Also note he is responding to Koby, the current resident anti-moderationist. Koby is trying to make the arguement that the constant "censorship" gives credibility to the arguments that they are being censored and Q.E.D. social media should be government so they stop censoring. Its been his recent pivot, to suggest the arguement in one post rather than actually make it over 10, which reduces the spam flags he gets.
And the answer is no. No it doesn't. It doesn't matter if they think it gives them credibility, their claims are not legally or scientifically credible.
Speech should have consequences, for the people speaking. A used car salesman who caused harm, likely did so by selling cars. The harm caused by his defective product is what got him in trouble. A common cause of action would likely be deception, false or misleading statement(s) that hid the true condition of the product. Fraud is narrowly defined, long standing exception to the 1A. That narrow definition makes it netoriously hard to get to stick with used cars. Its hard to prove that the salesman knowingly made false representations.
Your argument is "limits to the first amendment for fraud exist". Its true. But that isn't an arguement, its a premise. You still havent explained how the speech is actionable fraud. And then you still from there have to show that Facebook is liable. Facebook isn't the speaker. You need to transfer that liability from the speaker to Facebook, to achieve intermediary Liability.
The speech you mention is in service of a sale. That the speaker directly profited from the false or misleading statements. And if the speaker of health disinfo is selling you a product off that disinformation, the speaker has committed fraud. Think the "church" that sold you bleach as a covid cure after Trump suggested it. But there are pleanty out there who aren't making a buck. They are sharing conspiracy theories and propeganda but aren't profitting. In these cases there is no cause of action. We couldn't sue Trump for lying about COVID, we can't sue Tucker for saying kids can't be killed by COVID, and we can't sue random weirdos for saying bill gates is injecting you with microchip. And yet. you still have to make Facebook liable.
The worst part is, you are so dumb you can't see that Techdirt has given you the answer. Smart money would have be to point to the number of times Techdirt has highlighted what section 230 was intended to do: overturn the ruling in the Prodigy case. If Section 230 were repealed, you can bet people would try to use the prevailing case law, Prodigy Versus Oakmont, to force Facebook to be liable as Techdirt has argued. Thats a good arguement. I wish it was one you were making. It would require you to admit what section 230 actually does though.
I expect Techdirt would counter that recent apeallete and SCOTUS rulings (including the red flag knowledge case google vs viacom) would suggest that Facebook, who has the money to appeal as far as necessary, would eventually litigate the issue to a court which would rule that just because moderation happens, Facebook is not on notice of and cannot review the content of every post. Facebook is not and cannot be liable for content it did not create. The only thing section 230 did was to shortcut that whole debate and get to that result.
Remember he is claiming they lost credibility in 2017. So its the same mix of "Russia Hoax" (What the hoax is being a shifting set of goalposts), "Trump didn't cause WW3" (Missing that concerns were about the means, not the ends), and "the unite the right rally was actually peaceful and the person who got hit by a car had a simultaneous heart attack unrelated to being mowed down by a car in that moment" (Which rests on defining the rally as only the parts where anti-semitism, racism, or violence weren't happening). So lots of propeganda and lies from Koby.
Its probably also notable to the Musk Fanboys that think Techdirt just hates Musk given his recent issues with the 1st amendment and admitting Starlink isn't a magical panacea that Techdirt covered this, when it happened giving lots of positive coverage to the decision, as well as covering when Musk clarified he really meant it by removing the weasel words from his original announcement. Its also notable that Techdirt called out Ford for pretending it was following Tesla's Lead while giving credit to Toyota for joining Tesla
Epic is unprofitable because they gained market share by throwing absurd money at games as timed exclusives. Not because the reduced revenue share is inhearently unprofitable.
I see a lot of complaints about epic, not much about how stadia is a bad thing.
There is no technical reason to limit upstream speeds to 2.5% of download speeds. I am baffled why you think a 5 mbps upload is reasonable. That limitation only serves to prevent home internet users from using their internet as anything but a one way pipe of content.
the Microsoft acquisition (which may be a reason why the game is eventually coming out - the delay does suggest that the crowdfunding wasn't enough, perhaps?)
