4) How would you keep corporations approaching your threshold from simply moving to different country and how would you attract new businesses to this country with them knowing that they would be penalized for being too successful?
...you pretended to quote the law and SIMPLY DELETED the
"in good faith" requirement!
Blue, your lack of intelligence is showing again.
"Good faith" is a legal term with a specific definition:
good faith - n. honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fulfill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. The term is applied to all kinds of transactions.
47 U.S. Code § 230 says:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of [...] any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected...
Taken in the context of this law, "good faith" simply means that the service provider must have honest intentions when removing speech they find to be objectionable. Intentions like keeping their site free from antisemitism or pornography or whatever they else they don't want on their site.
Once again you have read a legal term, didn't bother to look up the definition and have made yourself look foolish. Just like you did when you were spouting off how Techdirt's comment submission widget equates to a "form contract".
Yeah, out of all of Blue's weird notions, this one is especially weird.
He's worried that Section 230 is going to "empower corporations to control ALL speech", but if we eliminate Section 230 (and therefore effectively eliminating all UGC), the only speech remaining will be from corporations and governments.
Section 230 allows people to weaponize search engines, and if IP addresses don't prove authorship, or people use a "burner" IP that can't be traced (or are judgment-proof or posting from another country), the target of defamation is defenseless.
So what? The right of anonymous speech has existed prior to the Constitution of the United States and has been consistently upheld by our courts as a First Amendment right. The one difference between the right to anonymity and other 1A rights is the fact that once you give it up (or it's taken from you) you can never reclaim it. Once again to paraphrase Blackstone: "I'd rather 100 defamation cases go unpunished as opposed to one persons right to anonymity be stripped from them."
The other problem is that people believe what they read online...
Yes, some people are gullible and stupid, but that doesn't mean I have to give up my rights because of their shortcomings.
Section 230 is fatally flawed.
No, it's not. It's because of Section 230 that we are able to have this discussion in this comment section in the first place because this comment section wouldn't exist without it.
Personally, I made the decision to keep my and personal/professional identity and my online identity separate back in the late 90's and have never regretted it.
All the bullshit about Shiva paying Techdirt’s legal bills was proven to be bullshit.
The only thing that was proven to me is that we desperately need a Federal anti-SLAPP law to stop assholes, like you, from destroying the First Amendment via bullshit defamation lawsuits, like this one.
That's true, but sometimes some "adult words" are needed to drive a point across to willfully obtuse assholes.
You wouldn't speak so in person.
I surely the fuck would.
You wouldn't tolerate a bar that enforces the orthodoxy of here.
You don't get out much, do you?
The Internet is not separate, doesn't need relaxing of rules.
Nor does it need ADDITIONAL rules, either. I can tell someone that they are a fucking idiot and their notions are as dumb as a box of rocks at a bar, on the sidewalk or in a mall without giving anyone my name, address or any other personal information.
Once again, you are claiming that because the internet isn't different than real life it needs special rules and laws. How does that make any sense?
Section 230 was not intended to shield platforms from liability for providing tools that allow users to break the law...
What makes you think that providing tools that are sometimes used to break the law is illegal in the first place?
It's not illegal to produce lock picking tools in the US. It's not even illegal to possess such tools. Pretty much all of the laws dealing with "burglary tools" have an element of intent and in order for someone to be convicted of "possession of burglary tools" the government has to show that your intent was to do something illegal with them.
if a trans person asked for the courtesy of being referred to by a certain name or a certain set of pronouns, you have already said you will not treat them as you would wish to be treated “in a civil society”.
I guess I should have clarified myself a little on this. I have no problem referring to trans people as "they", "their" or "them" if I have actual knowledge of the person. What I won't do is use a silly made-up pronoun like "ze", "sie", "hir", "co" or "ey", nor will I attempt keep abreast of meanings of those words.
If I bump into a person at the mall, my immediate reaction is going to be "Excuse me, ma'me" or "Excuse me, sir" based on my split second examination of how they are presenting themselves to the world. If I am unsure of their gender, I will just say "Excuse me". That's how I was raised. If someone takes offense to an incorrect usage of their preferred pronoun in that situation I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”.
Ahh. I was unaware of the whole Steve King thing until I Google it after I made my previous comment. He strikes me as a bigoted fool which is probably why I've never paid much attention to him.
Ah, yes, the “fuck your feelings” mentality that is most often associated with people who like to say things such as “you need to be cured of the disease that is homosexuality”....
Ok. Now you are attempting to paint me as homophobic. Stop it, because I am not. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and I do support gay marriage because I believe that all loving couples should have the same legal benefits regards of orientation. The minister who married me and my wife is a gay man and his long time partner was my tax accountant for years. As a side note: My accountant was also the most politically ultra-conservative person I've ever met.
