OnStar does potentially have some "useful" features, such as GPS location and a kill switch. I had a coworker who had her vehicle carjacked shortly after purchasing it. She was able to get OnStar remotely activated, gave the precise location to the authorities, and then killed the engine as they moved in to make an arrest.
Most of these other features, however, have nothing to do with networking, and are simply a money grab.
Spotify's decisions about Rogan (and Young and others) has absolutely nothing to do with Section 230. At all.
There are a growing number of people, both in the U.S. and the western world, who are increasingly intolerant of any speech with which they disagree. They view themselves ever being exposed to an opposing viewpoint as an affront to their very existence. And they even view it as unconscionable that anyone else would be permitted to listen to these opposing viewpoints, even if those others actively sought out the material.
These Individuals are facists. They will do anything to prevent opposing speech, and they will seek to tear down section 230 if it stands in their way. That's the connection.
If there's enough anger at the terms, it might also encourage new competition in some markets where it is possible. Smaller telecoms might not be able to compete on price, but competing by offering better service conditions may be achievable for them.
The problem of course is that forcing ISPs to be transparent about how they're ripping you off doesn't stop them from ripping you off.
If a provider attempts to compete on anything besides the headline price, customers will probably never realize it. The terms and fine print of service contracts are too obscure. The hope is that now providers can begin to compete on these service details. Of course, nothing will change in monopoly markets, but in duopoly markets they might.
not ignoring you is a right that other people have. Forcing your way into all conversations abuses the right of people to ignore you
That's certainly happened to folks on all sides of the political spectrum. Yet it's not a rule violation, and certainly has never been enforced against left wing advocates from what I've seen. Which is fine. But that's one of the features of an open platform -- you may encounter opinions that differ from your own. Yet, it seems that only one side gets hot and bothered by that.
In any case, user curation could potentially solve several objections to the existing system. I think its development should be prioritized.
Yes, free speech means that you can say whatever you want, but it does not allow you to commandeer other's property to do so. Because if it does, I'm demanding that the Georgia General Assembly read each day's Techdirt posts into the official record every day.
I remember numerous articles on Techdirt written back in the day regarding copyright, explaining that electronic signalling doesn't take away from others. Someone posting a message to social media does not take away from others' ability to communicate, no matter how much you disagree with the message.
Taking time from the statehouse to read into the record probably takes away from the availability of the forum, and would be an act of commandeering. Not so with social media. And moreover, it seems that the majority of calls to ban certain speech are non-recipients of the message. That's why if you were to read Techdirt aloud on the sidewalk outside the capitol, noone would be bothered at all.
Mas usually takes a break whenever the obvious social media censorship is afoot, and covers different topics. He had to let things cool off for awhile, I get it. Back a few weeks ago, it was the Joe Rogan/Dr. Malone censorship, and the Project Veritas takedowns that were making headlines. Running a piece trying to argue against alternative platforms wouldn't have passed the giggle test with the general population, given the circumstances.
Considering how much he has criticized Twitter, YouTube and other platforms for their moderation practices -- which were also very much based on the belief of making their platforms "family friendly" for users
This was the original hope for the 1996 CDA, that obscenity and pornography will be moderated, especially since this is one of the more objective ways to moderate. Social media platforms, by contrast, have been criticized for their removal of content based upon political correctness. Perhaps the most objective standandard imaginable.
From what I've seen of the UK tabloids and their gossipy culture, even the regular blokes seem pretty nosy to me. It's difficult to imagine that the nanny state government bureaucrats are somehow less so.
I agree that caller ID spoofing should be illegal. But more than that, there should be some financial disincentive for companies to pass on the spoofed caller ID. They can't honestly believe that thousands of calls per hour isn't a call center. Local carriers should get fined for perpetuating the fraud. Attempting to hold a call center from the other side of the world liable will not stop them.
You keep getting surprised by the low opinion that the general public has developed of Section 230, and of Big Tech. The new Republican party is coming out against the Chamber of Commerce, and believe that a repeal will end the ability of social media to moderate based upon on political beliefs. The current Democrat legislators are loving the campaign donations from California, and enjoy the idea that the entrenched tech monopolies can do to speech what the government cannot.
He's just doing it on Fox News and to an increasingly ignorant base who still thinks that he can magically ignore the 1st Amendment and force Twitter to allow idiots to spew nonsense. The fact that he can't actually advance any legislation is kind of meaningless here.
Remember, it's the Democrats that primarily need to advance legislation right now. To me, it doesn't look like section 230 reform is very much a priority for the Democrats. But Hawley is still serious, and that could boost Republican election numbers later this year if it becomes an issue. Hopefully, this will come to the forefront if there's a big turnover of the legislators.
Also, section 230 reform can very much benefit free speech on social media, such as with new proposals that would denote that content created by the users then belongs to the users, and would disallow monetization unless a user's content and followed network remains uncensored.
The Baltimore city council indeed DID cut the police budget by $22 mil back in 2020. Budget projections from government rarely match up with actual spending. If a bunch of police quit, and the rest of the force are required to work overtime to make up for the defect, then it IS very possible to cut the budget and yet spend more. It probably would have cost less in the long run not to make the cuts.
