Article 1 is perfectly benign. It uses the “culturally relevant” nomenclature, but has no other resemblance to anything you said. It doesn’t even use “CRT” but “CRP” (the P being for “Pedagogy”), and it has nothing to do with Critical Race Theory or any of the things either you or the CRT-alarmists complain about, so it is completely and utterly irrelevant.
The pamphlet sounds roughly like one view of CRT, but it seems upper high school level or college-level based on the wording, and it—again—is about critical examination. It is not teaching that it is true, but that it is a lens that can be used. Also, notice the questions at the end, which are similar to what you’d see in a standardized test asking you to discuss a paper about an idea, regardless of the merit of the idea itself. I had to do a similar one on a pro-fascism paper, so—again—not really alarming.
The PJ Media one is typical alarmist BS. It also says nothing about anything else being said in the discussion. For all we know, when it says “this is about revenge”, they are about to tell a true story that involves revenge, not advocating revenge, and not to spread the information because of sensitive private information being discussed in the anecdote. We simply don’t have enough information to judge. I also don’t see how this involves teaching CRT to K-12. We just have the writer of the article saying it was about teaching Critical Race Theory to someone. Setting aside the fact that writer is clearly biased (they make zero attempt at hiding it), that’s so vague as to be meaningless for the purposes of this discussion. Speaking of, this doesn’t prove your claims about either the terminology or the ideas either, so, really, why did you bring this up.
And as for the New York school pamphlet you refer to, unless it’s one of the items above (which I highly doubt since none of them use the same terminology you do), I have no idea what you’re talking about, but all the evidence I do have points to that not being the “actual” terminology. Heck, the one that comes closest to your terminology (which still isn’t quite right) involves completely unrelated ideas and concepts, while the other two, which come closer to (but not quite the same as) the ideas you claim use the terminology I have heard, and one is clearly biased while the other is written by proponents of the idea and is clearly presented as something to discuss, not as a central thesis you should believe without further thought. The existence of a single pamphlet—regardless of its contents—does not prove your claims about what the “actual used terminology” is or the ideas behind them are when all other available evidence points to the opposite conclusion, including all the evidence you yourself provided, even the evidence most biased in your favor.
“ If you would please point to a single evidence-backed instance of any elementary, middle, or high school teaching Critical Race Theory.”
I can’t. I haven’t found any that do. Most of what I’ve seen is the culturally relevant teaching.
Then please point to a single evidence-based instance of any elementary, middle, or high school teaching what you call “culturally relevant teaching”. (That’s not actually a term people actually use, by the way, including the opponents to CRT (whatever you think it stands for), but I’m just playing ball to see if you have anything to back up your claims.)
You really have no idea what critical race theory is, do you? It doesn’t have anything to do with communism at all, nor does it portray things the way you say. Honestly, even your portrayal of it doesn’t have any of the ideological, political, or economic aspects of communism at all, so I have no idea where you got that from.
More importantly, though, as I already mentioned, neither critical race theory nor your depiction of it are taught in elementary or middle school, or really even in high school. CRT (the real one) is taught in some (not all) universities as one way of looking at our history and current events. Also, as I said, it’s not being taught as a fact but as a theory.
And I know what a motte-and-bailey fallacy is, but what you’re doing is the inverse. Rather than taking something unpopular and dressing it up as something benign, you’re taking something benign and making it sound like something controversial.
But let’s go through this: Let’s say that CRT is as you describe. Well, that’s not being taught at all, so you’re against something that doesn’t exist. Furthermore, no part of CRT is taught before college, so banning CRT in K-12 is utterly pointless, either as CRT actually is or as you portray it.
So basically, when you say, “I’m opposed to teaching CRT in schools,” either you’re opposed to something that doesn’t actually exist, or you’re against something that is not actually controversial.
If the total number of undocumented immigrants did not decrease, that means the wall isn’t actually doing anything. And since that number has not gone down, it doesn’t matter whether or not they are crossing where the “wall” was built.
And “border security” =/= a physical barrier at the border.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your
“Vax”
Biden inherited trumps plan. You will not change my opinion on that so move on.
I’m just stating this for the record, but Trump had no plan for vaccine distribution. He also hindered the whole thing by minimizing the importance of stopping COVID.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your
We had a viable exit from Afghanistan that Biden threw away.
Not really. I’m not saying Biden couldn’t have done better, but Trump made things worse by freeing imprisoned members of the Taliban.
We were less than two years away from total energy independence.
Not really. Is this about the Keystone XL Pipeline? Because almost none of that oil was going to be sold in the states, and it was coming from a Canadian company drilling in Canada. It was going to be piped from Canada to Louisiana, where it would be packaged and shipped to other countries via the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. It would also not be the sort of oil used for gasoline, which is the form of oil used most to generate energy (as opposed to lubrication or making plastics). That would not have helped our energy independence one iota.