I also believe in a civil society and common courtesy and treating others the way I wish to be treated. I'm not going to go out of my way to be offensive unless I'm in a debate and my intention is to be snarky or offensive. I'm just saying that I am not going to be held responsible for someone else's reaction to my words.
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”.
I don't find the terms "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" in and of themselves to be offensive at all. The groups those terms actually describe I do find highly offensive. The terms themselves are just words.
As for "western civilization", I haven't a clue as to why that would be offensive at all, really.
You're defending intentionally saying things that you know are going to hurt people because you're too self-centered to consider their feelings when you speak to them.
Everything anyone says anywhere is going to offend someone somewhere.
Maybe it's just the generation I was raised in, but I don't really care if something I say offends someone. I was raised on "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me". I took that to mean that how I feel and how I react to words spoken to me are completely and totally my responsibility. Words can only hurt if one allows them to and the only people I grant that power to are those who are the closest to me.
Perhaps I was a bit too cavalier looking for laugh and I apologize for that, but, I'm still not going to be convinced there is a "third gender" that needs it's own bathroom anytime soon. Sorry.
You can when you come up with a transphobic joke that isn’t as tired and yawn-inducing as the one you just vomited out.
I am not transphobic whatsoever. Just a realist. Two sexes are all there is, period. People can self-identify as whatever they want to, I don't care, but I am not going change MY language for them.
There is also the RECAP project which is working towards freeing documents from PACER one at a time.
Just out of curiosity, why would an explosion of pro-se litigation be a bad thing? I don't see a society of people educated on the actual laws that govern them as bad, myself. Ignorance of the law has never been an viable excuse, right?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What if wrecking the internet is exactly the
And what is up with people using "you" as an informal second-person pronoun?
Hey you, stop telling me which pronouns I have to use!
Just kidding. I don't really care. Although, I do sometimes self-identify myself as a black Trans Am and prefer my pronoun to be "kitt". Can I get my own public bathroom now?
On the post: The FTC And Facebook: Why The $5 Billion Fine Is Both Too Little And Too Much
Re: Re:
Thought of another question:
4) How would you keep corporations approaching your threshold from simply moving to different country and how would you attract new businesses to this country with them knowing that they would be penalized for being too successful?
On the post: The FTC And Facebook: Why The $5 Billion Fine Is Both Too Little And Too Much
Re: Re:
Above comment is mine
On the post: Why Is The Washington Post Publishing Blatantly False Propaganda About Section 230?
Re: Re: Re:
Yep. That's me alright. Trying to "muddy up this cesspit" by quoting exact definitions and quoting actual statutes......
It sometimes amazes me that you still have the ability make me laugh after all these years, Blue.
On the post: Why Is The Washington Post Publishing Blatantly False Propaganda About Section 230?
Re:
Blue, your lack of intelligence is showing again.
"Good faith" is a legal term with a specific definition:
47 U.S. Code § 230 says:
Taken in the context of this law, "good faith" simply means that the service provider must have honest intentions when removing speech they find to be objectionable. Intentions like keeping their site free from antisemitism or pornography or whatever they else they don't want on their site.
Once again you have read a legal term, didn't bother to look up the definition and have made yourself look foolish. Just like you did when you were spouting off how Techdirt's comment submission widget equates to a "form contract".
On the post: Historical Documentation Of Key Section 230 Cases
Re:
Yeah, out of all of Blue's weird notions, this one is especially weird.
He's worried that Section 230 is going to "empower corporations to control ALL speech", but if we eliminate Section 230 (and therefore effectively eliminating all UGC), the only speech remaining will be from corporations and governments.
On the post: Republicans Blame CDA 230 For Letting Platforms Censor Too Much; Democrats Blame CDA 230 For Platforms Not Censoring Enough
Re:
So what? The right of anonymous speech has existed prior to the Constitution of the United States and has been consistently upheld by our courts as a First Amendment right. The one difference between the right to anonymity and other 1A rights is the fact that once you give it up (or it's taken from you) you can never reclaim it. Once again to paraphrase Blackstone: "I'd rather 100 defamation cases go unpunished as opposed to one persons right to anonymity be stripped from them."
Yes, some people are gullible and stupid, but that doesn't mean I have to give up my rights because of their shortcomings.
No, it's not. It's because of Section 230 that we are able to have this discussion in this comment section in the first place because this comment section wouldn't exist without it.
Personally, I made the decision to keep my and personal/professional identity and my online identity separate back in the late 90's and have never regretted it.
On the post: Prosecutor On Forfeiture Reforms: Making Us Prosecute Drugs Cases Will Make It Harder To Prosecute Drug Cases
Signed Into Law
Governor Whitmer signed this bill on May 9th. It goes into effect on or about January 1, 2020.