Similarly, the number of police currently hired usually grows in response to population growth, or a crime wave. Baltimore knows how many police they need in order to make up for worker employment turnover, avoid overtime, and meet service demands. They are 600 personnel short.
The difference between sending that letter to Fox versus sending it to Zuck is that Fox would mock Klubochar. They'd take the opportunity to tell her to pound sand. FB, on the other hand, is probably going to respond by saying something along the lines of "Yes, ma'am. Sorry, ma'am. We'll do better next time."
Which is why social media companies rightfully should be declared a common carrier, subject to the First Amendment.
Police then patrol those areas more because the AI told them to, generating more arrest records in those areas to feed back to the AI. And so on. Get it now?
No. It depends on many other factors, because arrest records are probably not the only data fed into such a system. For example, if police frequently patrol street #1, someone who gets carjacked on less frequently patrolled street #2 will still file a police report. An algorithm fed data from non-police initiated incidents would seem to be a very accurate and non prejudiced, and would also be a strong measure of effectiveness. If police patrols decrease the frequency or severity of non-police initiated reports, then they're in the right spot and it has nothing to do with bias. That's why I'm asking what kind of data this thing is being fed.
It just has a different set of rules that it will enforce somewhat arbitrarily
Banning groyper support is actually far more OBJECTIVE than anything other social media platforms are willing to admit. Fb and Twitter management hate conservatives, which is their right to hold that opinion, but they operate to outlaw conservative speech on the platforms covertly, using arbitrary rules. Kudos to Gettr for being up front and forthcoming. I've been saying that social media companies should just come out and say what they want, and now we're seeing it happen.
On the post: Automakers Can't Give Up The Idea Of Turning Everyday Features Into Subscription Services With Fees
Re: This is already in effect
OnStar does potentially have some "useful" features, such as GPS location and a kill switch. I had a coworker who had her vehicle carjacked shortly after purchasing it. She was able to get OnStar remotely activated, gave the precise location to the authorities, and then killed the engine as they moved in to make an arrest.
Most of these other features, however, have nothing to do with networking, and are simply a money grab.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Disallowed
There are a growing number of people, both in the U.S. and the western world, who are increasingly intolerant of any speech with which they disagree. They view themselves ever being exposed to an opposing viewpoint as an affront to their very existence. And they even view it as unconscionable that anyone else would be permitted to listen to these opposing viewpoints, even if those others actively sought out the material.
These Individuals are facists. They will do anything to prevent opposing speech, and they will seek to tear down section 230 if it stands in their way. That's the connection.
On the post: New FCC Broadband 'Nutrition Label' Will More Clearly Inform You You're Being Ripped Off
Re: Re: Magnifying Glass
If there's enough anger at the terms, it might also encourage new competition in some markets where it is possible. Smaller telecoms might not be able to compete on price, but competing by offering better service conditions may be achievable for them.
On the post: New FCC Broadband 'Nutrition Label' Will More Clearly Inform You You're Being Ripped Off
Magnifying Glass
If a provider attempts to compete on anything besides the headline price, customers will probably never realize it. The terms and fine print of service contracts are too obscure. The hope is that now providers can begin to compete on these service details. Of course, nothing will change in monopoly markets, but in duopoly markets they might.
On the post: Wireless Industry Now Claims 5G Will Miraculously Help Fix Climate Change
Trendy
Perhaps they could affix some "No MSGs" or "Aspartame Free" labels on it next.
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
Re: Re: Non Interference
That's certainly happened to folks on all sides of the political spectrum. Yet it's not a rule violation, and certainly has never been enforced against left wing advocates from what I've seen. Which is fine. But that's one of the features of an open platform -- you may encounter opinions that differ from your own. Yet, it seems that only one side gets hot and bothered by that.
In any case, user curation could potentially solve several objections to the existing system. I think its development should be prioritized.
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
Non Interference
I remember numerous articles on Techdirt written back in the day regarding copyright, explaining that electronic signalling doesn't take away from others. Someone posting a message to social media does not take away from others' ability to communicate, no matter how much you disagree with the message.
Taking time from the statehouse to read into the record probably takes away from the availability of the forum, and would be an act of commandeering. Not so with social media. And moreover, it seems that the majority of calls to ban certain speech are non-recipients of the message. That's why if you were to read Techdirt aloud on the sidewalk outside the capitol, noone would be bothered at all.
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
Re: Re: Heavily Moderated > Heavily Censored
Mas usually takes a break whenever the obvious social media censorship is afoot, and covers different topics. He had to let things cool off for awhile, I get it. Back a few weeks ago, it was the Joe Rogan/Dr. Malone censorship, and the Project Veritas takedowns that were making headlines. Running a piece trying to argue against alternative platforms wouldn't have passed the giggle test with the general population, given the circumstances.
