Re: Re: Re: Okay, you've come out FOR censoring "literal Na
Without 230 they WOULDN'T be protected by a notice or takedown scheme.
And even if they were, they would make it EXTREMELY EASY to carry out censorship.
As determing whether something is defamatory is even harder then determing whether someone is copyright infringement any request to takedown ANY sought of negative comment would likely be carried out.
Without Section 230, someone could use a Burner IP to post silly defamationary remarks about themselves and the sue the site for libel for a bit of cash.
It's just as plausible as anything that you have come up with.
Your scenario is FAR more likely to happen in a world without Section 230.
WIth Section 230, review sites can safely exist.
Without Section 230, review sites would be MUCH rarer due to liabilty issues.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but for quite some time know some random idiot has been coming in and keeps making random idiot comments about Section 230 and how it apparently causing vast numbers of people to have there reputations destroyed by random comments on the internet.
Your bringing in of Section 230 on something unrelated made you like like him.
You're an idiot who deons't understand how defamation laws work.
You can't sue for damages you inflict on yourself, not that you'd have any in this case.
A bunch of anonymous insults isn't going to silence a whistleblower.
Getting their content taken down and preventing anyone else from hosting it will.
Without section 230, silencing whistle blowers would be much easier.
And many of those websites will only allow comments for certain aritcles and disallow them for others. I've lost count of how many times I've seen "we are not accepting comments for legal reasons." on the Daily Mail for example.
And the quantity of UGC on websites with comment sections is tiny compared to what you have on youtube, twitter, facebook, tumblr, reddit, deviantart, ETC.
Because if people realised that they were being trolled for obtaining a pirated version of the game then they would be encouraged to not pirate the next game.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "accounts with larg
The long gaps aren't "odd".
This type of stuff (long absences followed by a return) is perfectly normal.
I've done this type of thing adleast once before on another site.
It's not even weak evidence in favour of astroturfing. Your just clutching at straws.
Sectoin 230 does nothing to stop you going after the people who actually post the content.
Before section 230 supreme court cases ahd ruled that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.
Companies who did not moderate their content would not be liable for defamatroy content, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co.
Companies who engaged in moderation would be.
Removing defamatory content is something that where manually reading EVERY single comment is going to insufficient, as how exactly how is someone who is reading a comment made by someone they don't know about another person or entity they don't know, supposed to determined whether something is defamatory.
So therefore without Section 230, any site that wanted to host user generated content while also wanting to avoid exposing themselves to immense liability would be to simply engage in NO MODERATION WHAT SO EVER. So getting rid of Section 230 will do absolutely nothing to protect against defamation.
On the post: Student Sues College After Being Told Not To Exercise His First Amendment Rights Without The School's Permission
"Any student parade, serenade, demonstration, rally, and/or other meeting or gathering for any purpose "
So if I'm understanding this right, you need 3 days notice to do things like go on a date, return a borrowed item or help someone else study, WTF!
On the post: Very Confused Judge Allows Bizarre Copyright Lawsuit Against Cloudflare To Continue
Copyright law just hates it went MIke Masnik is enforced.
On the post: Prenda Mastermind Gets 14 Years In Prison, Told To Pay Back Just $1.5 Million
Copyright law just hates it went MIke Masnik is enforced.
On the post: Senator Hawley Proposes Law To Force Internet Companies To Beg The FTC For Permission To Host Content
Re: Re: Re: Okay, you've come out FOR censoring "literal Na
Without 230 they WOULDN'T be protected by a notice or takedown scheme.
And even if they were, they would make it EXTREMELY EASY to carry out censorship.
As determing whether something is defamatory is even harder then determing whether someone is copyright infringement any request to takedown ANY sought of negative comment would likely be carried out.
On the post: Senator Hawley Proposes Law To Force Internet Companies To Beg The FTC For Permission To Host Content
Re: Re: Fairness, the most essential American trait.
It is fully legal for a business to kick you off their premises for being an asshole.
On the post: Disney Wins 'Pirates Of The Caribbean' Copyright Suit As Court Declares You Cannot Copyright Pirate Life
Copyright law just hates it when Mike Masnick is enforced.
