It's not like Huawei is an innocent actor in all this. Do they have patents on the trade secrets they stole from US and European companies? Does that even make it a valid patent?
They admitted to stealing code from Cisco back in 2004, they settled a case with Motorola in 2010 after stealing trade secrets from them. CNEX Labs claims Huawei stole from them a couple of years ago.
It's true, the law doesn't distinguish between "platforms" and "publishers," it's just become part of the nomenclature, a way of distinguishing articles by the NYT or Gizmodo that they can be held liable for, and content posted on YouTube or Twitter by third parties, for which YouTube and Twitter CANNOT be held liable for.
What's happening, though, is these tech giants are now promoting a narrative. Call it establishment / corporatist, or neo-liberal, or identitarian, or what have you, they're promoting that narrative using not their own content, but by "curating" the vast amount of user content that is handed over to them to post.
So, for instance, Nick Sandman was doxxed and his school threatened by the curation of Twitter. Why isn't Twitter listed on a lawsuit by Barnes? They enabled the mob riot.
Sounds like asset forfeiture is working exactly as designed. Not the way it was sold, but the way it was designed. Just look at the history.
Before this was implemented, it was becoming apparent, especially to the police on the ground, that the "war on drugs" was not just a failure, but that it actually increased crime and violence. As it became untenable, the police started to push back. They did NOT want to be involved in this failed policy any more.
By the late 1980's, asset forfeiture was in place, and police departments started getting training on how they could simply and easily grab money and cars and homes, and use it however they like. It was a huge bribe to law enforcement to get them back on board with the Drug War.
And it worked. Sure, you still hear some law enforcement criticizing drug laws, but by and large most go along with it, and being able to seize property without dealing with pesky trials and prosecutors and all that has a LOT to do with why.
In many cases, it had the opposite effect on drug kingpins, which is what the law was sold to address. These wealthy Scarface types supposedly have plenty of money and competent lawyers, making them not only harder to convict, but also with the resources to fight asset forfeiture in civil courts. So they are often given a deal: Drop your claim to the property we seized, and we will drop the criminal charges. How's THAT for "unintended consequences?"
Right, as I pointed out in my 2nd post, a lot of it just has to do with anti-establishment viewpoints.
But, if you're always protecting journalists this way, you will, almost by definition, have a bias against conservatives, as journalists as a group are generally very liberal.
But there ARE a lot of anecdotes, that do draw a pattern. This was just one of the most obvious and egregious ones.
The Joe Rogan interview with Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde, and Tim Pool is very instructive. Pool points out that their TOS itself is biased against conservatives, which is why one user was permanent-lifetime banned for posting "Men aren't women, though."
You're ignoring the fact that they were that kind of ban-happy over the hashtag in the first place. It was to protect journalists (Twitter's protected class), who were happy telling laid-off factory workers and miners that THEY should learn to code, but couldn't take a joke when they were reminded of it after the online rags started mass lay-offs of journalists.
Next, you'll post an excuse about how that kind of thing isn't evidence.
I'll post another example, and you'll do the same.
After several, you'll go, "well it's TOS, they would do that to anybody," or "well they're going to make mistakes."
You've made up your mind, social media reinforces your opinion, and on it goes until you don't really have any opinions of your own, they are given to you instead.
It's not really "anti-conservative" bias, that's easy to explain away, especially when you can define "conservative" one way or another.
It's really more "anti-establishment" bias. Bias against the narrative of the global corporate and media elite.
That's especially clear on Twitter, when blue-checked journalists are given a pass on obviously TOS-violating behavior, but any far-left or far-right viewpoint, or even populist ones, will get banned outright when they have a popular message that goes against the advertiser- and mainstream-journalist-friendly narrative.
And we have case law in the real world that supports it. Ralphs Grocery v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union specified that labor union speech trumps the private property rights of companies in some cases.
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins established that private shopping malls are public squares, and upheld the free speech rights of citizens to protest there even over the objections of the property owners.
There are numerous others. But without specific rules allowing private right of action, such as the civil rights act enables, it's impossible for private citizens to take on multi-billion dollar corporations in law suits of this kind.
But it's actually worse than that. The mainstream media news stories are often by and large GENERATED from social media. This has been going on for quite a while.
It's why Twitter is so very protective of the mainstream media reporters on their platform. It's why people are there.
So when outlets started laying off journalists, and users started reminding the journalists of the stories they wrote during the mass layoffs in the rust belt, Twitter decided they needed to BAN users posting the #LearnToCode hashtag.