Plus, outside of gasoline (which, again, the Keystone XL pipeline would not have helped with), oil isn’t used to produce much energy in the US. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, and renewable resources are far more commonly used for energy here outside of gas-powered devices, and those can be replaced with electric-powered versions. Going for that seems like a better way to achieve energy independence.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to chan
Bush II promised a fence, and it was started and completed while he was in office. Obama promised no wall or additional fencing.
Trump mostly just replaced some of what was already there and wanted to expand it. He also wanted a sturdy wall and not just fencing, but that didn’t happen. It also has clearly done nothing to reduce undocumented immigrants from entering the US, so…
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
When I said “lawfully detained”, I meant “detained as the term is defined under US law”, not “detained for a lawful reason”. Sorry. I should have been clearer.
My point was to mention that, if a cop is approaching you for a “consensual encounter”, you are legally entitled to run from the encounter, even if that cop tells you to stop running a while later. This is from a California case about a jogger who was approached by police and ran down a hiking trail who later sued for violation of his rights against unlawful arrest and unlawful retaliation (he was also a cop) and succeeded.
Mike Mansick is the founder of the silicon valley think tank The Copia Institute.
Irrelevant. Masnick has no other association with Twitter except as a user, and Twitter has no affiliation with The Copia Institute, so anything Masnick has to say cannot be used as evidence against Twitter.
You also haven’t proven that he is the founder of The Copia Institute or that he still is associated with the Institute in any meaningful way.
His writ[ings] are easily provable to have influenced the decision[s] of BigTech executives such as Jack Dorsey.
So what? That Twitter’s decisions can be influenced by Masnick doesn’t prove that anything Masnick says regarding Twitter is material or relevant to the case against Twitter.
See attached exhibits relating to his "Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech" paper and its subesquent adoption by Twitter and other big Tech Platforms.
Masnick was neither the first nor the last to make such a proposal, nor does this prove that Masnick’s statements on Twitter’s TOS are admissible evidence against Twitter.
Judge: I see there is a prima [facie] case that the defendents do both listen to him and act on his [recommendations].
One instance is not evidence of a trend, and that still doesn’t make what he said about TOS admissible evidence in a case against Twitter, making that whole thing irrelevant to begin with. Unless Masnick was personally and directly involved with the decision or was an employee or executive of Twitter, nothing he says can be used to prove a case against Twitter.
Judge: "[W]hat law states that TOS can't be written ambiguously?"
Lawyer: Uh judge here is the syllabus from your contract law 101 class. Scholl down to week 2. Three things void a contract. 1) The parties are not legal persons. 2) There is no meeting of the minds, contract is ambiguous. 3) Violation of public policy.
You not only can’t spell, you also can’t count. “No meeting of the minds” and “contract is ambiguous” are two separate things. Additionally, you forgot one other basic thing that voids a contract: no consideration.
As for “contract is ambiguous”, that doesn’t actually void a contract. It does require a judge or mediator to decide the most reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous clause based upon a variety of factors, but it’s not enough to render the clause void.
In fact, you’re even conflating finding a particular clause void and finding the entire contract void. Just because a particular clause is void doesn’t make the entire contract void.
The legal persons thing is obviously inapplicable since you can’t have a lawsuit if any plaintiffs or defendants are not legal persons.
As for “meeting of the minds”, that isn’t necessary in this sort of clickwrap contract, as has been decided in multiple court cases. All that is necessary is that both parties willingly and knowingly agreed to the terms.
Finally, as for public policy, that is rarely used to void a contract (aside from “choice of venue” clauses, but that is generally severable from the rest of the contract and so doesn’t apply here). Generally, it’d have to involve actually censoring someone (not just moderating content on their platform or kicking off or suspending users from using their platform) or something really huge. None of those would apply to the parts of TOS involving what content can be moderated and such, so this wouldn’t void the contract as it relates to moderation decisions.
Judge: Oh yeah sorry I'm getting old and I've been listening to too many ignorant millennials on the internet.
I don’t think you know much about millennials. For one thing, I’m barely a millennial (on the older side), and I know that Mike and Stephen, at least, are significantly older than me, so they aren’t millennials.
You also haven’t cited a law or case in support of your claim that TOS can’t be written ambiguously, just the syllabus of an imaginary course taken by the imaginary judge in this imaginary case. Imaginary things are not evidence. Also, if they’re old, how would you even get the syllabus for the specific class they took when they were in law school? Are you trying to make your imagined scenario sound ridiculous? Because if so, you’re succeeding.
In its response Twitter has cited its terms of service here here and here as they always do.
Actually, they rarely would in a motion to dismiss that invokes §230 and/or the 1st Amendment, and those issues would trump any issues involving the TOS, so that would be irrelevant.
Especially their motion to move venue to California.