Double Fine (or rather Tim Schafer) is known for getting caught up in scope creep and kitchen sink mentality without a publisher to help reign them in (similar to other video game autours* like Hideo Kojima). The Psychonaughts 2 crowdfunding campaign (which I contributed to, full disclosure), much like with Broken Age, balooned and I expect got too big. Fig allowed them to get actual investment money as well which may have helped mitigate that issue. In the end you are probably right, without the microsoft acquisition, we probably wouldn't be getting the game yet.
The suit was struck down at the motion to dismiss stage, so they will likely file a request for fees, but they are also likely not worth the cost of further litigation.
Re: Re: Re: Patreon apparently also practices censorship
The storyteller? you didn't link or name the creator who supposedly is being censored. We can't contact him. So i'll have to assume you are lying like a cheap rug.
Commercial speech has been regulated, particularly on determining where commercial speech can occur, as well as compelling certain speech. Government has mandated nutrition labels. Government has also been able to control where tobacco advertisements can be shown. Clearly, the case that you have sited would permit a state to be able to restrict commercial spam by demonstrating a compelling state interest.
So your argument, As so many people will meaninglessly claim, is that the 1A has limitations. No disagreement. Rulings cited demonstrate commercial speech in general has 1A protection. If you read the ruling cpt kangarooski cited or his summary, you'd know where the lines were drawn - Misleading speech (similarly to Defamation, falsity has weaker 1A protections), Unlawful Activity (similarly to non-commercial speech, the discussion of unlawful activity receives weaker 1A protections), And finally, the government can, subject to strict scrutiny, restrict speech to fulfill a compelling government purpose (I may as well be quoting standard 1A restrictions for non-commercial speech at this point).
The restrictions allowed are founded in the well-established exceptions to the 1A. Commercial speech may have weaker protections than non-commercial speech. But the ways and reasons for 1A exceptions are no different between commercial and non-commercial speech.
Re: Re: Re: Patreon apparently also practices censorship
DebbyS, you are the "you" he is responding to. We are asking for more details on his inability to get money. Patreon allowing a content creator to retain their account, but withholding payouts is contrary to the standard practices of patreon. That means it sounds like a technical error, not a moderation issue. Your refusal to discuss what happens suggests you know its a bad faith arguement.
Id want to add because I kinda lost the connecting thread, as I noted, the claims of the lawsuit I have read suggest that some of the OEM/teleco stores may actually just be the google play store on the backend. So some of the competition is fake, if the lawsuit's claims are accurate. When AC says"All sorts of OEM and the mobile telcos have app stores", hes missing the key arguement that those stores aren't neccisarily competing with Google Play Store, they are the Google Play Store and are not genuine competition.
There is a difference between "competitors dont exist" and "Competition is discouraged". You don't deserve your insightful vote. You've completely misread what is happening and argued against a strawman.
How they obstruct is documented in the suit. Getting access to a variety of google services and apps requires you support the Google Play Store. Most users will stick with the google play store if it is availible, discouraging investing in building a storefront, which Epic will tell you is not as simple as you would think. They offered revenue shares to OEMs if they discontinued their store or white labeled the google play store. If an app is offered on a competing marketplace, it cant advertise on any google platform. The lawsuit accuses them of lots of market manipulation Apple can't do. That a user has a choice of app store is like saying a internet user has a choice of ISP in america. Even when its true, can the alternative truly be considered an alternative?
So, your conflation of Desktop and Phone OS indicates you don't understand the arguments being made.
That said I will highlight again that Android has the larger market share. Way more phones on android. Its a dumb anti-trust action, But it is targeting the largest player in the market.
Google is big. Really big. And its not about android, its about google.
Apple isn't in the dominant market position. Its more popular with app developers because, for the most part, you make an app for one version of iOS and its good for all phones that support that OS. Not true with android. So you have a lot more android phones. That puts Google in the dominant market position.
And most Google antitrust isn't about phones. Its about Search, Ads, Free office software, ect. Google's exposure is much higher, much more public. It keeps getting lumped into the moderation and censorship debates because of youtube, so politicians on both sides lump google in as a company that needs to be punished.
