It's difficult to tell if the politicians who don't understand that repealing/"reforming" ยง230 are willfully ignorant or know what would happen but are lying through their teeth.
Neither. It's all about pwning the libs, end of story. The more upset we sound about it, the more they want to prod us with a sharp stick. Fun times for them, until the shit hits the fan.
First person to NOT be taken down - #45.
First person to realize that he's not getting any response because there's no one present in the room - #45
First person to threaten a lawsuit because "the platform doesn't allow anyone else in here to listen to me - #45.
Last person to get a clue that maybe dumping S230 wasn't such a good idea after all - you guessed, #45.
The word "want" is key to the discussion. In this case, I have the tools to re-arrange the incoming code (and not limited to just HTML), so I can "edit" the incoming page on the fly. Where a server/page owner travels into John Deere country (in their recurring role Copyright-Asshole-Extraordinaire), I somewhat rudely disengage with that server/page owner... and likely will not return any time soon.
Last time I checked (this morning), no one has any kind of right to take over my equipment and force me to see what they want me to see. If all else fails (by that I mean that my toolset isn't up to snuff), there's always the Big Power Switch - works every time, I swear.
Your plaint falls on deaf ears, seeing as how you failed to read the room.
The article isn't castigating the users for not moving on to friendlier pastures, it's castigating the platform(s) for being arbitrary and capricious. Look at it this way; we have rules of the road for driving, no? Well, they are there so that everyone can expect the same behavior of every other driver on the road, at all times.
Samo-samo here. The platforms (Twitch, in this case) can't seem to get together a set of rules, and then adhere to them. This lowers both expectations and enjoyment for all of the platform's users, both creators and viewers. In any sense of how to run a business, that's not good for the bottom line.
IOW, "Twitch, the MySpace of creator's platforms." is likely to become a reality, unless they get their shit together. And soon.
P84 is correct. If I click on "Filed Under: amouranth", I get only this current article. Ditto for clicking on "hot tub streaming", this article only. I vaguely recall mention of her, but the tagging/filed under system seems to be out of kilter on this one....
One of the problems with websites that I've never had satisfactorily explained to me is why do they think they are in control of my browsing experience. My usual response to that is "No, I am in charge of what appears on my computer monitor. I paid for my equipment, my connection to the internet, and whatever else that might be necessary, so until you take over those payments, then you can fuck right off with that crap."
If they (the corps/websites) can get a law passed that says otherwise, then I'll happily go back to using Lynx and Pine for my internet experience. That'll get their knickers in a first-class twist, I'm sure.
A community is a company without a vision of profits, nor even a revenue steam. Lump too many communities into one place (a platform), and you'll get a repeat of Canter and Siegel, the two lawyers who spammed nearly 6,000 usenet groups in 1994. (The accepted first instance of spam.) And that was for a commercial concern, which in turn translates to advertising... as in, for money. I'm sure you can see the connection between them and Facebook, yes?
The fact that you consider an action to be abusive does not mean that it is an abuse. In fact, "content moderation", as you call it, is sanctified in the First Amendment. We can all thank Gawd that you are not in charge of the Internet!
As to your first post, I've flagged it as Troll because you are obviously Koby using a different name. Nice try, but no go, pal. I'll flag this one too, once I've finished this response.
Got it. The basic premise is that without oversight or accountability of a major portion of the State's administration, the citizens of Alabama are essentially cast into the abyss of Taxation Without Representation. I believe that's a Federal No-No, but I could be wrong about that one, I dunno.
Would it surprise you to learn that all 9 justices of that court are.... Republicans?
I don't know exactly how many Democrats there might be living in Alabama, but I'm betting pretty heavily that none of them, the media included, will stand up and sue the State in Federal court, for denial of simple rights. Obviously the charge will have to be ginned up to use legalese language, but the basic premise stands - the public is no longer allowed to ascertain the nominal business of police activity in their state.
Here's hoping I'm wrong about who's got balls enough to go to the mat on this one.
Re: "experts" opining on things in which they have no expertise
When an expert (that I recognize as such) tells me X about Y, I usually listen carefully. When a batch of people I've never heard of before, all claiming to be experts, tell me to do something, I generally tell them to get fscked, and do the opposite. That's not contrarian thinking, that's realizing that what P.T. Barnum said about there being an expert born every minute is as close to Gospel as I need to get.
^ Building one's own VPN from scratch does indeed require a high level of competence. But even I'm too lazy to do that, in spite of any competence I might possess. Best to fit ready-built parts and pieces together, and have a working unit (or at least 98% of one) right out of the box.