Again, that doesn’t matter if they’re not citing the parts that relate to moderation but just the ones regarding proper venue. Which venue is proper has nothing to do with the application of §230.
The ambiguity voids this contract.
At best, even if you’re right about it being ambiguous (rather than vague or broad), and even if ambiguity was sufficient to void a clause in a contract (which it usually isn’t), that would only affect the clause regarding reasons for being removed from the service, not the venue. Most likely, even granting the same, it would only void the ambiguous parts within the TOS, not the entire thing.
Plus, it’s irrelevant to the §230 inquiry whether or not the contract is void or not. And if it is void, that basically means you can’t use the service anyways, so… What is the point?
Finally, the TOS are written broadly, not ambiguously. The issue isn’t that there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the plain text; the issue is that the TOS are written to cover a large amount of content and that Twitter can enforce them at its own discretion. And ambiguity doesn’t void a contract to begin with.
Furthermore all section 230 immunity decisions must be done in good faith.
Incorrect. As I’ve said before, the good faith requirement only appears in part 2(A), and it doesn’t apply to part 1, which is the most used part of §230, including for immunity for moderation decisions. As such, even bad faith moderation decisions are often immunized.
The admission that the TOS are deliberately written ambiguously is evidence of bad faith […]
No, it is not evidence of bad faith.
First, again, Twitter or one of its employees, executives, or representatives would have had to make that admission, not some third party. Such an “admission” coming from anyone but Twitter is inadmissible evidence. That something Mike wrote on a different topic may have (or even definitely did) influence at least one of Twitter’s decisions not related to this lawsuit or the events being sued over doesn’t make what he said on this subject admissible evidence regarding Twitter’s state of mind on this subject and thus has no bearing on this lawsuit at all as it relates to Twitter.
Second, the “admission” is that TOS are written broadly, not ambiguously. As I stated earlier, those are two very different things.
Third, that wouldn’t be evidence of bad faith with regards to whether §230 protects Twitter here. For one thing, the question is whether or not the moderation decision itself was in bad faith, not the writing of the TOS. Additionally, deliberate ambiguity (or broadness) in a TOS is not evidence of bad faith because it is feasible that both parties wanted that ambiguity (or broadness) or knowingly and willingly agreed to it.
Fourth, again, the ambiguity/broadness would only affect that one term. If Twitter cites any unambiguous or specific clause in support, that one is ambiguous or broad is immaterial.
Finally, courts typically interpret “good faith” as it applies to part 2(A) of §230 quite broadly, so it is very difficult to prove bad faith on such a claim.
[…] so section 230 immunity should be stayed until after discovery.
That’s not how it works. Again, you’re focusing on part 2(A) when most motions to dismiss involving §230 (including most that are about moderation decisions) cite and are decided on part 1, which does not have a good faith requirement. Additionally, the contract is neither void due to supposed ambiguity nor evidence of bad faith to begin with, so discovery is unnecessary to resolve the applicability of §230 immunity.
Judge: Agreed case may move forward in this jurisdiction.
We weren’t arguing about choice of venue, and you barely even mentioned it outside of saying that Twitter mentioned it in its motion to dismiss without saying anything else. So, as far as this discussion goes, it’s irrelevant, but you also haven’t presented a case to support it.
After discovery we will revisit section 230 immunity. Motion to dismiss under section 230 denied.
If this happened, it would likely be overturned on appeal, at least under the scenario you imagined and presented. Of course, few judges would ever make such a claim, so that’s kinda a moot point. It is also highly unlikely to make it past summary judgment even if it made it that far.
Lots of engineers I know have excellent spelling, so that’s flat out wrong.
But that aside, if you’re such a bad speller, try using autocorrect or a spell checker or something. It’s not that hard. Smartphones often have them on by default, and PC internet browsers usually have an option for it, too. They’re not perfect, mind, but they should catch things like “subesquent” at least.
When the man who claims to be a wise man because he “knows” things that are not in evidence calls the men he meets “unaware” because he believes they don’t “know” and that they think something they don’t actually believe…
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Setting aside the fact that you’re mostly wrong here, let’s talk about the whole “battery” thing and pretend that’s true.
Okay, so that means that there are limitations on the means that can be taken to remove a trespasser and/or who can do the removing. It doesn’t put any conditions on whether someone can remove a trespasser by some means, nor does it in any way restrict whether or why a person can be declared a trespasser to begin with or whether or why that trespasser can be removed once they are declared a trespasser.
When we’re saying “kick someone out” in these discussions, the “how” they are kicked out is immaterial to the point we’re making. Unless you’re willing to claim that having your content or your account on an online platform like a social media site suspended, deleted, banned, or removed is battery (or even assault), the limitations on “how” the removal may take place that you’ve mentioned don’t really apply to such platforms at all.
I do know about critical race theory, but I don’t think you do. All it is is examining history through the lens that racism has had a profound impact on America throughout its history. It’s just a theory, not being taught as fact, either, and only in college.