Apple is in the position it always finds itself in, in the shadow of a larger, bigger target. Its not that Apple is buying favor, its that google is earning disfavor due to its diverse portfolio ruffling the wrong feathers, and at the same time its diverse portfolio means it has multiple points of exposure making it more politically favorable to attack than Apple.
LLC stands for Limited Liability Company. None of them are LLCs. Twitter Inc, Facebook Inc, and Google Inc. An LLC would use LLC not Inc. They are C-Corps. That said, a C-corp provides even stronger liability protections, so that is a minor point.
It is common to initially sue the Cheif executives at a company, particularly when you want to claim some personal basis for company actions. It is possible to peirce the corporate veil and sue the executives, particularly if you are suing over the direct actions of an executive. You don't know the exact responsible party, so you sue all possible parties, and let discovery and the court sort out the responsible party(s).
You will have a hard time holding the CEOs responsible, but nothing stops you from filing the lawsuit (except perhaps competent legal council).
On the post: Anti-Vaxxers Countermeasures Show Why It's Not So Simple To Just 'Delete' Anti-Vax Misinfo On Social Media
Re: Re: Re: Counterproductive
Also note he is responding to Koby, the current resident anti-moderationist. Koby is trying to make the arguement that the constant "censorship" gives credibility to the arguments that they are being censored and Q.E.D. social media should be government so they stop censoring. Its been his recent pivot, to suggest the arguement in one post rather than actually make it over 10, which reduces the spam flags he gets.
And the answer is no. No it doesn't. It doesn't matter if they think it gives them credibility, their claims are not legally or scientifically credible.
On the post: Senators Klobuchar And Lujan Release Ridiculous, Blatantly Unconstitutional Bill To Make Facebook Liable For Health Misinformation
Re: Don't Be So Certain
Speech should have consequences, for the people speaking. A used car salesman who caused harm, likely did so by selling cars. The harm caused by his defective product is what got him in trouble. A common cause of action would likely be deception, false or misleading statement(s) that hid the true condition of the product. Fraud is narrowly defined, long standing exception to the 1A. That narrow definition makes it netoriously hard to get to stick with used cars. Its hard to prove that the salesman knowingly made false representations.
Your argument is "limits to the first amendment for fraud exist". Its true. But that isn't an arguement, its a premise. You still havent explained how the speech is actionable fraud. And then you still from there have to show that Facebook is liable. Facebook isn't the speaker. You need to transfer that liability from the speaker to Facebook, to achieve intermediary Liability.
The speech you mention is in service of a sale. That the speaker directly profited from the false or misleading statements. And if the speaker of health disinfo is selling you a product off that disinformation, the speaker has committed fraud. Think the "church" that sold you bleach as a covid cure after Trump suggested it. But there are pleanty out there who aren't making a buck. They are sharing conspiracy theories and propeganda but aren't profitting. In these cases there is no cause of action. We couldn't sue Trump for lying about COVID, we can't sue Tucker for saying kids can't be killed by COVID, and we can't sue random weirdos for saying bill gates is injecting you with microchip. And yet. you still have to make Facebook liable.
The worst part is, you are so dumb you can't see that Techdirt has given you the answer. Smart money would have be to point to the number of times Techdirt has highlighted what section 230 was intended to do: overturn the ruling in the Prodigy case. If Section 230 were repealed, you can bet people would try to use the prevailing case law, Prodigy Versus Oakmont, to force Facebook to be liable as Techdirt has argued. Thats a good arguement. I wish it was one you were making. It would require you to admit what section 230 actually does though.
I expect Techdirt would counter that recent apeallete and SCOTUS rulings (including the red flag knowledge case google vs viacom) would suggest that Facebook, who has the money to appeal as far as necessary, would eventually litigate the issue to a court which would rule that just because moderation happens, Facebook is not on notice of and cannot review the content of every post. Facebook is not and cannot be liable for content it did not create. The only thing section 230 did was to shortcut that whole debate and get to that result.
On the post: Senator Amy Klobuchar Says She Has A Bill To Hold Facebook Responsible For Vaccine Disinfo; But What Would The Cause Of Action Be?
Re: Re: 'Oh, you know...'
I would like to highlight your lack of any specifics, instead gesturing to a vague pattern of behavior that is supposedly general knowledge.
