Section 230 was never meant to deprive individuals of their 1st Amendment Rights.
Right. Nor does it.
It does protect the 1st Amendment rights of website owners AND users, and also enable websites to create their own rules, which creates more spaces for speech online. At no point has 230 ever deprived anyone of their 1st Amendment rights.
It was meant to protect a nascent 1st Amendment industry.
This is simply not true. It was in response to two cases, one against CompuServe (owned by accounting giant H&R Block) and the other against Prodigy (founded by CBS and owned by IBM and Sears at the time of the case). And the authors of 230 have long said that it had nothing to do with "protecting a nascent" industry, but rather about properly applying liability across the internet.
Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube, have gone way beyond being nascent services.
Again, it has nothing to do with being nascent.
These companies with multi-billion dollar valuations don't need protection.
Again, when 230 passed Prodigy was owned by two multi-billion dollar companies in IBM and Sears. So, under your argument, Prodigy didn't need protection, even though 230 was written directly after Prodigy lost a case, and for the explicit intent of overturning it.
These companies are also taking direction from members of the Democrat Party.
Lol. You're an idiot. They are not. The White House made some silly statements, and the Republican Party has made just as many, if not more, silly statements. In neither case is there any evidence of any of the websites complying with those silly statements based on them.
You're really coming off as an ignorant, deluded fool. You should stop that.
The goal of section 230 reformers is the INCLUSION of content.
No, only among those who don't understand the 1st Amendment. Most of the serious proposals for 230 reform is to force more deletion of content.
The removal of political speech is typically not an automated decision, and so is often a deliberate decision.
What political speech has been removed Koby? People keep asking you this and you disappear each and every time. What political speech has been "deliberately" removed?
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
No one who knows even the first thing about any of this would think that's a true statement. It's nonsense, Koby.
Certainly the government should not be able to compel "any" privately owned service to host speech, however, the government does compel common carriers, such as telephony providers, to carry speech without moderation.
You are missing the key element here. "Carry" and common "carriers." The whole point of common carrier is about TRANSPORT. Getting goods, people, or information from point A to point B. It's a very brief, transitory affair.
It's VERY different to say someone must HOST content indefinitely.
Why would you want to delete an opposite point of view?
It's not an "opposite point of view," it's directly misinformation that is causing people to die. There's a difference between "a difference of opinion" and "blatantly false information that lead people to do things that will kill them."
Always in previous times if even 20 people died after being vaccinated that was sufficient to halt vaccinations. So now, it's in the thousands and you write that we need to censor that news?
This is blatantly false misinformation.
For why?
Because people like you are literally causing people to die. I don't know if you do it for shits and giggles or if your honestly this stupid, but stop it.
Looking at the docket at a given time any lawyer with a damn would know with near 100% certainty which judge they would draw.
That is literally not at all how it works.
That is why the Northern District has been such a preferred filing location for leftist challenging the Republican Governments laws. They always draw Hinkle, Hinkle always finds 'no compelling government interest', and the 11th circuit almost always @%^& slaps Hinkle across the face on appeal.
And when the 11th circuit upholds (easily), will you admit that you're full of shit? This isn't even a close call.
You're really not that bright, and you should stop thinking you know something about shit you clearly are ignorant of.
Judge shopping works in Waco, BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY ONE JUDGE. Judge Albright is the only judge in that court. And the issue is that they are filing in that random court in Texas rather than ANY OTHER COURT in the US (such as where the defendants are).
In THIS case, it was filed IN FLORIDA, because it was ABOUT A FLORIDA LAW and was filed in a district with MULTIPLE JUDGES.
It was not judge shopping and you're an ignorant fool.
Why is facebook.com someone else's space but geocities.com isn't?
Both are. My point is not to go back to Geocities. My response to the Geocities question was not to say we should bring back geocities, but to say that I don't want that. I want people to be able to control their own spaces. Not someone else's.
then the spokesperson for the top Democrat in the USA comes right out and says that Democrats are controlling Big Tech and are unpersoning conservatives.
At no point did they say anything like that, nor is that even remotely true.
They said they are pointing out misinformation to Facebook. That's it. If you think "misinformation" is synonymous with conservatives, that's... well... interesting. Second, they are not telling Big Tech they must ban people. They're pointing out "this is misinformation." And then Facebook gets to make the decision on what to do about it.
Oops! Hate when that happens.
When you lie to make shit up because you're a disingenuous asshole? Yeah, that is awkward.
I would agree on people having their personal space online. But then, why can't people have their own personal space that they control ON social media?
Because that's someone else's space. And no one gets to force someone else to let you do what you want in their space. I think you should have your own space -- but that's different from forcing someone else to let you do what you want in their space.