On the post: Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake
Re:
Without Section 230, someone could use a Burner IP to post silly defamationary remarks about themselves and the sue the site for libel for a bit of cash.
It's just as plausible as anything that you have come up with.
On the post: Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake
Re: Re: FRESH Zombie alert! 37 month GAP.
This behavior isn't even unusual.
I myself, on multiple occasions have taken mult-year long breaks from a site before coming back.
On the post: Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake
Re: Re:
Your scenario is FAR more likely to happen in a world without Section 230.
WIth Section 230, review sites can safely exist.
Without Section 230, review sites would be MUCH rarer due to liabilty issues.
On the post: GDPR Concerns Temporarily Result In The Removal Of Trash Cans From Ireland Post Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but for quite some time know some random idiot has been coming in and keeps making random idiot comments about Section 230 and how it apparently causing vast numbers of people to have there reputations destroyed by random comments on the internet.
Your bringing in of Section 230 on something unrelated made you like like him.
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re: Re:
You're an idiot who deons't understand how defamation laws work.
You can't sue for damages you inflict on yourself, not that you'd have any in this case.
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re: Re: Re:
A bunch of anonymous insults isn't going to silence a whistleblower.
Getting their content taken down and preventing anyone else from hosting it will.
Without section 230, silencing whistle blowers would be much easier.
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re: Re: Re:
And many of those websites will only allow comments for certain aritcles and disallow them for others. I've lost count of how many times I've seen "we are not accepting comments for legal reasons." on the Daily Mail for example.
And the quantity of UGC on websites with comment sections is tiny compared to what you have on youtube, twitter, facebook, tumblr, reddit, deviantart, ETC.
On the post: Pai FCC 'Solution' To Nation's Great Robocall Apocalypse? More Meetings
Re: Re: No problem in Europe
I've never recieved them in the UK.
Unlike when I'm in Hong Kong when I get one every couple of days or so.
On the post: Unsurprisingly, Larry Klayman's Veiled Threats And Insulting Of Judges Isn't Helping Roy Moore's $95 Million Defamation Lawsuit
Re:
Techdirt WON the lawsuit Shiva filed. Because Techdirt was telling the truth.
And here everything Tehcdirt says is the truth.
On the post: Game Devs Trolling Pirates Goes All The Way Back To At Least The Playstation Days With Spyro 2
Because if people realised that they were being trolled for obtaining a pirated version of the game then they would be encouraged to not pirate the next game.
On the post: Appeals Court: Idiot Cop Can Continue To Sue A Protester Over Actions Taken By Another Protester
Re: Re: Re:
The felony Murder rule is quite controversial ans there have been a number of highly controversial cases where it has been applied.
Such as https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/26/felony-murder-teenager-55-years-jail-indiana
On the post: Study: The 'War On Cops' Is Pure Bullshit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not comparable
These things are done on a per capita basis normally. So no, you're wrong.
On the post: Don't Regulate The Internet Like Every Company Is The Same
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "accounts with larg
The long gaps aren't "odd".
This type of stuff (long absences followed by a return) is perfectly normal.
I've done this type of thing adleast once before on another site.
It's not even weak evidence in favour of astroturfing. Your just clutching at straws.
On the post: New Paper: Why Section 230 Is Better Than The First Amendment
Re:
Sectoin 230 does nothing to stop you going after the people who actually post the content.
Before section 230 supreme court cases ahd ruled that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.
Companies who did not moderate their content would not be liable for defamatroy content, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co.
Companies who engaged in moderation would be.
Removing defamatory content is something that where manually reading EVERY single comment is going to insufficient, as how exactly how is someone who is reading a comment made by someone they don't know about another person or entity they don't know, supposed to determined whether something is defamatory.
So therefore without Section 230, any site that wanted to host user generated content while also wanting to avoid exposing themselves to immense liability would be to simply engage in NO MODERATION WHAT SO EVER. So getting rid of Section 230 will do absolutely nothing to protect against defamation.
Next >>