Silencing conservatives is one thing, but it's not just conservatives, it's anyone that challenges the corporate / globalist / capitalist system that SV relies on for their fat paychecks. They banned the Anti-Media and the Free Thought Project a while back, for example, and many other far-left publications that challenged the narrative of the corporate hegemony.
On the post: FISA Court Bans FBI Agent Who Lied To The Court About Carter Page
posturing
This is just posturing by the FISA court.
The law is up for re-authorization. Let it lapse, close the FISA court completely.
On the post: Trump Thinks That The Government Can And Should Sue Internet Companies Because He Doesn't Like The People Who Work There
Already outdated
Welp, that didn't take very long...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/27/twitter-adds-labels-tweets-that-break-i ts-rules-putting-president-trump-companys-crosshairs/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d8dce43a7f2
On the post: Huawei Now Using Patent Claims To Demand $1 Billion From Verizon, As The US Tries To Chase Huawei Out Of The US Market
It's not like Huawei is an innocent actor in all this. Do they have patents on the trade secrets they stole from US and European companies? Does that even make it a valid patent?
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/technology/july-awards-t-mobile-48m-in-trade-secrets-c ase-against-huawei/
They admitted to stealing code from Cisco back in 2004, they settled a case with Motorola in 2010 after stealing trade secrets from them. CNEX Labs claims Huawei stole from them a couple of years ago.
On the post: Once More With Feeling: There Is No Legal Distinction Between A 'Platform' And A 'Publisher'
Liability
It's true, the law doesn't distinguish between "platforms" and "publishers," it's just become part of the nomenclature, a way of distinguishing articles by the NYT or Gizmodo that they can be held liable for, and content posted on YouTube or Twitter by third parties, for which YouTube and Twitter CANNOT be held liable for.
What's happening, though, is these tech giants are now promoting a narrative. Call it establishment / corporatist, or neo-liberal, or identitarian, or what have you, they're promoting that narrative using not their own content, but by "curating" the vast amount of user content that is handed over to them to post.
So, for instance, Nick Sandman was doxxed and his school threatened by the curation of Twitter. Why isn't Twitter listed on a lawsuit by Barnes? They enabled the mob riot.
On the post: Study Shows Asset Forfeiture Doesn't Fight Crime Or Reduce Drug Use
Police Bribes
Sounds like asset forfeiture is working exactly as designed. Not the way it was sold, but the way it was designed. Just look at the history.
Before this was implemented, it was becoming apparent, especially to the police on the ground, that the "war on drugs" was not just a failure, but that it actually increased crime and violence. As it became untenable, the police started to push back. They did NOT want to be involved in this failed policy any more.
By the late 1980's, asset forfeiture was in place, and police departments started getting training on how they could simply and easily grab money and cars and homes, and use it however they like. It was a huge bribe to law enforcement to get them back on board with the Drug War.
And it worked. Sure, you still hear some law enforcement criticizing drug laws, but by and large most go along with it, and being able to seize property without dealing with pesky trials and prosecutors and all that has a LOT to do with why.
In many cases, it had the opposite effect on drug kingpins, which is what the law was sold to address. These wealthy Scarface types supposedly have plenty of money and competent lawyers, making them not only harder to convict, but also with the resources to fight asset forfeiture in civil courts. So they are often given a deal: Drop your claim to the property we seized, and we will drop the criminal charges. How's THAT for "unintended consequences?"
On the post: EFF Highlights Stories Of Bad Content Moderation With New TOSsed Out Site
Re:
Right, as I pointed out in my 2nd post, a lot of it just has to do with anti-establishment viewpoints.
But, if you're always protecting journalists this way, you will, almost by definition, have a bias against conservatives, as journalists as a group are generally very liberal.
Comprehensive meta-study on that:
https://www.mrc.org/special-reports/liberal-mediaevery-poll-shows-journalists-are-more-liberal -american-public-%E2%80%94-and
On the post: EFF Highlights Stories Of Bad Content Moderation With New TOSsed Out Site
Re:
Right, that's true.
But there ARE a lot of anecdotes, that do draw a pattern. This was just one of the most obvious and egregious ones.
The Joe Rogan interview with Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde, and Tim Pool is very instructive. Pool points out that their TOS itself is biased against conservatives, which is why one user was permanent-lifetime banned for posting "Men aren't women, though."
https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/25/twitter-permanently-bans-feminist-writing-men-are nt-women/
On the post: EFF Highlights Stories Of Bad Content Moderation With New TOSsed Out Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fact-check: do it correctly
Thanks for the tips.