On the post: Florida's New Law Against Blocking Roads During Protests Already Being Ignored By Cops Policing Protests The Governor Supports
Re: I Appreciate The Agreement
You continue to misunderstand the difference between government action and private action, I see.
On the post: Court Calls Bullshit On Cop Who Claimed He Could Smell Weed In Sealed Bags In A Moving Car From His Own Moving Cruiser
Re: Seig Heil Maga
You got the quote wrong. The preferred MAGA Nazi Cheer is "Heil Trump! [Heil Victory!] https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/11/15/man-shouted-heil-hitler-heil-trump-duri ng-fiddler-roof-people-ran/)"
On the post: Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
Remember he is claiming they lost credibility in 2017. So its the same mix of "Russia Hoax" (What the hoax is being a shifting set of goalposts), "Trump didn't cause WW3" (Missing that concerns were about the means, not the ends), and "the unite the right rally was actually peaceful and the person who got hit by a car had a simultaneous heart attack unrelated to being mowed down by a car in that moment" (Which rests on defining the rally as only the parts where anti-semitism, racism, or violence weren't happening). So lots of propeganda and lies from Koby.
On the post: Many Automakers Rely On Patents, But That Doesn't Mean All Patents Are Good For Automakers
Re: Tesla Patents
Its probably also notable to the Musk Fanboys that think Techdirt just hates Musk given his recent issues with the 1st amendment and admitting Starlink isn't a magical panacea that Techdirt covered this, when it happened giving lots of positive coverage to the decision, as well as covering when Musk clarified he really meant it by removing the weasel words from his original announcement. Its also notable that Techdirt called out Ford for pretending it was following Tesla's Lead while giving credit to Toyota for joining Tesla
On the post: Google Jumps Into The Game Revenue Split Wars With Stadia
Re:
Epic is unprofitable because they gained market share by throwing absurd money at games as timed exclusives. Not because the reduced revenue share is inhearently unprofitable.
I see a lot of complaints about epic, not much about how stadia is a bad thing.
Maybe, discuss the actual issues at hand?
On the post: Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)
Re: Re:
Koby is not a person, Koby is an algorithm designed to ship of thesius any event to fit his narrative. Its right out of the alt-right playbook.
On the post: GAO Tells US Government Its Speed Definition For Broadband Sucks
Re:
There is no technical reason to limit upstream speeds to 2.5% of download speeds. I am baffled why you think a 5 mbps upload is reasonable. That limitation only serves to prevent home internet users from using their internet as anything but a one way pipe of content.
On the post: Japanese Police Arrest Man For Selling Modded Save Files For Single-Player Nintendo Game
Re: Re: Re:
Double Fine (or rather Tim Schafer) is known for getting caught up in scope creep and kitchen sink mentality without a publisher to help reign them in (similar to other video game autours* like Hideo Kojima). The Psychonaughts 2 crowdfunding campaign (which I contributed to, full disclosure), much like with Broken Age, balooned and I expect got too big. Fig allowed them to get actual investment money as well which may have helped mitigate that issue. In the end you are probably right, without the microsoft acquisition, we probably wouldn't be getting the game yet.
On the post: Court To Judge Roy Moore: You're Not Defamation-Proof, But This Contract You Signed Sure Is
Re:
The suit was struck down at the motion to dismiss stage, so they will likely file a request for fees, but they are also likely not worth the cost of further litigation.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
Re: Re: Re: Patreon apparently also practices censorship
The storyteller? you didn't link or name the creator who supposedly is being censored. We can't contact him. So i'll have to assume you are lying like a cheap rug.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
1st amendment
So your argument, As so many people will meaninglessly claim, is that the 1A has limitations. No disagreement. Rulings cited demonstrate commercial speech in general has 1A protection. If you read the ruling cpt kangarooski cited or his summary, you'd know where the lines were drawn - Misleading speech (similarly to Defamation, falsity has weaker 1A protections), Unlawful Activity (similarly to non-commercial speech, the discussion of unlawful activity receives weaker 1A protections), And finally, the government can, subject to strict scrutiny, restrict speech to fulfill a compelling government purpose (I may as well be quoting standard 1A restrictions for non-commercial speech at this point).
