It has nothing to do with PR. FB will allow convicted felons, 2020 rioters, foreign dictators, and probably even some pedophiles. Censoring people charged with the 1/6 captol kerfuffle is 100% based on politics.
It looks like this is the same Michael Wolf who claimed in a past book that Mueller drafted a 3 count indictment against Trump that was just sitting on his desk waiting to be signed. The the story was so fake that the special council's office had to come out with a denial and that it was just Fake News. This guy will dream up anything to get suckers to buy his newest book. But I gotta give him credit tho. He's found a LOT of suckers!
Even if you don't use a community broadband provider, and instead you do use service from the regional monopoly, then you still stand to benefit. Once competition is introduced, prices fall and service increases.
It was much more than just fact checking. They were actively calling for speakers to be deplatformed. RWW got roasted on twitter, with everyone pointing out that they got censored after calling for others to be censored. The irony here was off the charts.
Similar to the problem of expressing sarcasm on internet written forums, it appears more and more that platforms are having problems with the "context" problem. Someone merely retelling a story of what someone else did, in an effort to bring others up to speed, is viewed as offering support and approval of the original event, and perhaps even equated as performing the original event. At least in the eyes of the platform moderation system.
Combined with the explosion of content, it seems to me that noone outside of a sub-community is in a position to understand the context, short of hiring full time employees specifically assigned to gadfly particular subgroups. A daunting task that automated systems will probably never be able to understand.
That's right, I've broken the contract, and importantly, I was the first to do so. That triggers the other side to enact whatever penalties were included in the contract.
States involve themselves in contracts all the time. I believe we've talked about many of them on this site, such as California's non-compete employment contracts being null, thereby leading to the tech boom in CA over the past 20+ years.
Contract terms where one side can cancel at any time and for any excuse can reasonably be determined as unconscionable and unenforceable, especially if bias in enforcement can be proven. Just as some states cannot fire employees without cause, I think it would be wise for states to disallow a service cancellation without cause. Cancelling for any reason is a fig leaf for deceptive practices such as shadow banning or political censorship.
There's usually monetary compensation for such. How much are the users' owed in you mind?
Compensation can also be asked for in terms of something called "specific performance". When available, and in this case it probably is, I think specific performance is a fine solution that need not involve money changing hands.
Forcing websites to carry users' content is the exact opposite of "preserving First Amendment rights."
There is no first amendment defense against fraud or deception. Additionally, numerous laws requiring manufacturers to publish certain information that the manufacturers didn't want to put on their products have been upheld as legitimate. Forcing big tech to live up to their own terms of service is more of a contract dispute, and not a first amendment issue.
Most people do not have the means to call out a big tech platform, as Reason can. Or, at least not individually. Desire for the breakup of large social media platforms and section 230 reform is the collective "call out" of big tech by the little guys for the wrongdoing that has been experienced.
Sadly, this behavior from China portends what will eventually happen here in the U.S. it's simply a matter of incrementalism. Build the system of censorship now, and then continually expand it later.
Somehow, something tells me that no amount of authority is going to get a regulatory boondoggle agency like the FCC to get pipeline companies and meat packing plants to upgrade their cybersecurity measures in a timely manner.
I tried looking for it too. However, the text description says that there's over 10k entries. Needle in a haystack, unless you know what island it's on, if at all. If anyone can find it, definitely let us know.
But when they are direct disinformation, some of the intermediation of 3rd parties creates a bit of friction. That... certainly doesn't feel like censorship. It feels like a marketplace of ideas working kind of as it should?
The internet is designed to eliminate gatekeepers. The people doing the rebroadcasting are no doubt willing to repost the more benign messages, but are fearful of being excommunicated by the Internet Inqisition should they repost anything controversial. Such is the life of an early reformer. An actual free marketplace allows EVERYONE to decide, not just a few.
I really don't like the KKK, but if they just have a presence on twitter to say things like "Have a nice day!", or maybe post some photographs of Senators Robert Byrd and Joe Biden together, I wouldn't mind. But then you get into a thorny issue of "propaganda". If twitter can spell out banned words, that's certainly fine, because I'm not a big fan of obscenity.
Wait, what? It has to carry "information from all sources indiscriminately"?! But the entire point of a search engine is to discriminate. Otherwise it's no longer a "search engine" it's just a random web page generator.
The hope was that the search algorithm was returning results based on relevancy to the user. Instead, google appears to refuse to consider information from some sources that are important to the user, but google dislikes. The results are not random, they're supposed to be focused around the interests of users and creators.
Common carriage will inch the internet towards an online ecosystem devoid of family-friendly options and teeming with the worst humanity can offer— including the very content conservatives hate like pornography, indecency, and profanity.
This portion was already destroyed with the CDA, over 20 years ago with Reno v. ACLU. Not that I personally mind it. But if that's the main takeaway, then you lost conservatives a long long time ago. The internet is already a hive of scum and villainy, and noone cares anymore. Bring on the common carrier.
On the post: Facebook Is Banning Anyone Charged With Participating In Capitol Hill Insurrection
Re: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
It has nothing to do with PR. FB will allow convicted felons, 2020 rioters, foreign dictators, and probably even some pedophiles. Censoring people charged with the 1/6 captol kerfuffle is 100% based on politics.
On the post: Trump Allegedly Demanded Parler Kick Off His Critics If It Wanted Him On The Platform
He Wouldn't Fake It Again, Would He?
It looks like this is the same Michael Wolf who claimed in a past book that Mueller drafted a 3 count indictment against Trump that was just sitting on his desk waiting to be signed. The the story was so fake that the special council's office had to come out with a denial and that it was just Fake News. This guy will dream up anything to get suckers to buy his newest book. But I gotta give him credit tho. He's found a LOT of suckers!