As a simplified analogy: if you want to walk around nude in your own home, go for it. But that doesn't mean McDonald's needs to allow you to walk around nude in their restaurant.
Lol. As someone whose very first website was on geocities, I did, in fact, laugh out oud at this. Though, I should also admit that I learned HTML because of that GeoCities page. But I do wish that more people had control over their own personal spaces online...
I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.
It's really not that hard. First of all, most kids won't care, won't notice, and it won't matter. For the few that do, you can easily say "that's a curse word that means something not nice," and the kids will forget about it and move on. At least that's been my experience.
Hiding it doesn't help. Teaching kids that it's impolite does.
On the post: Last Month In An LA Court I Witnessed The Future Of A World Without Section 230; It Was A Mess
Re: Section 230
Section 230 was never meant to deprive individuals of their 1st Amendment Rights.
Right. Nor does it.
It does protect the 1st Amendment rights of website owners AND users, and also enable websites to create their own rules, which creates more spaces for speech online. At no point has 230 ever deprived anyone of their 1st Amendment rights.
It was meant to protect a nascent 1st Amendment industry.
This is simply not true. It was in response to two cases, one against CompuServe (owned by accounting giant H&R Block) and the other against Prodigy (founded by CBS and owned by IBM and Sears at the time of the case). And the authors of 230 have long said that it had nothing to do with "protecting a nascent" industry, but rather about properly applying liability across the internet.
Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube, have gone way beyond being nascent services.
Again, it has nothing to do with being nascent.
These companies with multi-billion dollar valuations don't need protection.
Again, when 230 passed Prodigy was owned by two multi-billion dollar companies in IBM and Sears. So, under your argument, Prodigy didn't need protection, even though 230 was written directly after Prodigy lost a case, and for the explicit intent of overturning it.
These companies are also taking direction from members of the Democrat Party.
Lol. You're an idiot. They are not. The White House made some silly statements, and the Republican Party has made just as many, if not more, silly statements. In neither case is there any evidence of any of the websites complying with those silly statements based on them.
You're really coming off as an ignorant, deluded fool. You should stop that.
On the post: Last Month In An LA Court I Witnessed The Future Of A World Without Section 230; It Was A Mess
Re: Trademark Lawyers Would Hate Us
The goal of section 230 reformers is the INCLUSION of content.
No, only among those who don't understand the 1st Amendment. Most of the serious proposals for 230 reform is to force more deletion of content.
The removal of political speech is typically not an automated decision, and so is often a deliberate decision.
What political speech has been removed Koby? People keep asking you this and you disappear each and every time. What political speech has been "deliberately" removed?
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
No one who knows even the first thing about any of this would think that's a true statement. It's nonsense, Koby.
On the post: Techdirt Is Now Entirely Without Any Google Ads Or Tracking Code
Re: Upgrayed!!
Many thanks! We're working on some improvements for Behind the Curtain so stay tuned...
On the post: Techdirt Is Now Entirely Without Any Google Ads Or Tracking Code
Re:
Shh. You're going to ruin my reputation.
On the post: Senator Klobuchar Proposes An Unconstitutional Law That Would Kill Legions Of People If Trump Were Still President
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government censorship
we're all personally responsible for discerning the truth and finding the facts.
Sure. And one way to discern what is truth and what is not, is NOT TO HAVE BLATANTLY FALSE INFORMATION being spread around as if it was accurate.
On the post: Senator Klobuchar Proposes An Unconstitutional Law That Would Kill Legions Of People If Trump Were Still President
Re: Re: I have One Simple Question for you.
Certainly the government should not be able to compel "any" privately owned service to host speech, however, the government does compel common carriers, such as telephony providers, to carry speech without moderation.
You are missing the key element here. "Carry" and common "carriers." The whole point of common carrier is about TRANSPORT. Getting goods, people, or information from point A to point B. It's a very brief, transitory affair.
It's VERY different to say someone must HOST content indefinitely.
On the post: Anti-Vaxxers Countermeasures Show Why It's Not So Simple To Just 'Delete' Anti-Vax Misinfo On Social Media
Re: Curious
Why would you want to delete an opposite point of view?
It's not an "opposite point of view," it's directly misinformation that is causing people to die. There's a difference between "a difference of opinion" and "blatantly false information that lead people to do things that will kill them."
Always in previous times if even 20 people died after being vaccinated that was sufficient to halt vaccinations. So now, it's in the thousands and you write that we need to censor that news?
This is blatantly false misinformation.
For why?
Because people like you are literally causing people to die. I don't know if you do it for shits and giggles or if your honestly this stupid, but stop it.
