If section 230 were to suddenly cease to exist, the Cubby v. Compuserve model would be back into play. I'm sure social media would continue
It would, but not in any way that resembles what we have today. No social media service would want to be held legally liable for the speech of its users; smaller ones would shut down, and larger ones would heavily restrict what can be said to avoid even the possibility of legal liability. Or to put it another way: Without Section 230, Donald Trump would’ve been kicked off Twitter far, far sooner than he was because damn near every one of his tweets could’ve landed Twitter in court.
And the actual joke—SPISPOPD, or “Smashing Pumpkins Into Small Piles of Putrid Debris”—doesn’t seem to have been a reference to the band at all (thought I grant that it could’ve been).
As a fascist, his only value is domination at all costs. He wants to keep critics and “the libs” from being able to force their voice onto his social media network, but he also wants to force his own voice onto social media networks that have already told him “get out and stay out”. The hypocrisy is therefore the point.
And we also don’t have to pretend that Rogan is owed a spot on Spotify, or any other platform, only because some people find his speech objectionable. Defending the right of those with whom we disagree to speak doesn’t mean giving them the right to use a platform they don’t own.
Nintendo wants people to buy games on the switch digital store , in 10 years time how many 3ds consoles will still work
Given that plenty of older NES consoles and handhelds still work decades after their release, I’d say the chances are good. And if Nintendo wanted people to buy older games on the Switch—whether the copy is physical or digital—it should release those older games for the Switch.
[Truth Social] is based on open source code from elsewhere, so it's perfectly possible that Nunes and the other people he hired with such competence and attention to detail just copied the boilerplate and didn't actually read it.
Yep, T.S is based on Mastodon. (I think it’s a Masto fork and not Masto proper; six of one, yadda yadda yadda.) The lead dev of Masto confirmed by looking at the T.S code that the tech team there disabled federation capability.
Wasn’t that review a negative one? Wouldn’t that mean they paid to try your program once, hated it, and likely never used it past the period of time they needed to craft a proper review of your program? And this is what you think constitutes “success”?
Copyright has always been about control. The control exerted by corporations and the wealthy these days is so obscene that it all but guarantees a cultural wasteland in the future.
No, it isn’t. Copyright infringement doesn’t need to be willful to occur; you yourself proved that. And given how many people share images they don’t have the rights to on a daily basis, whether they intend to infringe copyright is irrelevant to the fact that they infringe.
I partly blame the lack of enforcement actions from copyright owners for this undesirable outcome that makes some people think that average persons are some kind of career criminals.
Yes, yes, you think people should be outright executed for sharing a single image they don’t own the rights to with a friend, we get it.
maybe these people shouldn't do copyright infringement in the first place?
Thank you for proving my point that you’re in favor of fining people—including yourself—billions of dollars they don’t have if they infringe on any copyright anywhere in the world in any way. You make it so easy to paint you as a fucking Nazi; hell, you don’t even object to being compared to those mass-murdering anti-Semites.
you think that somehow everyone must be doing infringement
They are. The average person infringes on copyright at least thrice daily. Ever saved a copyrighted image off the Internet without permission from the copyright owner? That’s technically infringement, bitch. Hope you got a billion or two lying around.
People can just opt to not do it at all.
Then why didn’t you opt to do it when you infringed on Scott Cawthon’s copyrights?
destroying it is not desirable
You didn’t destroy any of Scott Cawthon’s property, real or imagined, when you ripped off his work. Unless you want to argue that you’re somehow exempt from the same copyright laws that govern everyone else and the same fines/punishments (up to and including execution!) that you’d seek to impose on everyone else—in which case I’d ask you if truly believe you’re God.
You’ve literally said that people should be fined billions of dollars for violating even one copyright; when pressed on how such a fine would destroy the average person, you seemed damn near giddy at the prospect. When it was suggested that executing copyright infringers could be a potential punishment, you either didn’t push back on the idea or implicitly agreed with the notion. That isn’t my “evilness” speaking—it’s me turning your own Copyreich beliefs back on you.
You keep thinking the laws that already apply or would apply to everyone else don’t and wouldn’t apply to you. Your hubris won’t save you from the same punishments you seek to impose on others.
The activity must not do damage to other people's property (including not violating copyright).
Meshpage couldn’t even stop you from doing it. I expect you to therefore report your crimes to the RIAA immediately so it can ruin you financially and eventually execute you in public, as per your Copyreich beliefs.
You made the claim first; that means you have to back it up. That you haven’t been able to do so tells me you’re completely full of shit—not that I didn’t already know that, but it’s nice of you to confirm it.
Dr. Malone was punished by twitter for saying something on a different platform
[citation needed]
They didn't tolerate his opinion, so they banned him.
And that is Twitter’s right, unless you want to argue that it has no right to do so, in which case you’re gonna be arguing in favor of a whole lot of shitty opinions about marginalized peoples.
it's an attack on Joe [Rogan]
No, it isn’t.
It's a chilling effect that anyone with a controversial take who appears on the show, now risks censorship
Can the dude you’re claiming was censored still say what he wants on other platforms and outlets, including Rogan’s podcast? If so, the dude hasn’t been censored.