Michiganders beware. Law enforcement will undoubtedly try to pad their budgets for the remainder of this year while they still can.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/michigan/articles/2019-05-09/whitmer-signs-bills-to-lim it-asset-forfeiture-in-drug-cases
On the post: Laying Out All The Evidence: Shiva Ayyadurai Did Not Invent Email
Re: Shiva Proved Techdirt Can Be Punished
The only thing that was proven to me is that we desperately need a Federal anti-SLAPP law to stop assholes, like you, from destroying the First Amendment via bullshit defamation lawsuits, like this one.
On the post: Prince Harry Uses GDPR To Obtain Payout From Photographer Who Shot Photos Of His Rental Home
Re: If There’s One Way To Describe TechDirt
Your joking, right?
On the post: Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake
Re: Re: FRESH Zombie alert! 37 month GAP.
Geez Blue, hasn't anyone ever told you that you shoudn't run off at the mouth with Occam's razor in your hand?
On the post: Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake
Re: Re:
Right, because throughout it's history the internet has been renowned for it's absolute truthfulness in all things......
On the post: Austrian Government Wants To Outlaw Online Anonymity
Re:
That's true, but sometimes some "adult words" are needed to drive a point across to willfully obtuse assholes.
I surely the fuck would.
You don't get out much, do you?
Nor does it need ADDITIONAL rules, either. I can tell someone that they are a fucking idiot and their notions are as dumb as a box of rocks at a bar, on the sidewalk or in a mall without giving anyone my name, address or any other personal information.
Once again, you are claiming that because the internet isn't different than real life it needs special rules and laws. How does that make any sense?
On the post: 9th Circuit's Bad AirBnB Decision Threatens Basic Internet Business Models
Re: 230 maximalists will be the death of 230
What makes you think that providing tools that are sometimes used to break the law is illegal in the first place?
It's not illegal to produce lock picking tools in the US. It's not even illegal to possess such tools. Pretty much all of the laws dealing with "burglary tools" have an element of intent and in order for someone to be convicted of "possession of burglary tools" the government has to show that your intent was to do something illegal with them.
On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet
Re: Re: Re:
I guess I should have clarified myself a little on this. I have no problem referring to trans people as "they", "their" or "them" if I have actual knowledge of the person. What I won't do is use a silly made-up pronoun like "ze", "sie", "hir", "co" or "ey", nor will I attempt keep abreast of meanings of those words.
If I bump into a person at the mall, my immediate reaction is going to be "Excuse me, ma'me" or "Excuse me, sir" based on my split second examination of how they are presenting themselves to the world. If I am unsure of their gender, I will just say "Excuse me". That's how I was raised. If someone takes offense to an incorrect usage of their preferred pronoun in that situation I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet
Re: Re:
Ahh. I was unaware of the whole Steve King thing until I Google it after I made my previous comment. He strikes me as a bigoted fool which is probably why I've never paid much attention to him.
On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet
Re:
Ok. Now you are attempting to paint me as homophobic. Stop it, because I am not. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and I do support gay marriage because I believe that all loving couples should have the same legal benefits regards of orientation. The minister who married me and my wife is a gay man and his long time partner was my tax accountant for years. As a side note: My accountant was also the most politically ultra-conservative person I've ever met.
I also believe in a civil society and common courtesy and treating others the way I wish to be treated. I'm not going to go out of my way to be offensive unless I'm in a debate and my intention is to be snarky or offensive. I'm just saying that I am not going to be held responsible for someone else's reaction to my words.
I don't find the terms "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" in and of themselves to be offensive at all. The groups those terms actually describe I do find highly offensive. The terms themselves are just words.
As for "western civilization", I haven't a clue as to why that would be offensive at all, really.
On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet
Re: Re: Re:
Everything anyone says anywhere is going to offend someone somewhere.
Maybe it's just the generation I was raised in, but I don't really care if something I say offends someone. I was raised on "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me". I took that to mean that how I feel and how I react to words spoken to me are completely and totally my responsibility. Words can only hurt if one allows them to and the only people I grant that power to are those who are the closest to me.
Perhaps I was a bit too cavalier looking for laugh and I apologize for that, but, I'm still not going to be convinced there is a "third gender" that needs it's own bathroom anytime soon. Sorry.
On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet
Re:
I am not transphobic whatsoever. Just a realist. Two sexes are all there is, period. People can self-identify as whatever they want to, I don't care, but I am not going change MY language for them.
On the post: PACER, Or Your First Amendment Right To Go Fuck Yourself For $0.10/Page
Re:
There is also the RECAP project which is working towards freeing documents from PACER one at a time.
Just out of curiosity, why would an explosion of pro-se litigation be a bad thing? I don't see a society of people educated on the actual laws that govern them as bad, myself. Ignorance of the law has never been an viable excuse, right?
On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What if wrecking the internet is exactly the
Hey you, stop telling me which pronouns I have to use!
Just kidding. I don't really care. Although, I do sometimes self-identify myself as a black Trans Am and prefer my pronoun to be "kitt". Can I get my own public bathroom now?
Next >>