The restrictions allowed are founded in the well-established exceptions to the 1A. Commercial speech may have weaker protections than non-commercial speech. But the ways and reasons for 1A exceptions are no different between commercial and non-commercial speech.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
Re: Re: Re: Patreon apparently also practices censorship
DebbyS, you are the "you" he is responding to. We are asking for more details on his inability to get money. Patreon allowing a content creator to retain their account, but withholding payouts is contrary to the standard practices of patreon. That means it sounds like a technical error, not a moderation issue. Your refusal to discuss what happens suggests you know its a bad faith arguement.
On the post: Google Facing Yet Another Antitrust Lawsuit Over Its App Store Practices, Even Though Android Is Quite Permissive
Re: Re:
Id want to add because I kinda lost the connecting thread, as I noted, the claims of the lawsuit I have read suggest that some of the OEM/teleco stores may actually just be the google play store on the backend. So some of the competition is fake, if the lawsuit's claims are accurate. When AC says"All sorts of OEM and the mobile telcos have app stores", hes missing the key arguement that those stores aren't neccisarily competing with Google Play Store, they are the Google Play Store and are not genuine competition.
On the post: Google Facing Yet Another Antitrust Lawsuit Over Its App Store Practices, Even Though Android Is Quite Permissive
Re:
There is a difference between "competitors dont exist" and "Competition is discouraged". You don't deserve your insightful vote. You've completely misread what is happening and argued against a strawman.
How they obstruct is documented in the suit. Getting access to a variety of google services and apps requires you support the Google Play Store. Most users will stick with the google play store if it is availible, discouraging investing in building a storefront, which Epic will tell you is not as simple as you would think. They offered revenue shares to OEMs if they discontinued their store or white labeled the google play store. If an app is offered on a competing marketplace, it cant advertise on any google platform. The lawsuit accuses them of lots of market manipulation Apple can't do. That a user has a choice of app store is like saying a internet user has a choice of ISP in america. Even when its true, can the alternative truly be considered an alternative?
On the post: Google Facing Yet Another Antitrust Lawsuit Over Its App Store Practices, Even Though Android Is Quite Permissive
Re: Umm,
So, your conflation of Desktop and Phone OS indicates you don't understand the arguments being made.
That said I will highlight again that Android has the larger market share. Way more phones on android. Its a dumb anti-trust action, But it is targeting the largest player in the market.
On the post: Google Facing Yet Another Antitrust Lawsuit Over Its App Store Practices, Even Though Android Is Quite Permissive
Re:
Google is big. Really big. And its not about android, its about google.
Apple isn't in the dominant market position. Its more popular with app developers because, for the most part, you make an app for one version of iOS and its good for all phones that support that OS. Not true with android. So you have a lot more android phones. That puts Google in the dominant market position.
And most Google antitrust isn't about phones. Its about Search, Ads, Free office software, ect. Google's exposure is much higher, much more public. It keeps getting lumped into the moderation and censorship debates because of youtube, so politicians on both sides lump google in as a company that needs to be punished.
Apple is in the position it always finds itself in, in the shadow of a larger, bigger target. Its not that Apple is buying favor, its that google is earning disfavor due to its diverse portfolio ruffling the wrong feathers, and at the same time its diverse portfolio means it has multiple points of exposure making it more politically favorable to attack than Apple.
On the post: It Can Always Get Dumber: Trump Sues Facebook, Twitter & YouTube, Claiming His Own Government Violated The Constitution
Re:
LLC stands for Limited Liability Company. None of them are LLCs. Twitter Inc, Facebook Inc, and Google Inc. An LLC would use LLC not Inc. They are C-Corps. That said, a C-corp provides even stronger liability protections, so that is a minor point.
It is common to initially sue the Cheif executives at a company, particularly when you want to claim some personal basis for company actions. It is possible to peirce the corporate veil and sue the executives, particularly if you are suing over the direct actions of an executive. You don't know the exact responsible party, so you sue all possible parties, and let discovery and the court sort out the responsible party(s).
You will have a hard time holding the CEOs responsible, but nothing stops you from filing the lawsuit (except perhaps competent legal council).
Next >>