On the post: Even As Trump Relies On Section 230 For Truth Social, He's Claiming In Lawsuits That It's Unconstitutional
It would, but not in any way that resembles what we have today. No social media service would want to be held legally liable for the speech of its users; smaller ones would shut down, and larger ones would heavily restrict what can be said to avoid even the possibility of legal liability. Or to put it another way: Without Section 230, Donald Trump would’ve been kicked off Twitter far, far sooner than he was because damn near every one of his tweets could’ve landed Twitter in court.
On the post: Video Game History Foundation: Nintendo Actions 'Actively Destructive To Video Game History'
And the actual joke—SPISPOPD, or “Smashing Pumpkins Into Small Piles of Putrid Debris”—doesn’t seem to have been a reference to the band at all (thought I grant that it could’ve been).
On the post: Even As Trump Relies On Section 230 For Truth Social, He's Claiming In Lawsuits That It's Unconstitutional
As a fascist, his only value is domination at all costs. He wants to keep critics and “the libs” from being able to force their voice onto his social media network, but he also wants to force his own voice onto social media networks that have already told him “get out and stay out”. The hypocrisy is therefore the point.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
And we also don’t have to pretend that Rogan is owed a spot on Spotify, or any other platform, only because some people find his speech objectionable. Defending the right of those with whom we disagree to speak doesn’t mean giving them the right to use a platform they don’t own.
On the post: Video Game History Foundation: Nintendo Actions 'Actively Destructive To Video Game History'
Given that plenty of older NES consoles and handhelds still work decades after their release, I’d say the chances are good. And if Nintendo wanted people to buy older games on the Switch—whether the copy is physical or digital—it should release those older games for the Switch.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Yep, T.S is based on Mastodon. (I think it’s a Masto fork and not Masto proper; six of one, yadda yadda yadda.) The lead dev of Masto confirmed by looking at the T.S code that the tech team there disabled federation capability.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Wasn’t that review a negative one? Wouldn’t that mean they paid to try your program once, hated it, and likely never used it past the period of time they needed to craft a proper review of your program? And this is what you think constitutes “success”?
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
As are “not teaching kids about slavery” and “fuck queer people”.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Then you have no source. You therefore forfeit whatever credibility you thought you had on this matter.
You made a claim. You have to back it up. If you can’t, you’re full of shit.
On the post: Video Game History Foundation: Nintendo Actions 'Actively Destructive To Video Game History'
Copyright has always been about control. The control exerted by corporations and the wealthy these days is so obscene that it all but guarantees a cultural wasteland in the future.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Cite a source or fuck off—and no, I’m not going to do your homework for you.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
No, it isn’t. Copyright infringement doesn’t need to be willful to occur; you yourself proved that. And given how many people share images they don’t have the rights to on a daily basis, whether they intend to infringe copyright is irrelevant to the fact that they infringe.
Yes, yes, you think people should be outright executed for sharing a single image they don’t own the rights to with a friend, we get it.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
You’re not God, you’re not a Jedi, and you’re not even (in)famous enough for a stub of a Wikipedia page. Are people using your software or not?
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Thank you for proving my point that you’re in favor of fining people—including yourself—billions of dollars they don’t have if they infringe on any copyright anywhere in the world in any way. You make it so easy to paint you as a fucking Nazi; hell, you don’t even object to being compared to those mass-murdering anti-Semites.
They are. The average person infringes on copyright at least thrice daily. Ever saved a copyrighted image off the Internet without permission from the copyright owner? That’s technically infringement, bitch. Hope you got a billion or two lying around.
Then why didn’t you opt to do it when you infringed on Scott Cawthon’s copyrights?
You didn’t destroy any of Scott Cawthon’s property, real or imagined, when you ripped off his work. Unless you want to argue that you’re somehow exempt from the same copyright laws that govern everyone else and the same fines/punishments (up to and including execution!) that you’d seek to impose on everyone else—in which case I’d ask you if truly believe you’re God.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
No, it doesn’t. Are people using your software or not? It’s a binary choice, not a spectrum of answers. Which one is it, you Nazi fuck?
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
You’ve literally said that people should be fined billions of dollars for violating even one copyright; when pressed on how such a fine would destroy the average person, you seemed damn near giddy at the prospect. When it was suggested that executing copyright infringers could be a potential punishment, you either didn’t push back on the idea or implicitly agreed with the notion. That isn’t my “evilness” speaking—it’s me turning your own Copyreich beliefs back on you.
You keep thinking the laws that already apply or would apply to everyone else don’t and wouldn’t apply to you. Your hubris won’t save you from the same punishments you seek to impose on others.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Either your software has users or it doesn’t; you don’t get to put your software in a box with Schrödinger’s Cat. So does it have users or not?
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Meshpage couldn’t even stop you from doing it. I expect you to therefore report your crimes to the RIAA immediately so it can ruin you financially and eventually execute you in public, as per your Copyreich beliefs.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
You made the claim first; that means you have to back it up. That you haven’t been able to do so tells me you’re completely full of shit—not that I didn’t already know that, but it’s nice of you to confirm it.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
[citation needed]
And that is Twitter’s right, unless you want to argue that it has no right to do so, in which case you’re gonna be arguing in favor of a whole lot of shitty opinions about marginalized peoples.
No, it isn’t.
Can the dude you’re claiming was censored still say what he wants on other platforms and outlets, including Rogan’s podcast? If so, the dude hasn’t been censored.
Next >>