On the post: Ohio Republicans Forced To Back Off Unpopular Ban On Community Broadband
Re: Re: Waaaaaaaaaah! (sniff)
Even if you don't use a community broadband provider, and instead you do use service from the regional monopoly, then you still stand to benefit. Once competition is introduced, prices fall and service increases.
On the post: Once Again: Content Moderation Often Mistakes Reporting On Bad Behavior With Celebrating Bad Behavior
Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...
It was much more than just fact checking. They were actively calling for speakers to be deplatformed. RWW got roasted on twitter, with everyone pointing out that they got censored after calling for others to be censored. The irony here was off the charts.
On the post: Once Again: Content Moderation Often Mistakes Reporting On Bad Behavior With Celebrating Bad Behavior
Unqualified to Moderate
Similar to the problem of expressing sarcasm on internet written forums, it appears more and more that platforms are having problems with the "context" problem. Someone merely retelling a story of what someone else did, in an effort to bring others up to speed, is viewed as offering support and approval of the original event, and perhaps even equated as performing the original event. At least in the eyes of the platform moderation system.
Combined with the explosion of content, it seems to me that noone outside of a sub-community is in a position to understand the context, short of hiring full time employees specifically assigned to gadfly particular subgroups. A daunting task that automated systems will probably never be able to understand.
On the post: Attorney General Says He'll Support Legislation That Bans The DOJ From Targeting Reporters During Leak Investigations
Meh
I bet that if the DOJ stops doing it, then they'll just outsource it to another agency like the CIA.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st
States involve themselves in contracts all the time. I believe we've talked about many of them on this site, such as California's non-compete employment contracts being null, thereby leading to the tech boom in CA over the past 20+ years.
Contract terms where one side can cancel at any time and for any excuse can reasonably be determined as unconscionable and unenforceable, especially if bias in enforcement can be proven. Just as some states cannot fire employees without cause, I think it would be wise for states to disallow a service cancellation without cause. Cancelling for any reason is a fig leaf for deceptive practices such as shadow banning or political censorship.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st
Compensation can also be asked for in terms of something called "specific performance". When available, and in this case it probably is, I think specific performance is a fine solution that need not involve money changing hands.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st
The government does it with every pack of cigarettes sold, millions of times each day, and had been upheld.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Platforms Can't Claim the 1st
There is no first amendment defense against fraud or deception. Additionally, numerous laws requiring manufacturers to publish certain information that the manufacturers didn't want to put on their products have been upheld as legitimate. Forcing big tech to live up to their own terms of service is more of a contract dispute, and not a first amendment issue.
On the post: Reason Shows How To Properly Respond To A Questionable Social Media Takedown: By Calling It Out
Impractical
Most people do not have the means to call out a big tech platform, as Reason can. Or, at least not individually. Desire for the breakup of large social media platforms and section 230 reform is the collective "call out" of big tech by the little guys for the wrongdoing that has been experienced.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
But it also creates the concept that a platform can violate its own contract to provide service, under the flimsy excuse of "moderation".
On the post: Chinese Government Now Using National Security Law To Censor Art Being Displayed In Hong Kong
No Dissent Is Allowed
Sadly, this behavior from China portends what will eventually happen here in the U.S. it's simply a matter of incrementalism. Build the system of censorship now, and then continually expand it later.
On the post: Former FCC Boss Wheeler Says Trump FCC Napped On Cybersecurity
Glacial Timescale
Somehow, something tells me that no amount of authority is going to get a regulatory boondoggle agency like the FCC to get pipeline companies and meat packing plants to upgrade their cybersecurity measures in a timely manner.
On the post: Map Of The Internet Exposes The Lie That 'Big Tech' Controls The Internet
Re:
I tried looking for it too. However, the text description says that there's over 10k entries. Needle in a haystack, unless you know what island it's on, if at all. If anyone can find it, definitely let us know.
On the post: Data Analysis Shows That Trump's Messages Still Received Tons Of Attention; Though His Disinformation Doesn't Travel As Far
The internet is designed to eliminate gatekeepers. The people doing the rebroadcasting are no doubt willing to repost the more benign messages, but are fearful of being excommunicated by the Internet Inqisition should they repost anything controversial. Such is the life of an early reformer. An actual free marketplace allows EVERYONE to decide, not just a few.
On the post: Chief Publishing Lobbyist Maria Pallante Claims Copyright Is 'Under Assault' At Annual Meeting
Can't Do Without
Either that, or a realization that there's a near monopoly.
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
Re:
I really don't like the KKK, but if they just have a presence on twitter to say things like "Have a nice day!", or maybe post some photographs of Senators Robert Byrd and Joe Biden together, I wouldn't mind. But then you get into a thorny issue of "propaganda". If twitter can spell out banned words, that's certainly fine, because I'm not a big fan of obscenity.
On the post: Ohio Files Bizarre And Nonsensical Lawsuit Against Google, Claiming It's A Common Carrier; But What Does That Even Mean?
The hope was that the search algorithm was returning results based on relevancy to the user. Instead, google appears to refuse to consider information from some sources that are important to the user, but google dislikes. The results are not random, they're supposed to be focused around the interests of users and creators.
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
Re: Re:
This portion was already destroyed with the CDA, over 20 years ago with Reno v. ACLU. Not that I personally mind it. But if that's the main takeaway, then you lost conservatives a long long time ago. The internet is already a hive of scum and villainy, and noone cares anymore. Bring on the common carrier.
Next >>