I did this years ago, with instructions from another source, and so far, I've not been tagged for downloading something that I shouldn't have.
That's not the only way, but it works. I'd say "trust me", but that would invoke issues of.... trust. Let's not go down that particular road just now, OK? ;)
NordVPN won a lawsuit a few years ago (in Eastern Texas, of all places), stating unequivocally that they do not keep logs, and no one can prove otherwise. The judge was forced to accept this, as the plaintiff could only state that it was both easy, and the normal procedure, to make and keep logs, but they also had to admit that there was no legal requirement to do so.
I am unaware if any other VPN provider has gone through a lawsuit with the same results. IIRC, at least one provider did indeed cough up logs that were supposedly never made in the first place. Can't recall which provider though, sorry.
On the post: Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants
Re: Stupid or lying?
Neither. It's all about pwning the libs, end of story. The more upset we sound about it, the more they want to prod us with a sharp stick. Fun times for them, until the shit hits the fan.
First person to NOT be taken down - #45.
First person to realize that he's not getting any response because there's no one present in the room - #45
First person to threaten a lawsuit because "the platform doesn't allow anyone else in here to listen to me - #45.
Last person to get a clue that maybe dumping S230 wasn't such a good idea after all - you guessed, #45.
On the post: Charter Spectrum Threatens To Ruin Potential Customers Over Debt They Don't Owe
Re:
Congratulations, you just passed the test covering Inflation, in Econ 101.
On the post: Facebook Banning & Threatening People For Making Facebook Better Is Everything That's Wrong With Facebook
Re: Re:
The word "want" is key to the discussion. In this case, I have the tools to re-arrange the incoming code (and not limited to just HTML), so I can "edit" the incoming page on the fly. Where a server/page owner travels into John Deere country (in their recurring role Copyright-Asshole-Extraordinaire), I somewhat rudely disengage with that server/page owner... and likely will not return any time soon.
Last time I checked (this morning), no one has any kind of right to take over my equipment and force me to see what they want me to see. If all else fails (by that I mean that my toolset isn't up to snuff), there's always the Big Power Switch - works every time, I swear.
On the post: Twitch, Others, Ban Amouranth Yet Again, Once Again With Zero Transparency
Re: Why do they need a reason?
Your plaint falls on deaf ears, seeing as how you failed to read the room.
The article isn't castigating the users for not moving on to friendlier pastures, it's castigating the platform(s) for being arbitrary and capricious. Look at it this way; we have rules of the road for driving, no? Well, they are there so that everyone can expect the same behavior of every other driver on the road, at all times.
Samo-samo here. The platforms (Twitch, in this case) can't seem to get together a set of rules, and then adhere to them. This lowers both expectations and enjoyment for all of the platform's users, both creators and viewers. In any sense of how to run a business, that's not good for the bottom line.
IOW, "Twitch, the MySpace of creator's platforms." is likely to become a reality, unless they get their shit together. And soon.
On the post: Twitch, Others, Ban Amouranth Yet Again, Once Again With Zero Transparency
Re: Regular readers?
P84 is correct. If I click on "Filed Under: amouranth", I get only this current article. Ditto for clicking on "hot tub streaming", this article only. I vaguely recall mention of her, but the tagging/filed under system seems to be out of kilter on this one....
On the post: Facebook Banning & Threatening People For Making Facebook Better Is Everything That's Wrong With Facebook
One of the problems with websites that I've never had satisfactorily explained to me is why do they think they are in control of my browsing experience. My usual response to that is "No, I am in charge of what appears on my computer monitor. I paid for my equipment, my connection to the internet, and whatever else that might be necessary, so until you take over those payments, then you can fuck right off with that crap."
If they (the corps/websites) can get a law passed that says otherwise, then I'll happily go back to using Lynx and Pine for my internet experience. That'll get their knickers in a first-class twist, I'm sure.
On the post: Facebook Banning & Threatening People For Making Facebook Better Is Everything That's Wrong With Facebook
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Toom, were you perhaps a master of Zen in previous life? You sure get to the heart of the matter in the shortest way possible. ;)
On the post: Facebook Banning & Threatening People For Making Facebook Better Is Everything That's Wrong With Facebook
Re: Re: Re:
A community is a company without a vision of profits, nor even a revenue steam. Lump too many communities into one place (a platform), and you'll get a repeat of Canter and Siegel, the two lawyers who spammed nearly 6,000 usenet groups in 1994. (The accepted first instance of spam.) And that was for a commercial concern, which in turn translates to advertising... as in, for money. I'm sure you can see the connection between them and Facebook, yes?