On the post: Anti-Vaxxers Countermeasures Show Why It's Not So Simple To Just 'Delete' Anti-Vax Misinfo On Social Media
Re: Counterproductive
the idea that they could get demonetized or taken down at any moment seem to be giving them credibility.
No it doesn't, Koby.
On the post: FTC Formally Embraces Right To Repair As Movement Goes Mainstream
Re: Time for a new acronym
Rent-Seeking MotherFuckers
There's a shirt for that...
https://techdirt.threadless.com/designs/ok-landlord
On the post: Senators Klobuchar And Lujan Release Ridiculous, Blatantly Unconstitutional Bill To Make Facebook Liable For Health Misinformation
Re:
look into libel laws you morons
Health misinformation is unlikely to be libel. And what does that have to do with anything anyway?
On the post: Techdirt Has Been Released From A Gag Order Regarding A Federal Investigation Into A Silly Comment
Re:
Post silly comments, get visited by three Federal Marshals.
👀
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah no Judge Shopping lol
Looking at the docket at a given time any lawyer with a damn would know with near 100% certainty which judge they would draw.
That is literally not at all how it works.
That is why the Northern District has been such a preferred filing location for leftist challenging the Republican Governments laws. They always draw Hinkle, Hinkle always finds 'no compelling government interest', and the 11th circuit almost always @%^& slaps Hinkle across the face on appeal.
And when the 11th circuit upholds (easily), will you admit that you're full of shit? This isn't even a close call.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Re: Re: Re: Yeah no Judge Shopping lol
sigh
You're really not that bright, and you should stop thinking you know something about shit you clearly are ignorant of.
Judge shopping works in Waco, BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY ONE JUDGE. Judge Albright is the only judge in that court. And the issue is that they are filing in that random court in Texas rather than ANY OTHER COURT in the US (such as where the defendants are).
In THIS case, it was filed IN FLORIDA, because it was ABOUT A FLORIDA LAW and was filed in a district with MULTIPLE JUDGES.
It was not judge shopping and you're an ignorant fool.
On the post: The Eternal October: Bringing Back Tech Optimism, Without The Naivety
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is facebook.com someone else's space but geocities.com isn't?
Both are. My point is not to go back to Geocities. My response to the Geocities question was not to say we should bring back geocities, but to say that I don't want that. I want people to be able to control their own spaces. Not someone else's.
On the post: No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better
Re: Re: Re:
Masnick: Feds ain’t flagging wrongthink for Facebook.
I didn't say that.
Psaki: Uh, yeah, feds are flagging wrongthink for Facebook.
That's not what she said.
Masnick: Uh, well, ummm, errr, feds ain’t telling every social media company to unperson someone.
I never said that.
Psaki: Uh, yeah, feds are telling every social media company to unperson someone.
That's not what she said.
Are you always this bad at this? You look like an ignorant fucking tool.
On the post: No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better
Re: Yeah, we know
then the spokesperson for the top Democrat in the USA comes right out and says that Democrats are controlling Big Tech and are unpersoning conservatives.
At no point did they say anything like that, nor is that even remotely true.
They said they are pointing out misinformation to Facebook. That's it. If you think "misinformation" is synonymous with conservatives, that's... well... interesting. Second, they are not telling Big Tech they must ban people. They're pointing out "this is misinformation." And then Facebook gets to make the decision on what to do about it.
Oops! Hate when that happens.
When you lie to make shit up because you're a disingenuous asshole? Yeah, that is awkward.
Fuck off, you jackass.
On the post: The Eternal October: Bringing Back Tech Optimism, Without The Naivety
Re: Re: Re:
I would agree on people having their personal space online. But then, why can't people have their own personal space that they control ON social media?
Because that's someone else's space. And no one gets to force someone else to let you do what you want in their space. I think you should have your own space -- but that's different from forcing someone else to let you do what you want in their space.
As a simplified analogy: if you want to walk around nude in your own home, go for it. But that doesn't mean McDonald's needs to allow you to walk around nude in their restaurant.
On the post: WIPO Says Johnson & Johnson Can't Seize Parody Website Suggesting Band Aids With Corporate Sponsors
Re:
If you don't tell me where they are, I can't find them fast enough to matter.
On the post: The Eternal October: Bringing Back Tech Optimism, Without The Naivety
Re:
Lol. As someone whose very first website was on geocities, I did, in fact, laugh out oud at this. Though, I should also admit that I learned HTML because of that GeoCities page. But I do wish that more people had control over their own personal spaces online...
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re:
I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.
It's really not that hard. First of all, most kids won't care, won't notice, and it won't matter. For the few that do, you can easily say "that's a curse word that means something not nice," and the kids will forget about it and move on. At least that's been my experience.
Hiding it doesn't help. Teaching kids that it's impolite does.
Next >>