On the post: EFF Highlights Stories Of Bad Content Moderation With New TOSsed Out Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fact-check: FALSE
You're ignoring the fact that they were that kind of ban-happy over the hashtag in the first place. It was to protect journalists (Twitter's protected class), who were happy telling laid-off factory workers and miners that THEY should learn to code, but couldn't take a joke when they were reminded of it after the online rags started mass lay-offs of journalists.
THAT is the bias.
On the post: EFF Highlights Stories Of Bad Content Moderation With New TOSsed Out Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fact-check: FALSE
I DID, you can't be bothered to look into it.
That's why all this banning WORKS. Because nobody SEES it, and people like you dismiss it because you can't be bother to do any research yourself.
Here you go:
https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/03/twitter-temporarily-banned-journalist-brad-glasgow-for-usi ng-learn-to-code-hashtag-during-appeal/80639/
Next, you'll post an excuse about how that kind of thing isn't evidence.
I'll post another example, and you'll do the same.
After several, you'll go, "well it's TOS, they would do that to anybody," or "well they're going to make mistakes."
You've made up your mind, social media reinforces your opinion, and on it goes until you don't really have any opinions of your own, they are given to you instead.
On the post: EFF Highlights Stories Of Bad Content Moderation With New TOSsed Out Site
BIAS
Here's your sign, folks:
https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/03/twitter-temporarily-banned-journalist-brad-glasgow-for- using-learn-to-code-hashtag-during-appeal/80639/
On the post: EFF Highlights Stories Of Bad Content Moderation With New TOSsed Out Site
Re: Re: Re: Fact-check: FALSE
LearnToCode
On the post: EFF Highlights Stories Of Bad Content Moderation With New TOSsed Out Site
Re: Fact-check: FALSE
Let's clarify this a bit:
It's not really "anti-conservative" bias, that's easy to explain away, especially when you can define "conservative" one way or another.
It's really more "anti-establishment" bias. Bias against the narrative of the global corporate and media elite.
That's especially clear on Twitter, when blue-checked journalists are given a pass on obviously TOS-violating behavior, but any far-left or far-right viewpoint, or even populist ones, will get banned outright when they have a popular message that goes against the advertiser- and mainstream-journalist-friendly narrative.
On the post: EFF Highlights Stories Of Bad Content Moderation With New TOSsed Out Site
Fact-check: FALSE
There is plenty of evidence, you simply have a list of excuses to make it look like incompetence instead of intent.
Explain #LearnToCode in your next article and maybe it will be something less than unadulterated bullshit, which this one is.
On the post: Google Joins The Evidence-Optional Assault On Huawei
5G
It's all about the 5G, right? 5G, the "revolution that will change the world", right?
Looking more and more like a highway to dystopia, to me.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: American Law Institute Uses Copyright To Stop Discussion Of Controversial Publication Prior To Vote
Private organizations
Well, they are a private organization, so they can do what they want with their material.
Right? RIGHT?
Just like FB, Twitter, and YouTube. They don't have to let you see their own private stuff, or host anyone's comments on their platform. RIGHT?
That's the stand now, right?
Oh, also, it's not censorship, because that's only the government restricting free speech.
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re:
Why are you arguing the point? It's simple just to ban the user and delete their account for wrongthink!
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re:
That's why it's needed.
And we have case law in the real world that supports it. Ralphs Grocery v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union specified that labor union speech trumps the private property rights of companies in some cases.
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins established that private shopping malls are public squares, and upheld the free speech rights of citizens to protest there even over the objections of the property owners.
There are numerous others. But without specific rules allowing private right of action, such as the civil rights act enables, it's impossible for private citizens to take on multi-billion dollar corporations in law suits of this kind.
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re: The real problem
But it's actually worse than that. The mainstream media news stories are often by and large GENERATED from social media. This has been going on for quite a while.
It's why Twitter is so very protective of the mainstream media reporters on their platform. It's why people are there.
So when outlets started laying off journalists, and users started reminding the journalists of the stories they wrote during the mass layoffs in the rust belt, Twitter decided they needed to BAN users posting the #LearnToCode hashtag.
Silencing conservatives is one thing, but it's not just conservatives, it's anyone that challenges the corporate / globalist / capitalist system that SV relies on for their fat paychecks. They banned the Anti-Media and the Free Thought Project a while back, for example, and many other far-left publications that challenged the narrative of the corporate hegemony.
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re:
Right.
So we need anti-discrimination rules for Internet companies that claim Section 230 protections as a platform.
Next >>