On the post: Facebook Banning & Threatening People For Making Facebook Better Is Everything That's Wrong With Facebook
Re: Re: Re:
The fact that you consider an action to be abusive does not mean that it is an abuse. In fact, "content moderation", as you call it, is sanctified in the First Amendment. We can all thank Gawd that you are not in charge of the Internet!
As to your first post, I've flagged it as Troll because you are obviously Koby using a different name. Nice try, but no go, pal. I'll flag this one too, once I've finished this response.
On the post: Why Section 230 'Reform' Effectively Means Section 230 Repeal
Re:
Good luck with that one!
On the post: Alabama Supreme Court Rules Law Enforcement Can Withhold Almost All Records Indefinitely
Re:
Got it. The basic premise is that without oversight or accountability of a major portion of the State's administration, the citizens of Alabama are essentially cast into the abyss of Taxation Without Representation. I believe that's a Federal No-No, but I could be wrong about that one, I dunno.
On the post: Alabama Supreme Court Rules Law Enforcement Can Withhold Almost All Records Indefinitely
Re:
Alabama - codifying qualified immunity, one court case at a time.
On the post: Alabama Supreme Court Rules Law Enforcement Can Withhold Almost All Records Indefinitely
Would it surprise you to learn that all 9 justices of that court are.... Republicans?
I don't know exactly how many Democrats there might be living in Alabama, but I'm betting pretty heavily that none of them, the media included, will stand up and sue the State in Federal court, for denial of simple rights. Obviously the charge will have to be ginned up to use legalese language, but the basic premise stands - the public is no longer allowed to ascertain the nominal business of police activity in their state.
Here's hoping I'm wrong about who's got balls enough to go to the mat on this one.
On the post: Most People Probably Don't Need A VPN, Experts Now Advise
Re: "experts" opining on things in which they have no expertise
When an expert (that I recognize as such) tells me X about Y, I usually listen carefully. When a batch of people I've never heard of before, all claiming to be experts, tell me to do something, I generally tell them to get fscked, and do the opposite. That's not contrarian thinking, that's realizing that what P.T. Barnum said about there being an expert born every minute is as close to Gospel as I need to get.
On the post: Most People Probably Don't Need A VPN, Experts Now Advise
Re: Re:
^ Building one's own VPN from scratch does indeed require a high level of competence. But even I'm too lazy to do that, in spite of any competence I might possess. Best to fit ready-built parts and pieces together, and have a working unit (or at least 98% of one) right out of the box.
I did this years ago, with instructions from another source, and so far, I've not been tagged for downloading something that I shouldn't have.
On the post: Most People Probably Don't Need A VPN, Experts Now Advise
Re: Re: useful
I'd start with TorrentFreak:
https://torrentfreak.com/best-vpn-anonymous-no-logging/
Notice specifically Question #6, about court cases. Now look at the responses by various companies.
On the post: Most People Probably Don't Need A VPN, Experts Now Advise
Re:
Try this on for size:
https://www.wizcase.com/blog/how-to-create-your-own-vpn-in-the-cloud/
That's not the only way, but it works. I'd say "trust me", but that would invoke issues of.... trust. Let's not go down that particular road just now, OK? ;)
On the post: Most People Probably Don't Need A VPN, Experts Now Advise
Re: Re: How to trust?
NordVPN won a lawsuit a few years ago (in Eastern Texas, of all places), stating unequivocally that they do not keep logs, and no one can prove otherwise. The judge was forced to accept this, as the plaintiff could only state that it was both easy, and the normal procedure, to make and keep logs, but they also had to admit that there was no legal requirement to do so.
I am unaware if any other VPN provider has gone through a lawsuit with the same results. IIRC, at least one provider did indeed cough up logs that were supposedly never made in the first place. Can't recall which provider though, sorry.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: October 3rd - 9th
Re: Fifteen Years Later, Just Sayin' .....
Yeah, the Led escaped unscathed, after some hotly contested jury instructions that were appealed, more than once.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/10/entertainment/led-zeppellin-stairway-heaven-lawsuit-trnd/index. html
On the post: Investigation: CBP Targeted Journalists, Illegally Shared Info With Mexico, And Attempted To Cover It All Up
Re: Re: Re: Re: Acronym undefined
It was a play on words, Paul, that's all. A bit of off-topic humor, if you will.
Next >>