Also, you keep bringing up motte-and-bailey fallacy, but you never explain how it even applies.
Re: Re: 'I'm wearing shoes and shirt just not pants so I'm good.
An ambiguous contract is legally void. You are admitting that typical TOS are illegal contracts.
[link]
"How Do Courts Treat Ambiguous Contracts?
Usually, if there is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation between the parties, a court will allow the parties to rewrite the contract in order to resolve the ambiguity.
Do you not realize that this proves that an ambiguous contract is not necessarily legally void?
Also, there’s a difference between “ambiguous” and “vague”. The former could have one of several distinct meanings based on a plain reading of the text. The latter means the meaning is unclear or unspecific. Those are very different things.
I said the exact same things before Mike did, and I have no affiliation whatsoever with any social media company at all.
Additionally, on what grounds would you sue him over? You can’t force him to give up any evidence you want unless you already have good evidence to link him to the defendant (or is the defendant) and can articulate how the evidence would help your legal case.
And no, the proportion of cases where §230 is asserted such that it fails to persuade the judge and does not get overturned on appeal has not substantially increased over the past decade or so. And whether or not the rule in favor of defendants’ jurisdiction arguments is completely irrelevant when discussing §230 and moderation.
If the author of the contract intentionally makes it ambiguous that is evidence of bad faith and unfair dealing.
No, it is not. There is nothing in contract law that says you can’t have ambiguous terms, and it certainly doesn’t help prove bad faith.
And as said before to get around section 230 you need to show evidence of bad faith.
Only regarding part 2(A). Part 1 also protects moderation decisions to a large extent and doesn’t require good faith.
And remember this is civil court. Its not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its preponderance of the evidence 51%-49%.
Preponderance of the evidence, yes. 51%-49%? No. Preponderance of the evidence generally requires more than just barely-more-than-even. It’s lower than “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, sure, but that’s basically saying it’s lower than 99.999%.
So a wonk like Mike and other arguing for bad faith and unfair dealing is important with civil court's lower standard of proof.
What some unaffiliated third party says has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. It also has no bearing on a motion to dismiss, which is about questions of law, not fact.
The more statements you can show from people like Mike who work in and around tech arguing for ambiguous contracts the more the preponderance of the evidence shifts to the plaintiff.
Again, no. Only those directly affiliated with the defendant matter on this, but even so, ambiguous clauses are far from sufficient evidence of bad faith.
'This MD's video was banned and his account was suspended for posting medical disinformation.'
Thats libel. And YouTube FB etc shouldn't have immunity to libel people under the cover of moderation.
That's not how defamation law works, Chozen.
It is how the law works.
No, it is not. The bar for defamation is very high. Calling something “disinformation” is a statement of opinion, which means it’s not defamatory.
However, with clauses in the TOS that attempt to force venue in Cali, California judges will bend heaven and earth to protect big tech.
Incorrect. The reason they try to have the venue in California is, at least in part, because of California’s strong anti-SLAPP law, one of the strongest in the country, which makes it much easier to dismiss meritless cases about speech early on and to get legal fees paid if you prevail.
This is changing rapidly and more and more judges in other jurisdictions are refusing to allow jurisdiction to be moved to Cali because they know how stacked the deck is.
And yet it hasn’t changed the results of those suits in terms of who prevailed at all, so that goes against your earlier claim.
There is a legal sea change going in in the rest of the country as it pertains to BigTech TOS, section 230, etc. and I know you feel it.
As far as judges are concerned? Not at all. They still interpret §230 to give interactive computer services like social media platforms broad protections regarding moderation and hosting, they haven’t ruled against TOS except on jurisdiction, and the defendant tech companies still prevail more often than not.
As far as local and state legislatures and executives? Yes on §230, but they don’t actually matter because of the Supremacy Clause. I haven’t seen anything about TOS that doesn’t involve §230.
As far as Congress goes? Yes on §230, kinda. There is a deadlock on the issue because Republicans’ reasons for wanting it gone are exactly the opposite of and incompatible with Democrats’ reasons. There are also those who are hesitant to make any changes to §230. So until they can agree on what changes to make, they don’t matter, either.
As far as the federal executive branch is concerned? It doesn’t matter. They’re bound by the law as it is, too.
Like I said 10 years ago it was just 'section 230. Dismissed!' More and more judges across the nation are allowing big tech cases to move forward and not dismissing under section 230.
Not really. The only times judges do do so, they generally are overturned on appeal. There hasn’t really been an increase in cases getting past §230, either.
He’d say (and has said) the same thing about non-Texans as well when they do the same, and he has praised Texas’s Anti-SLAPP Law a number of times, so claiming that “it's obvious he wants to bash Texans and Texas” is patently false.
