The original purpose of content moderation was to eliminate obscenity, and not to control people's beliefs. It's good to see someone living up to the original purpose, and demonstrating that moderation doesn't need to violate people's ability to speak freely.
"Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…"
The proposed legal change would not abridge speech, but would instead change the interpretation of a 1922 court decision regarding the scope of interstate commerce. MLB would still be free to swap all-star site locations for political purposes as much as they want.
Here's the thing that many people are missing: you can do constitutional things for unconstitutional reasons, and it makes the things you do... unconstitutional.
There is no intent clause in the first amendment. The senators are similarly entitled to their opinions. Any elected officials that vote to eliminate the antitrust exemption are allowed to do so because they think it's a good idea, while also holding the opinion that MLB are a bunch of jerks. Laws cannot be declared unconstitutional on the basis of lawmakers being insufficiently friendly.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before big tech turned its guns on one another. If a company has a lot of money, but can't create a better product, then they might justify the decision to utilize cash for the purposes of lobbying and lawfare in an attempt to steal market share.
Re: So, they got nothing - because cryptocurrency is complete BS
I would love to for someone to gift me a one ounce gold coin. I don't care if I have to go through the extra step of exchanging it at a coin dealer first, I'll take it.
Conducting a drug transaction in the front of a store, in plain daylight, in view of a security camera is actually a pretty good idea. If the other party robs you, then you can call the cops on them and have some recourse. As long as the drugs are concealed, noone can prove that illicit activity was afoot, even if they watch the security footage, which they probably won't.
It also says, explicitly, that social media companies cannot take down content for hate speech. Like, literally, these three ignorant, foolish senators are insisting that websites be forced to host hate speech.
Hate speech is simply speech with which you disagree. If a website were censoring minorities, then you would cheer on this bill. Labeling something as hate speech is just a lazy attempt by websites for violating their own terms of service.
It is my understanding that if the courts, as a general principle, identify one reason that will conclude the matter at hand, then they typically focus on this one item. It will decide the case, they will write their reasoning, but will ignore other aspects of the case. Few cases will thoroughly explore all possible legal avenues.
Operating in this way probably makes the workload easier for judges, and could lead to a greater number of cases being decided. This may benefit the public if many cases are pending, and only a limited number of cases can be heard. Also, if one aspect of a case is murky, and won't actually decide the case, the judges may figure that another case in the future will be more appropriate for making a decision.
My fear, aside from the court reaffirming the CAFC court mistake, was that they would sidestep the issue somehow. That they determined APIs to fall under fair use will hopefully not be so narrow, and will significantly settle the issue from this point onwards.
Just as there are a number of companies that claim they will help consumers to get out of debt, perhaps an industry will be created that works to jailbreak a borrower's phone and remove this supposedly unremovable app. Similar to tech repair shops, if it costs less to fix than the cost of the loan, then it could become a profitable model. Hopefully this threat by itself will limit the loan sharks to small balance amounts that don't ruin people's lives with their usurious rates.
It appears that the only thing valuable to the corporations is their own brand image. Thank goodness for a little investigative journalism embarrassment.
As far as section 230 is concerned, the phrases "first-party" and "third-party" don't actually exist.
Correct. But, by extension, Mike's 3rd party argument no longer holds water either. So we return to the plain reading of c(1), which is that it offers no protection if a 3rd party is not involved.
since no service can be considered a publisher of content that they allowed to be posted on their site, there aren't any penalties for removing said content.
You have listed a c(2) protection, not a c(1), which means that it comes with conditions.
the courts have recognized that holding a website liable for what content they took down is also holding them liable for third party content
The plaintiff is the first party, the defendant is the second party. No third party is involved. If courts are finding otherwise, then they've artificially created quite an immunity loophole that allows discrimination by any platform, simply by claiming "moderation decision".
It is not clear why it didn't just use (c)(1) like every other similar case
c(1) offers protection when someone is trying to hold the platform liable for the speech of someone else. Vimeo was not being sued for being a platform for some else's speech. Rather, they were accused of engaging in discriminatory moderation deciscions. (c)1 offers no protection in this case, so they instead needed c(2).
