If you're a country that isn't the United States, it seems impossible to argue against localization after everything the CIA/FBI/NSA has done. The actions of U.S. tech companies, combined with the spy agencies, have gotten too ugly for overseas citizens to defend.
As Stanford's Daphne Keller notes, this seems like we're careening at high speed down the slippery slope towards governments directly deciding what remains up and what gets taken down, with little (or no!) consideration of the users' own interests.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Socialism is the unholy union between corporations and government.
I don't really like the idea of calling the Young situation a case of a raid on the wrong house. Rather, the cops trusted a bogus CI and then raided the location with zero actual investigation. It wasn't a "wrong house raid", it was a "right house incompetence".
I don't think anyone involved in this screwup should get immunity. Whoever led them to the wrong address should pay a price. The CI should go to jail for just making stuff up. The investigating officer should probably be fired for negligence. Then, it appears that the cover-up goes all the way up to the mayor, so if it were up to me then there would be a recall petition circulating. When bad outcomes occur, there should be some accountability. But this is Chicago, so I won't hold my breath.
In digital triplicate, one imagines. This is a long list of nuisances that will only help ensure the dominant players in the social media marketplace remain dominant.
It will probably be a minor issue IF a site were to limit its moderation to the original purposes of section 230: stopping obscenity and commercial spam. Corporations which expand beyond this will receive a headache, especially if they have contorted rules that engage in political favoritism. The rest of the public has to jump thru hoops to figure out how to reinstate their account if they receive some bogus DCMA takedown notice. Let's give the the social media giants a little taste in return.
Many of us are not surprised at all. This is a clear example of left wing fascism, and has been much more common in recent years. When any difference of opinion is labelled as "hate speech", tolerance and diversity will fly out the window.
And where is it written that social media is required to provide an audience for everybody.
That's why many of us want section 230 reform. We want to write it down. If you build the digital version of a public square, and folks can voluntarily subscribe, then the platform shouldn't be censored. The voluntary communication should be unquestionably allowed.
Just as importantly, the people that subscribed to his feed were doing so voluntarily. The big tech censors don't want certain people to speak, but they also don't want people to listen. They seek to deny network usage based upon political affiliation; freedom of speech means little without access. This is why it's so important to repeal section 230, and subject social media to common carrier utility rules.
Perhaps someday there could be a merger review system. It seems that many mergers involve companies making promises as a condition for approval. A review process is needed to revisit the merger, and determine whether what was said during the merger was all a bunch of hocus. And if so, then the merger is retroactively rejected.
You left out the end of that sentence "... who were violating the rules and policies of the site which was providing them a space, and therefore were removed."
If you are correct, then it's no longer a First Amendment issue, instead just a rules issue. Similar to how corporations have no first amendment defense against things such as discrimination, the speech of the users is not the speech of the platform.
That's exactly how the free market works, Koby. You think the gov't should force them to do otherwise?
Again, there is no free market when the corporations decide against tens of millions of their own users. But corporations running a public utility should be forced to play by the same rules: no abridgement of free speech. Just as companies can be bound by mandates over who receives service, and who can be disconnected, the government can do the same for the network service. Particularly since it's a near-monopoly at the moment.
No one's being censored, Koby. Some of your friends are assholes. And some people don't want to associate with assholes.
Those that were censored were amongst the most popular, with growing followings and channels. People voluntarily subscribed. Big tech could not allow the free market to decide. The users didn't decide to disassociate, the corporations did.
I support the general principle of the 1st Amendment, in that political speech is protected. You only oppose the idea of government being unable to engage in censorship, while supporting the concept that corporations are able to dictate free speech. Socialists have been searching for a way to short circuit the bill of rights, and now they have found their way: team up with the big tech companies, and have the corporations accomplish that which they only wished they could do.
The issue all of us keep pointing out is not that 230 is perfect, but that every suggestion for changing it will create all sorts of problems that make the internet much worse.
Many of the suggestions offered involve allowing political speech from all sources. On this basic point, there is not agreement. The pro 230 people view political censorship as a good thing, and limited moderation to quash profanity and spam as bad, specifically because it permits speech with which they disagree. We disagree on what will make things better or worse.
40 years ago, video games looked rather primitive compared to what we can experience today. Not just in terms of graphics, or audio, or even gameplay features, but also the terms of pricing. It is my understanding that there was a crash of the video game market back in 1983, which was blamed on a slew of low quality games. Buyers became disinterested after paying good money for bad products. Today, consumers can experience some games before they pay for it, thereby avoiding the problem. It's a clear win for purchasers, thanks to intense competition.
It doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon here in the United States. The facial recognition systems are so bad that it's kind of worthless. Take the Marilyn Harper/Nancy Pelosi laptop FBI raid from last week. The feds realized that they messed up the facial recognition thing so badly that they didn't bother to arrest her. Over in Soviet Russia, on the other hand, the authorities probably don't care who they arrest.
People who are asked to leave mainstream communities because they're considered toxic to those communities are unlikely to be attractive by nature to the mainstream when they set up their own spaces.
Except that Trump had millions upon millions of followers, and Parler was the most popular app prior to them being deplatformed. The tech monopolies were displeased that ordinary people were subscribing.
You don't get to demand that others let you use their property just because it's hard for you to set up another platform.
We don't setup parallel electrical grids or phone networks. It's a public platform utility at this point, subject to common carrier rules. Even if alternatives are possible, such as connecting a generator to an appliance, or a two way radio connection is available, it's still a public network. And these utilities can be privately owned and maintained, yet obligated to allow public access.
Which makes it lucky that creating a new website to act as a platform on the internet is nothing like doing that, and only smooth brained types like yourself would consider it remotely similar.
One blog site does not equate to a social media platform, not by a long shot.
The january events proved that if you attempt to use existing networks and ISPs without an airtight contract, the tech monopolies WILL collude, and will work to censor you if they disagree with your political stance. To protect freedom, it looks like a parallel system will need to be constructed, almost from the ground up.
Overall a bad thing. You shouldn't need to invent a whole new internet just to enjoy the 1st Amendment. But it looks like that might be what it takes to protect freedom, so some people are leading the way by sidestepping the censorship of big tech by starting from scratch.
Also, it doesn't appear to have any moderation rules, because he's the only one doing the talking. In other words: it's a publication and not a platform. Section 230 is completely unnecessary for his site at the moment.
It's more profitable to heavily market Hawley and enjoy the resulting controversy than it is to do the right thing and not platform his dangerous lies at all. The age-old internet concept "don't feed the trolls" isn't adhered to because adhering to it harms profits.
I have to wonder how badly the Amazon Post is hemorrhaging cash, if they're willing to stir up the pot in exchange for some readership. I'm not really hearing anything wrong with the talk that he gave, only character assassination for past policy disagreements. I guess the leftists don't want a free press; they just want an echo chamber, even if it drives them into bankruptcy again.
On the post: Governments Around The World Want To Require Local Employees Of Internet Firms, So They Have People To Jail
The Price of Unaccountability
If you're a country that isn't the United States, it seems impossible to argue against localization after everything the CIA/FBI/NSA has done. The actions of U.S. tech companies, combined with the spy agencies, have gotten too ugly for overseas citizens to defend.
On the post: eBay To Let Governments Pull Down Listings Automatically; What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Appropriated
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Socialism is the unholy union between corporations and government.
On the post: Chicago PD Oversight Says Officers Racked Up 100 Misconduct Allegations During A Single Wrong Address Raid
Re:
I don't really like the idea of calling the Young situation a case of a raid on the wrong house. Rather, the cops trusted a bogus CI and then raided the location with zero actual investigation. It wasn't a "wrong house raid", it was a "right house incompetence".
I don't think anyone involved in this screwup should get immunity. Whoever led them to the wrong address should pay a price. The CI should go to jail for just making stuff up. The investigating officer should probably be fired for negligence. Then, it appears that the cover-up goes all the way up to the mayor, so if it were up to me then there would be a recall petition circulating. When bad outcomes occur, there should be some accountability. But this is Chicago, so I won't hold my breath.
On the post: New Jersey State Legislators Think They Can Get Trump Back On Facebook By Passing A Stupid Social Media Moderation Bill
Short List
It will probably be a minor issue IF a site were to limit its moderation to the original purposes of section 230: stopping obscenity and commercial spam. Corporations which expand beyond this will receive a headache, especially if they have contorted rules that engage in political favoritism. The rest of the public has to jump thru hoops to figure out how to reinstate their account if they receive some bogus DCMA takedown notice. Let's give the the social media giants a little taste in return.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Knitting Community Ravelry Bans All Talk Supporting President Trump (2019)
Not Really
Many of us are not surprised at all. This is a clear example of left wing fascism, and has been much more common in recent years. When any difference of opinion is labelled as "hate speech", tolerance and diversity will fly out the window.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
That's why many of us want section 230 reform. We want to write it down. If you build the digital version of a public square, and folks can voluntarily subscribe, then the platform shouldn't be censored. The voluntary communication should be unquestionably allowed.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
We Knew It Was Just Political
Just as importantly, the people that subscribed to his feed were doing so voluntarily. The big tech censors don't want certain people to speak, but they also don't want people to listen. They seek to deny network usage based upon political affiliation; freedom of speech means little without access. This is why it's so important to repeal section 230, and subject social media to common carrier utility rules.