As for them having “decided on their own how to handle their business”, they’re trying to regulate businesses that are principally in California (a state that Mike happens to reside in) in a way that is inconsistent with federal law (§230) and the US Constitution (1A). So, it’s not Texas or Texans’ business to regulate in this way, and it is very much Mike’s business to criticize it.
And no Mike, the bill dictates how terms of service which are legal contracts are to be enforced. States have every right to dictate how contracts are drafted and enforced in their states.
Not when it infringes on 1A rights like this.
Tough shit Mike! They wanted TOS to be treated as legal contracts they get the whole packaged. If you don't want state regulation don't have a contract. The moment you have a contract you surrender to state regulation.
Not necessarily. Regulation of what is or isn’t a legal contract is actually quite limited.
BigTech has proven itself incapable of abiding by even the most common of contract law.
Like what? Can you name a single instance of this?
Its so bad they seldom even bother to cite the TOS when sued because they are so vague and arbitrarily enforced that they aren't worth the paper they are not printed on.
No, it’s because of §230. They don’t need to cite the TOS in most cases because §230 protects them. (So does the 1A, for that matter.)
But, you know what? Let’s go with the whole “breach of contract” thing, just for kicks and giggles. If the contract expressly states that it can be severed by either party at any time (which most TOS does) without monetary penalty, then either party can unilaterally revoke the benefits of the contract for both parties. That’s pretty basic contract law right there. In this case, there was no monetary compensation for either party, and in booting someone off the platform, they also lose the content that person posted and any future value they may have. That’s in full keeping with lawful breach of contract. (You can only successfully sue over an unlawful breach of contract.)
It’s also worth noting that most companies use a lot of vague TOS in their contracts when dealing with stuff like this, not just Big Tech, so this is actually fairly standard in contract law, and not just in this particular industry, either.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Article 1 is perfectly benign. It uses the “culturally relevant” nomenclature, but has no other resemblance to anything you said. It doesn’t even use “CRT” but “CRP” (the P being for “Pedagogy”), and it has nothing to do with Critical Race Theory or any of the things either you or the CRT-alarmists complain about, so it is completely and utterly irrelevant.
The pamphlet sounds roughly like one view of CRT, but it seems upper high school level or college-level based on the wording, and it—again—is about critical examination. It is not teaching that it is true, but that it is a lens that can be used. Also, notice the questions at the end, which are similar to what you’d see in a standardized test asking you to discuss a paper about an idea, regardless of the merit of the idea itself. I had to do a similar one on a pro-fascism paper, so—again—not really alarming.
The PJ Media one is typical alarmist BS. It also says nothing about anything else being said in the discussion. For all we know, when it says “this is about revenge”, they are about to tell a true story that involves revenge, not advocating revenge, and not to spread the information because of sensitive private information being discussed in the anecdote. We simply don’t have enough information to judge. I also don’t see how this involves teaching CRT to K-12. We just have the writer of the article saying it was about teaching Critical Race Theory to someone. Setting aside the fact that writer is clearly biased (they make zero attempt at hiding it), that’s so vague as to be meaningless for the purposes of this discussion. Speaking of, this doesn’t prove your claims about either the terminology or the ideas either, so, really, why did you bring this up.
And as for the New York school pamphlet you refer to, unless it’s one of the items above (which I highly doubt since none of them use the same terminology you do), I have no idea what you’re talking about, but all the evidence I do have points to that not being the “actual” terminology. Heck, the one that comes closest to your terminology (which still isn’t quite right) involves completely unrelated ideas and concepts, while the other two, which come closer to (but not quite the same as) the ideas you claim use the terminology I have heard, and one is clearly biased while the other is written by proponents of the idea and is clearly presented as something to discuss, not as a central thesis you should believe without further thought. The existence of a single pamphlet—regardless of its contents—does not prove your claims about what the “actual used terminology” is or the ideas behind them are when all other available evidence points to the opposite conclusion, including all the evidence you yourself provided, even the evidence most biased in your favor.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re:
Then please point to a single evidence-based instance of any elementary, middle, or high school teaching what you call “culturally relevant teaching”. (That’s not actually a term people actually use, by the way, including the opponents to CRT (whatever you think it stands for), but I’m just playing ball to see if you have anything to back up your claims.)
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re:
You really have no idea what critical race theory is, do you? It doesn’t have anything to do with communism at all, nor does it portray things the way you say. Honestly, even your portrayal of it doesn’t have any of the ideological, political, or economic aspects of communism at all, so I have no idea where you got that from.
More importantly, though, as I already mentioned, neither critical race theory nor your depiction of it are taught in elementary or middle school, or really even in high school. CRT (the real one) is taught in some (not all) universities as one way of looking at our history and current events. Also, as I said, it’s not being taught as a fact but as a theory.
And I know what a motte-and-bailey fallacy is, but what you’re doing is the inverse. Rather than taking something unpopular and dressing it up as something benign, you’re taking something benign and making it sound like something controversial.