Some rating systems are designed to be non-transparent in an attempt to prevent them from being gamed. The FICO credit score system is proprietary, and google has kept its search engine algorithm secret in an attempt to lower the effectiveness of SEO. Of course, folks have mostly figured out how these systems work anyhow. But it's unsurprising that another rating system with potential adversaries would want to remain opaque, even if it won't remain secret in the long run.
The government engages in a few enforcement actions that manages to catch a small number of crooks, in order to gain publicity and deter a larger amount of others. As an example, Highway Patrol setting up bait cars will not prevent all car theft. If I mess up on my taxes, and the IRS decides to audit me, they aren't going to show any mercy. Similarly, student visitors ought to feel some fear of attempting to remain under fraudulent pretenses. There NEEDS to be a risk of getting caught.
it's quite likely that many will simply try to "hide" behind other language to make it more difficult for Facebook to find
For awhile now, many creators on other platforms have been producing content, unrelated to militias or race, that use code words and lingo. It usually works to avoid demonetization or censorship. I bet it's actually helping these communities to grow, much to the chagrin of those that want to limit their reach. They get to be an edgy underground rebel, instead of a conformist.
he's long since entered auto-flag territory for me for constantly showing that he's not interested in an honest discussion via refusing to answer Stephen's simple question
On the post: The Pillow Dude's 'Free Speech' Social Media Website Will Moderate 'Swear Words' Because Of Course It Will
Original
The original purpose of content moderation was to eliminate obscenity, and not to control people's beliefs. It's good to see someone living up to the original purpose, and demonstrating that moderation doesn't need to violate people's ability to speak freely.
On the post: Sens. Cruz, Hawley & Lee Show How To Take A Good Bill Idea And Make It Blatantly Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Works Both Ways
The proposed legal change would not abridge speech, but would instead change the interpretation of a 1922 court decision regarding the scope of interstate commerce. MLB would still be free to swap all-star site locations for political purposes as much as they want.
On the post: Sens. Cruz, Hawley & Lee Show How To Take A Good Bill Idea And Make It Blatantly Unconstitutional
Works Both Ways
There is no intent clause in the first amendment. The senators are similarly entitled to their opinions. Any elected officials that vote to eliminate the antitrust exemption are allowed to do so because they think it's a good idea, while also holding the opinion that MLB are a bunch of jerks. Laws cannot be declared unconstitutional on the basis of lawmakers being insufficiently friendly.
On the post: Oracle's Projection: As It Accuses Google Of Snooping On You, It Has Built A Huge Data Operation That It Doesn't Want Regulated
Re: Re: Re: Oracle evil TOO doesn't make GOOGLE less evil.
Never trust a company that used to have "Don't Be Evil" as its motto, but then abandoned it.
On the post: Oracle's Projection: As It Accuses Google Of Snooping On You, It Has Built A Huge Data Operation That It Doesn't Want Regulated
Best Defense is a Good Offense
I suppose it was only a matter of time before big tech turned its guns on one another. If a company has a lot of money, but can't create a better product, then they might justify the decision to utilize cash for the purposes of lobbying and lawfare in an attempt to steal market share.
On the post: Filecoin Foundation Donates $10 Million Worth Of Filecoin To Internet Archive
Re: So, they got nothing - because cryptocurrency is complete BS
I would love to for someone to gift me a one ounce gold coin. I don't care if I have to go through the extra step of exchanging it at a coin dealer first, I'll take it.
On the post: Fourth Circuit Appeals Court Takes Aim At Police Officers' 'Training And Expertise' Assertions
Jay and Silent Bob Approve
Conducting a drug transaction in the front of a store, in plain daylight, in view of a security camera is actually a pretty good idea. If the other party robs you, then you can call the cops on them and have some recourse. As long as the drugs are concealed, noone can prove that illicit activity was afoot, even if they watch the security footage, which they probably won't.
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
The Other Foot
Hate speech is simply speech with which you disagree. If a website were censoring minorities, then you would cheer on this bill. Labeling something as hate speech is just a lazy attempt by websites for violating their own terms of service.