On the post: The Dish 'Fix' For The T-Mobile Merger Is Looking More And More Like A Ridiculous Mess
Subject To Review
Perhaps someday there could be a merger review system. It seems that many mergers involve companies making promises as a condition for approval. A review process is needed to revisit the merger, and determine whether what was said during the merger was all a bunch of hocus. And if so, then the merger is retroactively rejected.
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, Not A Bug
If you are correct, then it's no longer a First Amendment issue, instead just a rules issue. Similar to how corporations have no first amendment defense against things such as discrimination, the speech of the users is not the speech of the platform.
Again, there is no free market when the corporations decide against tens of millions of their own users. But corporations running a public utility should be forced to play by the same rules: no abridgement of free speech. Just as companies can be bound by mandates over who receives service, and who can be disconnected, the government can do the same for the network service. Particularly since it's a near-monopoly at the moment.
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, Not A Bug
Those that were censored were amongst the most popular, with growing followings and channels. People voluntarily subscribed. Big tech could not allow the free market to decide. The users didn't decide to disassociate, the corporations did.
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re: Feature, Not A Bug
I support the general principle of the 1st Amendment, in that political speech is protected. You only oppose the idea of government being unable to engage in censorship, while supporting the concept that corporations are able to dictate free speech. Socialists have been searching for a way to short circuit the bill of rights, and now they have found their way: team up with the big tech companies, and have the corporations accomplish that which they only wished they could do.
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Feature, Not A Bug
Many of the suggestions offered involve allowing political speech from all sources. On this basic point, there is not agreement. The pro 230 people view political censorship as a good thing, and limited moderation to quash profanity and spam as bad, specifically because it permits speech with which they disagree. We disagree on what will make things better or worse.
On the post: Fortnite, A Free Game, Made $9 Billion In Two Years
Competition Wins Again
40 years ago, video games looked rather primitive compared to what we can experience today. Not just in terms of graphics, or audio, or even gameplay features, but also the terms of pricing. It is my understanding that there was a crash of the video game market back in 1983, which was blamed on a slew of low quality games. Buyers became disinterested after paying good money for bad products. Today, consumers can experience some games before they pay for it, thereby avoiding the problem. It's a clear win for purchasers, thanks to intense competition.
On the post: Putin's Crackdown On Demonstrators Adds A Sadistic Twist: Using Surveillance Cameras To Identify People, But To Arrest Them Only Days Or Months Later
Re:
It doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon here in the United States. The facial recognition systems are so bad that it's kind of worthless. Take the Marilyn Harper/Nancy Pelosi laptop FBI raid from last week. The feds realized that they messed up the facial recognition thing so badly that they didn't bother to arrest her. Over in Soviet Russia, on the other hand, the authorities probably don't care who they arrest.
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: Re:
Except that Trump had millions upon millions of followers, and Parler was the most popular app prior to them being deplatformed. The tech monopolies were displeased that ordinary people were subscribing.
We don't setup parallel electrical grids or phone networks. It's a public platform utility at this point, subject to common carrier rules. Even if alternatives are possible, such as connecting a generator to an appliance, or a two way radio connection is available, it's still a public network. And these utilities can be privately owned and maintained, yet obligated to allow public access.
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: Re: Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?
One blog site does not equate to a social media platform, not by a long shot.
The january events proved that if you attempt to use existing networks and ISPs without an airtight contract, the tech monopolies WILL collude, and will work to censor you if they disagree with your political stance. To protect freedom, it looks like a parallel system will need to be constructed, almost from the ground up.
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: Re: Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?
No, his site is not a platform, it's a publication.
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?
Overall a bad thing. You shouldn't need to invent a whole new internet just to enjoy the 1st Amendment. But it looks like that might be what it takes to protect freedom, so some people are leading the way by sidestepping the censorship of big tech by starting from scratch.
Also, it doesn't appear to have any moderation rules, because he's the only one doing the talking. In other words: it's a publication and not a platform. Section 230 is completely unnecessary for his site at the moment.
On the post: The Washington Post Thought It Might Be Nice To Provide Free Book Marketing To Insurrectionist Josh Hawley
Must Have Been A Great Interview
I have to wonder how badly the Amazon Post is hemorrhaging cash, if they're willing to stir up the pot in exchange for some readership. I'm not really hearing anything wrong with the talk that he gave, only character assassination for past policy disagreements. I guess the leftists don't want a free press; they just want an echo chamber, even if it drives them into bankruptcy again.
On the post: Disney Got Itself A 'If You Own A Themepark...' Carveout From Florida's Blatantly Unconstitutional Social Media Moderation Bill
Re: Inconsistency is thy name
It fits because of what you just said-- the theme parks are publishers, and not platforms.
Next >>