But let’s go through this: Let’s say that CRT is as you describe. Well, that’s not being taught at all, so you’re against something that doesn’t exist. Furthermore, no part of CRT is taught before college, so banning CRT in K-12 is utterly pointless, either as CRT actually is or as you portray it.
So basically, when you say, “I’m opposed to teaching CRT in schools,” either you’re opposed to something that doesn’t actually exist, or you’re against something that is not actually controversial.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time
If the total number of undocumented immigrants did not decrease, that means the wall isn’t actually doing anything. And since that number has not gone down, it doesn’t matter whether or not they are crossing where the “wall” was built.
And “border security” =/= a physical barrier at the border.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your
I’m just stating this for the record, but Trump had no plan for vaccine distribution. He also hindered the whole thing by minimizing the importance of stopping COVID.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your
Not really. I’m not saying Biden couldn’t have done better, but Trump made things worse by freeing imprisoned members of the Taliban.
Not really. Is this about the Keystone XL Pipeline? Because almost none of that oil was going to be sold in the states, and it was coming from a Canadian company drilling in Canada. It was going to be piped from Canada to Louisiana, where it would be packaged and shipped to other countries via the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. It would also not be the sort of oil used for gasoline, which is the form of oil used most to generate energy (as opposed to lubrication or making plastics). That would not have helped our energy independence one iota.
Plus, outside of gasoline (which, again, the Keystone XL pipeline would not have helped with), oil isn’t used to produce much energy in the US. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, and renewable resources are far more commonly used for energy here outside of gas-powered devices, and those can be replaced with electric-powered versions. Going for that seems like a better way to achieve energy independence.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to chan
Bush II promised a fence, and it was started and completed while he was in office. Obama promised no wall or additional fencing.
Trump mostly just replaced some of what was already there and wanted to expand it. He also wanted a sturdy wall and not just fencing, but that didn’t happen. It also has clearly done nothing to reduce undocumented immigrants from entering the US, so…
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
When I said “lawfully detained”, I meant “detained as the term is defined under US law”, not “detained for a lawful reason”. Sorry. I should have been clearer.
My point was to mention that, if a cop is approaching you for a “consensual encounter”, you are legally entitled to run from the encounter, even if that cop tells you to stop running a while later. This is from a California case about a jogger who was approached by police and ran down a hiking trail who later sued for violation of his rights against unlawful arrest and unlawful retaliation (he was also a cop) and succeeded.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting
Irrelevant. Masnick has no other association with Twitter except as a user, and Twitter has no affiliation with The Copia Institute, so anything Masnick has to say cannot be used as evidence against Twitter.
You also haven’t proven that he is the founder of The Copia Institute or that he still is associated with the Institute in any meaningful way.
So what? That Twitter’s decisions can be influenced by Masnick doesn’t prove that anything Masnick says regarding Twitter is material or relevant to the case against Twitter.
Masnick was neither the first nor the last to make such a proposal, nor does this prove that Masnick’s statements on Twitter’s TOS are admissible evidence against Twitter.
One instance is not evidence of a trend, and that still doesn’t make what he said about TOS admissible evidence in a case against Twitter, making that whole thing irrelevant to begin with. Unless Masnick was personally and directly involved with the decision or was an employee or executive of Twitter, nothing he says can be used to prove a case against Twitter.
You not only can’t spell, you also can’t count. “No meeting of the minds” and “contract is ambiguous” are two separate things. Additionally, you forgot one other basic thing that voids a contract: no consideration.
As for “contract is ambiguous”, that doesn’t actually void a contract. It does require a judge or mediator to decide the most reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous clause based upon a variety of factors, but it’s not enough to render the clause void.
In fact, you’re even conflating finding a particular clause void and finding the entire contract void. Just because a particular clause is void doesn’t make the entire contract void.
The legal persons thing is obviously inapplicable since you can’t have a lawsuit if any plaintiffs or defendants are not legal persons.
As for “meeting of the minds”, that isn’t necessary in this sort of clickwrap contract, as has been decided in multiple court cases. All that is necessary is that both parties willingly and knowingly agreed to the terms.
Finally, as for public policy, that is rarely used to void a contract (aside from “choice of venue” clauses, but that is generally severable from the rest of the contract and so doesn’t apply here). Generally, it’d have to involve actually censoring someone (not just moderating content on their platform or kicking off or suspending users from using their platform) or something really huge. None of those would apply to the parts of TOS involving what content can be moderated and such, so this wouldn’t void the contract as it relates to moderation decisions.
I don’t think you know much about millennials. For one thing, I’m barely a millennial (on the older side), and I know that Mike and Stephen, at least, are significantly older than me, so they aren’t millennials.
