viasat's Exede service and 19.84Mbps for HughesNet, both of which offer service from geostationary satellites. Upload speeds for Viasat and HughesNet were 3.25Mbps and 2.64Mbps, respectively.
Starlink's low Earth orbit satellites greatly outperformed the higher-orbit satellites on latency, with Starlink posting a 42ms average. Viasat and HughesNet came in at 643ms and 728ms, respectively, according to PCMag.
One Montana resident posted a speed test result with a 174Mbps download speed, 33Mbps upload speed, and 39ms latency.
One amusing way that Mitchell is trying to tuen defamation law on ots head:
One part of defamation, is that if the accused claims to have merely been repeating what they heard from another source, that it could still be ruled defamatory if the accused knew their source was not reliable.
I.e. "You defamed me because you accepted the claims of a proven liar!"
Vs. Mitchell bringing in Todd so he can argue:
"You defamed me because you refuse to accept the claims of a proven liar!"
VOA cannot direct or intend its programs to be "for" Americans. George W. Bush-era State Department official James K. Glassman has called for directing VOA at American audiences.
I recall hearing a bit of disinformation a while back of "Obama signed a law allowing government propaganda and making it legal for the media to purposely lie to the American people."†
The saying that every accusation a Republican makes is a confession remains as valid as ever, it seems.
† What the law actually did was modify the Smith-Mundt act to allow congent created by entities under the U.S. Agency for Global Media obtainable by Americans upon request. Previously, all such content was banned for dissemination in the US, even via FOIA. Government-funded media marketing targeted at US audiences remained illegal.
Here's the problem: that referee has also been banned by Twin Galaxies for cheating in trying to get high scores in an unrelated video game.
Note: that's Todd Rodgers, who was found to have to have lied avout his sxore in Atari's Dragster game, because the score he claimed to have gotten was deemed to be physically impossible to achieve even with tool-assisted cheating. (and he had yet provided zero evidence other than his word)
If you said "A site that has political bias is not neutral, and thus loses its Section 230 protections"
I'm sorry, but you are very, very, very wrong. Perhaps more wrong than anyone saying any of the other things above. First off, there is no "neutrality" requirement at all in Section 230. Seriously. Read it. If anything, it says the opposite. It says that sites can moderate as they see fit and face no liability. This myth is out there and persists because some politicians keep repeating it, but it's wrong and the opposite of truth. Indeed, any requirement of neutrality would likely raise significant 1st Amendment questions, as it would be involving the law in editorial decision making.
Second, as described earlier, you can't "lose" your Section 230 protections, especially not over your moderation choices (again, the law explicitly says that you cannot face liability for moderation choices, so stop trying to make it happen). If content is produced by someone else, the site is protected from lawsuit, thanks to Section 230. If the content is produced by the site, it is not. Moderating the content is not producing content, and so the mere act of moderation, whether neutral or not, does not make you lose 230 protections. That's just not how it works.
More facts that don't care about Koby's feelings:
The Claremont Institute and scores of individual
commenters have complained that particular websites are not politically neutral, and they demand that Section 230’s protection from liability for content created by others be conditioned on proof that a website is in fact politically neutral in the content that it hosts, and in its moderation decisions.
There are three points that must be made in reply. The first is that Section 230 does not require political neutrality. Claiming to “interpret” Section 230 to require political neutrality, or to condition its Good Samaritan protections on political neutrality, would erase the law we wrote and substitute a completely different one, with opposite effect. The second is that any governmental attempt to enforce political neutrality on websites would be hopelessly subjective, complicated, burdensome, and unworkable. The third is that any such legislation or regulation intended to override a website’s moderation decisions would amount to compelling speech, in violation of the First Amendment....
Section 230 itself states the congressional purpose of ensuring that the internet remains “a global forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” In our view as the law’s authors, this requires that government allow a thousand flowers to bloom—not that a single website has to represent every conceivable point of view. The reason that Section 230 does not require political neutrality, and was never intended to do so, is that it would enforce homogeneity: every website would have the same “neutral” point of view. This is the opposite of true diversity.
To use an obvious example, neither the Democratic National Committee nor the Republican National Committee websites would pass a political neutrality test. Government compelled speech is not the way to ensure diverse viewpoints. Permitting websites to choose their own viewpoints is.
Many individual commenters complained that their political viewpoints have been “censored” by websites ostensibly implementing their community guidelines, but actually suppressing speech. Several of these commenters have urged the FCC to require that all speech protected by the First Amendment be allowed on any site of sufficient size that it might be deemed an equivalent to the “public square.” In the context of this proceeding, that would mean Section 230 would somehow have to be “interpreted” to require this.
Comments within this genre share a fundamental misunderstanding of Section 230. The matter is readily clarified by reference to the plain language of the statute. The law provides that a website can moderate content “whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”... Congress would have to repeal this language, and replace it with an explicit speech mandate, in order for the FCC to do what the commenters are urging.
Government-compelled speech, however, would be a source of further problems. Because the First Amendment not only protects expression but non-expression, any attempt to devise an FCC regulation that forces a website to publish content it otherwise would moderate would almost certainly be unconstitutional. The government may not force websites to publish material that they do not approve. As Chief Justice Roberts unequivocally put it in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006), “freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.”...
The answer to the commenters’ complaints of “censorship” must be twofold. First, many of the comments conflate their frustrations about Section 230 with the First Amendment. As noted, it is the First Amendment, not Section 230, that gives websites the right to choose which viewpoints, if any, to advance. Furthermore, First Amendment speech protections dictate that the government, with a few notable exceptions, may not dictate what speech is acceptable. The First Amendment places no such restrictions on private individuals or companies. Second, the purpose and effect of Section 230 is to make the internet safe for innovation and individual free speech. Without Section 230, complaints about “censorship” by the likes of Google, Facebook, and Twitter would not disappear. Instead, we would be facing a thousandfold more complaints that neither the largest online platforms nor the smallest websites are any longer willing to host material from individual content creators.