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
Heavily Moderated > Heavily Censored
This was the original hope for the 1996 CDA, that obscenity and pornography will be moderated, especially since this is one of the more objective ways to moderate. Social media platforms, by contrast, have been criticized for their removal of content based upon political correctness. Perhaps the most objective standandard imaginable.
On the post: The Internet Wins: Adblocking (And Other Extensions) Don't Violate Copyright Law In Germany
Re:
Potentially also if a publisher wants to go after folks who develop certain cheats for video games.
On the post: The UK Has A Voyeuristic New Propaganda Campaign Against Encryption
Re: Nationalistic slurs
From what I've seen of the UK tabloids and their gossipy culture, even the regular blokes seem pretty nosy to me. It's difficult to imagine that the nanny state government bureaucrats are somehow less so.
On the post: Why U.S. Robocall Hell Seemingly Never Ends
Re: Re: Blocking
I agree that caller ID spoofing should be illegal. But more than that, there should be some financial disincentive for companies to pass on the spoofed caller ID. They can't honestly believe that thousands of calls per hour isn't a call center. Local carriers should get fined for perpetuating the fraud. Attempting to hold a call center from the other side of the world liable will not stop them.
On the post: Appeals Court Says It's Entirely Possible For Cops To Pinpoint Marijuana Odors In Moving Cars
A Mile Away
Sometimes, Cheech and Chong are kind of obvious, even while driving.
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
Aligned Interests
You keep getting surprised by the low opinion that the general public has developed of Section 230, and of Big Tech. The new Republican party is coming out against the Chamber of Commerce, and believe that a repeal will end the ability of social media to moderate based upon on political beliefs. The current Democrat legislators are loving the campaign donations from California, and enjoy the idea that the entrenched tech monopolies can do to speech what the government cannot.
On the post: Josh Hawley Was The Democrats' Partner In Trying To Regulate Big Tech; Then The Public Realized He Was A Fascist
Stealing Their Thunder
Remember, it's the Democrats that primarily need to advance legislation right now. To me, it doesn't look like section 230 reform is very much a priority for the Democrats. But Hawley is still serious, and that could boost Republican election numbers later this year if it becomes an issue. Hopefully, this will come to the forefront if there's a big turnover of the legislators.
Also, section 230 reform can very much benefit free speech on social media, such as with new proposals that would denote that content created by the users then belongs to the users, and would disallow monetization unless a user's content and followed network remains uncensored.
On the post: Baltimore Police Union Blames City's Murder Rate On Defunding Efforts That Never Happened
Check The Legislation
The Baltimore city council indeed DID cut the police budget by $22 mil back in 2020. Budget projections from government rarely match up with actual spending. If a bunch of police quit, and the rest of the force are required to work overtime to make up for the defect, then it IS very possible to cut the budget and yet spend more. It probably would have cost less in the long run not to make the cuts.
Similarly, the number of police currently hired usually grows in response to population growth, or a crime wave. Baltimore knows how many police they need in order to make up for worker employment turnover, avoid overtime, and meet service demands. They are 600 personnel short.
On the post: Klobuchar's Silly Letter To Facebook Raises 1st Amendment Issues And Only Gives Ammo To Misinfo Peddlers That Facebook Is A State Actor
Not Taking Orders
The difference between sending that letter to Fox versus sending it to Zuck is that Fox would mock Klubochar. They'd take the opportunity to tell her to pound sand. FB, on the other hand, is probably going to respond by saying something along the lines of "Yes, ma'am. Sorry, ma'am. We'll do better next time."
Which is why social media companies rightfully should be declared a common carrier, subject to the First Amendment.
On the post: Unsecured Data Leak Shows Predicitive Policing Is Just Tech-Washed, Old School Biased Policing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Racist Computer?
No. It depends on many other factors, because arrest records are probably not the only data fed into such a system. For example, if police frequently patrol street #1, someone who gets carjacked on less frequently patrolled street #2 will still file a police report. An algorithm fed data from non-police initiated incidents would seem to be a very accurate and non prejudiced, and would also be a strong measure of effectiveness. If police patrols decrease the frequency or severity of non-police initiated reports, then they're in the right spot and it has nothing to do with bias. That's why I'm asking what kind of data this thing is being fed.
On the post: Unsecured Data Leak Shows Predicitive Policing Is Just Tech-Washed, Old School Biased Policing
Re: Re: Racist Computer?
But what kind of data? Was race included in the data? This doesn't answer the question.
If a homeowner files a police report because of a break-in, the data isn't prejudiced. Patrols need to occur where residents are filing reports.
On the post: Weeks After Blasting Twitter For 'Strangling Free Expression' GETTR Bans The Term 'Groyper' In Effort To Stop White Nationalist Spam
Refreshing Honesty
Banning groyper support is actually far more OBJECTIVE than anything other social media platforms are willing to admit. Fb and Twitter management hate conservatives, which is their right to hold that opinion, but they operate to outlaw conservative speech on the platforms covertly, using arbitrary rules. Kudos to Gettr for being up front and forthcoming. I've been saying that social media companies should just come out and say what they want, and now we're seeing it happen.
Next >>