You also haven’t cited a law or case in support of your claim that TOS can’t be written ambiguously, just the syllabus of an imaginary course taken by the imaginary judge in this imaginary case. Imaginary things are not evidence. Also, if they’re old, how would you even get the syllabus for the specific class they took when they were in law school? Are you trying to make your imagined scenario sound ridiculous? Because if so, you’re succeeding.
Actually, they rarely would in a motion to dismiss that invokes §230 and/or the 1st Amendment, and those issues would trump any issues involving the TOS, so that would be irrelevant.
Again, that doesn’t matter if they’re not citing the parts that relate to moderation but just the ones regarding proper venue. Which venue is proper has nothing to do with the application of §230.
At best, even if you’re right about it being ambiguous (rather than vague or broad), and even if ambiguity was sufficient to void a clause in a contract (which it usually isn’t), that would only affect the clause regarding reasons for being removed from the service, not the venue. Most likely, even granting the same, it would only void the ambiguous parts within the TOS, not the entire thing.
Plus, it’s irrelevant to the §230 inquiry whether or not the contract is void or not. And if it is void, that basically means you can’t use the service anyways, so… What is the point?
Finally, the TOS are written broadly, not ambiguously. The issue isn’t that there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the plain text; the issue is that the TOS are written to cover a large amount of content and that Twitter can enforce them at its own discretion. And ambiguity doesn’t void a contract to begin with.
Incorrect. As I’ve said before, the good faith requirement only appears in part 2(A), and it doesn’t apply to part 1, which is the most used part of §230, including for immunity for moderation decisions. As such, even bad faith moderation decisions are often immunized.
No, it is not evidence of bad faith.
First, again, Twitter or one of its employees, executives, or representatives would have had to make that admission, not some third party. Such an “admission” coming from anyone but Twitter is inadmissible evidence. That something Mike wrote on a different topic may have (or even definitely did) influence at least one of Twitter’s decisions not related to this lawsuit or the events being sued over doesn’t make what he said on this subject admissible evidence regarding Twitter’s state of mind on this subject and thus has no bearing on this lawsuit at all as it relates to Twitter.
Second, the “admission” is that TOS are written broadly, not ambiguously. As I stated earlier, those are two very different things.
Third, that wouldn’t be evidence of bad faith with regards to whether §230 protects Twitter here. For one thing, the question is whether or not the moderation decision itself was in bad faith, not the writing of the TOS. Additionally, deliberate ambiguity (or broadness) in a TOS is not evidence of bad faith because it is feasible that both parties wanted that ambiguity (or broadness) or knowingly and willingly agreed to it.
Fourth, again, the ambiguity/broadness would only affect that one term. If Twitter cites any unambiguous or specific clause in support, that one is ambiguous or broad is immaterial.
Finally, courts typically interpret “good faith” as it applies to part 2(A) of §230 quite broadly, so it is very difficult to prove bad faith on such a claim.
That’s not how it works. Again, you’re focusing on part 2(A) when most motions to dismiss involving §230 (including most that are about moderation decisions) cite and are decided on part 1, which does not have a good faith requirement. Additionally, the contract is neither void due to supposed ambiguity nor evidence of bad faith to begin with, so discovery is unnecessary to resolve the applicability of §230 immunity.
We weren’t arguing about choice of venue, and you barely even mentioned it outside of saying that Twitter mentioned it in its motion to dismiss without saying anything else. So, as far as this discussion goes, it’s irrelevant, but you also haven’t presented a case to support it.
If this happened, it would likely be overturned on appeal, at least under the scenario you imagined and presented. Of course, few judges would ever make such a claim, so that’s kinda a moot point. It is also highly unlikely to make it past summary judgment even if it made it that far.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re:
Lots of engineers I know have excellent spelling, so that’s flat out wrong.
But that aside, if you’re such a bad speller, try using autocorrect or a spell checker or something. It’s not that hard. Smartphones often have them on by default, and PC internet browsers usually have an option for it, too. They’re not perfect, mind, but they should catch things like “subesquent” at least.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re:
When the man who claims to be a wise man because he “knows” things that are not in evidence calls the men he meets “unaware” because he believes they don’t “know” and that they think something they don’t actually believe…
…that man is shown to be quite the fool.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Setting aside the fact that you’re mostly wrong here, let’s talk about the whole “battery” thing and pretend that’s true.
Okay, so that means that there are limitations on the means that can be taken to remove a trespasser and/or who can do the removing. It doesn’t put any conditions on whether someone can remove a trespasser by some means, nor does it in any way restrict whether or why a person can be declared a trespasser to begin with or whether or why that trespasser can be removed once they are declared a trespasser.
When we’re saying “kick someone out” in these discussions, the “how” they are kicked out is immaterial to the point we’re making. Unless you’re willing to claim that having your content or your account on an online platform like a social media site suspended, deleted, banned, or removed is battery (or even assault), the limitations on “how” the removal may take place that you’ve mentioned don’t really apply to such platforms at all.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re:
I do know about critical race theory, but I don’t think you do. All it is is examining history through the lens that racism has had a profound impact on America throughout its history. It’s just a theory, not being taught as fact, either, and only in college.