Eroding the law through regulatory revision would seriously jeopardize free speech for everyone. It would be particularly injurious to marginalized viewpoints that aren’t within “the mainstream.” It would present near-insuperable barriers for new entrants attempting to compete with entrenched tech giants in the social media space. Not least of all, it would set a terrible example for the rest of the world if the United States, which created the internet and so much of the vast cyber ecosystem that has enabled it to flourish globally as an informational, cultural, scientific, educational, and economic resource, were to undermine the ability that hundreds of millions of individuals have each day to contribute their content to that result.
In the absence of Section 230, the First Amendment rights of Americans, and the internet as we know it, would shrivel. Far from authorizing censorship, the law provides the legal certainty and protection from open-ended liability that permits websites large and small to host the free expression of individuals, making it available to a worldwide audience. Section 230 is a bulwark of free speech and civil discourse that is more important now than ever, especially in the current political climate that is increasingly hostile to both.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: GoFundMe Addresses Controversial Fundraising Efforts (2020)
Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about Rittenhouse.
That statement is true if, and only if, by "this story" you mean your own tall tale.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Using Fact Checkers To Create A Misogynist Meme (2019)
Re: Re: Re: Fact-checker baiting -- NO, it's Techdirt pretense!
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: How Should Social Media Handle Election Polls That Turned Out To Be Misinformation?
The problem of professional frauds claiming climate science's predictions are wrong is bad enough without giving them more weapons.
On the post: While Social Media Was Quick To Highlight And Limit The Spread Of False Claims Of Election Victory, Traditional Media Just Let It Flow
Re: Re: Orwell Books Were Warnings, Not Instructions
Koby hates it when the truth is the arbiter of social media's decisions.
On the post: President-For-Life Hopeful Donald Trump Issues Executive Order Mandating 'Patriotic' Education For Kids
Next up: the retuen of the "Bellamy" salute during the recitation of the Pledge of Allegience:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_ American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg
On the post: President-For-Life Hopeful Donald Trump Issues Executive Order Mandating 'Patriotic' Education For Kids
Re: This site
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: While Social Media Was Quick To Highlight And Limit The Spread Of False Claims Of Election Victory, Traditional Media Just Let It Flow
Re: Re: Re: Orwell Books Were Warnings, Not Instructions
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Your Problem Is Not With Section 230, But The 1st Amendment
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
On the post: Space X Tempers Expectations As Starlink 'Better Than Nothing' Broadband Beta Starts
SpaceX Starlink users provide first impressions and unboxing pictures
On the post: Billy Mitchell's Defamation Case Against Twin Galaxies Over 'Donkey Kong' High Score Can Go Forward
One amusing way that Mitchell is trying to tuen defamation law on ots head:
One part of defamation, is that if the accused claims to have merely been repeating what they heard from another source, that it could still be ruled defamatory if the accused knew their source was not reliable.
I.e. "You defamed me because you accepted the claims of a proven liar!"
Vs. Mitchell bringing in Todd so he can argue:
"You defamed me because you refuse to accept the claims of a proven liar!"
On the post: Trump Appointee Removes 'Firewall' Preventing Administration From Meddling In VOA Reporting
Via Wikipedia:
On the post: Free Market Advocate Switches Sides, Calls For Direct Government Interference In Online Moderation Decisions
Re: As reliable as gravity
Same as with Net Neutrality.
especially when the trolls lie that it is hypocritical to support NN but not Section 230 tampering.
On the post: Trump Appointee Removes 'Firewall' Preventing Administration From Meddling In VOA Reporting
I recall hearing a bit of disinformation a while back of "Obama signed a law allowing government propaganda and making it legal for the media to purposely lie to the American people."†
The saying that every accusation a Republican makes is a confession remains as valid as ever, it seems.
† What the law actually did was modify the Smith-Mundt act to allow congent created by entities under the U.S. Agency for Global Media obtainable by Americans upon request. Previously, all such content was banned for dissemination in the US, even via FOIA. Government-funded media marketing targeted at US audiences remained illegal.
On the post: Free Market Advocate Switches Sides, Calls For Direct Government Interference In Online Moderation Decisions
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As this cartoon summarizes: https://imgur.com/gallery/682GWfc
On the post: Billy Mitchell's Defamation Case Against Twin Galaxies Over 'Donkey Kong' High Score Can Go Forward
Note: that's Todd Rodgers, who was found to have to have lied avout his sxore in Atari's Dragster game, because the score he claimed to have gotten was deemed to be physically impossible to achieve even with tool-assisted cheating. (and he had yet provided zero evidence other than his word)
On the post: Monopolistic U.S. ISPs Take Full Advantage Of The Covid Crisis
Re:
Yeah, how dare left-wingers be for free speech and against fraud! How hippocritical!"
On the post: Transparency Is Important; Mandated Transparency Is Dangerous And Will Stifle Innovation And Competition
Re: Path to Litigation
Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act
More facts that don't care about Koby's feelings:
On the post: The Senate Snowflake Grievance Committee Quizzes Tech CEOs On Tweets & Employee Viewpoints
Re: Techdirt getting political
Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act
On the post: One Restaurant Sends Cease And Desist To Another Over The Word 'Juicy'
"JUICY"
https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3182
On the post: Another Arrest Shows It's Pretty Much Everyone But Antifa Engaging In Anti-Government Violence
Re:
Q: What does the Anonymous Coward understand about the article?
A: Nothing.
Let the adults talk in peace, kid.
Next >>