Also, you keep bringing up motte-and-bailey fallacy, but you never explain how it even applies.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: 'I'm wearing shoes and shirt just not pants so I'm good.
Do you not realize that this proves that an ambiguous contract is not necessarily legally void?
Also, there’s a difference between “ambiguous” and “vague”. The former could have one of several distinct meanings based on a plain reading of the text. The latter means the meaning is unclear or unspecific. Those are very different things.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!
I said the exact same things before Mike did, and I have no affiliation whatsoever with any social media company at all.
Additionally, on what grounds would you sue him over? You can’t force him to give up any evidence you want unless you already have good evidence to link him to the defendant (or is the defendant) and can articulate how the evidence would help your legal case.
And no, the proportion of cases where §230 is asserted such that it fails to persuade the judge and does not get overturned on appeal has not substantially increased over the past decade or so. And whether or not the rule in favor of defendants’ jurisdiction arguments is completely irrelevant when discussing §230 and moderation.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Duh!
No, it is not. There is nothing in contract law that says you can’t have ambiguous terms, and it certainly doesn’t help prove bad faith.
Only regarding part 2(A). Part 1 also protects moderation decisions to a large extent and doesn’t require good faith.
Preponderance of the evidence, yes. 51%-49%? No. Preponderance of the evidence generally requires more than just barely-more-than-even. It’s lower than “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, sure, but that’s basically saying it’s lower than 99.999%.
What some unaffiliated third party says has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. It also has no bearing on a motion to dismiss, which is about questions of law, not fact.
Again, no. Only those directly affiliated with the defendant matter on this, but even so, ambiguous clauses are far from sufficient evidence of bad faith.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it is not. The bar for defamation is very high. Calling something “disinformation” is a statement of opinion, which means it’s not defamatory.
Incorrect. The reason they try to have the venue in California is, at least in part, because of California’s strong anti-SLAPP law, one of the strongest in the country, which makes it much easier to dismiss meritless cases about speech early on and to get legal fees paid if you prevail.
And yet it hasn’t changed the results of those suits in terms of who prevailed at all, so that goes against your earlier claim.
As far as judges are concerned? Not at all. They still interpret §230 to give interactive computer services like social media platforms broad protections regarding moderation and hosting, they haven’t ruled against TOS except on jurisdiction, and the defendant tech companies still prevail more often than not.
As far as local and state legislatures and executives? Yes on §230, but they don’t actually matter because of the Supremacy Clause. I haven’t seen anything about TOS that doesn’t involve §230.
As far as Congress goes? Yes on §230, kinda. There is a deadlock on the issue because Republicans’ reasons for wanting it gone are exactly the opposite of and incompatible with Democrats’ reasons. There are also those who are hesitant to make any changes to §230. So until they can agree on what changes to make, they don’t matter, either.
As far as the federal executive branch is concerned? It doesn’t matter. They’re bound by the law as it is, too.
Not really. The only times judges do do so, they generally are overturned on appeal. There hasn’t really been an increase in cases getting past §230, either.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Evidence?
I don’t think you understand the first thing about common law. Hint: It doesn’t contradict anything Mike has said in this article.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Mike Masnick isn't a Texan
He’d say (and has said) the same thing about non-Texans as well when they do the same, and he has praised Texas’s Anti-SLAPP Law a number of times, so claiming that “it's obvious he wants to bash Texans and Texas” is patently false.
As for them having “decided on their own how to handle their business”, they’re trying to regulate businesses that are principally in California (a state that Mike happens to reside in) in a way that is inconsistent with federal law (§230) and the US Constitution (1A). So, it’s not Texas or Texans’ business to regulate in this way, and it is very much Mike’s business to criticize it.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act
Not when it infringes on 1A rights like this.
Not necessarily. Regulation of what is or isn’t a legal contract is actually quite limited.
Like what? Can you name a single instance of this?
No, it’s because of §230. They don’t need to cite the TOS in most cases because §230 protects them. (So does the 1A, for that matter.)
But, you know what? Let’s go with the whole “breach of contract” thing, just for kicks and giggles. If the contract expressly states that it can be severed by either party at any time (which most TOS does) without monetary penalty, then either party can unilaterally revoke the benefits of the contract for both parties. That’s pretty basic contract law right there. In this case, there was no monetary compensation for either party, and in booting someone off the platform, they also lose the content that person posted and any future value they may have. That’s in full keeping with lawful breach of contract. (You can only successfully sue over an unlawful breach of contract.)
It’s also worth noting that most companies use a lot of vague TOS in their contracts when dealing with stuff like this, not just Big Tech, so this is actually fairly standard in contract law, and not just in this particular industry, either.
Next >>