On the post: Supreme Court Sides With Google In Decade-Long Fight Over API Copyright; Google's Copying Of Java API Is Fair Use
Re:
It is my understanding that if the courts, as a general principle, identify one reason that will conclude the matter at hand, then they typically focus on this one item. It will decide the case, they will write their reasoning, but will ignore other aspects of the case. Few cases will thoroughly explore all possible legal avenues.
Operating in this way probably makes the workload easier for judges, and could lead to a greater number of cases being decided. This may benefit the public if many cases are pending, and only a limited number of cases can be heard. Also, if one aspect of a case is murky, and won't actually decide the case, the judges may figure that another case in the future will be more appropriate for making a decision.
On the post: Supreme Court Sides With Google In Decade-Long Fight Over API Copyright; Google's Copying Of Java API Is Fair Use
Re:
My fear, aside from the court reaffirming the CAFC court mistake, was that they would sidestep the issue somehow. That they determined APIs to fall under fair use will hopefully not be so narrow, and will significantly settle the issue from this point onwards.
On the post: Undeletable Coercive Loan Apps First Hobble Then Shut Down Your Smartphone If You Fall Behind On Repayments
Why Pay More?
Just as there are a number of companies that claim they will help consumers to get out of debt, perhaps an industry will be created that works to jailbreak a borrower's phone and remove this supposedly unremovable app. Similar to tech repair shops, if it costs less to fix than the cost of the loan, then it could become a profitable model. Hopefully this threat by itself will limit the loan sharks to small balance amounts that don't ruin people's lives with their usurious rates.
On the post: Journalism Forces Wireless Industry To Belatedly Fix Text Message Flaw That Let Hackers Access Your Data For $16
Re:
It appears that the only thing valuable to the corporations is their own brand image. Thank goodness for a little investigative journalism embarrassment.
On the post: Appeals Court Actually Explores 'Good Faith' Issue In A Section 230 Case (Spoiler Alert: It Still Protects Moderation Choices)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct. But, by extension, Mike's 3rd party argument no longer holds water either. So we return to the plain reading of c(1), which is that it offers no protection if a 3rd party is not involved.
You have listed a c(2) protection, not a c(1), which means that it comes with conditions.
On the post: Appeals Court Actually Explores 'Good Faith' Issue In A Section 230 Case (Spoiler Alert: It Still Protects Moderation Choices)
Re: Re:
The plaintiff is the first party, the defendant is the second party. No third party is involved. If courts are finding otherwise, then they've artificially created quite an immunity loophole that allows discrimination by any platform, simply by claiming "moderation decision".
On the post: Appeals Court Actually Explores 'Good Faith' Issue In A Section 230 Case (Spoiler Alert: It Still Protects Moderation Choices)
c(1) offers protection when someone is trying to hold the platform liable for the speech of someone else. Vimeo was not being sued for being a platform for some else's speech. Rather, they were accused of engaging in discriminatory moderation deciscions. (c)1 offers no protection in this case, so they instead needed c(2).
On the post: Wireless Industry Eyes Nontransparent 'Trust Score' To Determine Who Can Market Via Text Message
Game The System
Some rating systems are designed to be non-transparent in an attempt to prevent them from being gamed. The FICO credit score system is proprietary, and google has kept its search engine algorithm secret in an attempt to lower the effectiveness of SEO. Of course, folks have mostly figured out how these systems work anyhow. But it's unsurprising that another rating system with potential adversaries would want to remain opaque, even if it won't remain secret in the long run.
On the post: Biden Administration Says There's Nothing Wrong With ICE Setting Up A Fake College To Dupe Foreign Students Out Of Their Money, Residency
JeBaited
The government engages in a few enforcement actions that manages to catch a small number of crooks, in order to gain publicity and deter a larger amount of others. As an example, Highway Patrol setting up bait cars will not prevent all car theft. If I mess up on my taxes, and the IRS decides to audit me, they aren't going to show any mercy. Similarly, student visitors ought to feel some fear of attempting to remain under fraudulent pretenses. There NEEDS to be a risk of getting caught.
On the post: Congressional Panel On Internet And Disinformation... Includes Many Who Spread Disinformation Online
I'll Allow It!
Of course, when you have a bunch of Blue-Anon Russia-gate conspiracy theorists sending out disinformation every day for three years, it's okay.
On the post: Militias Still Recruiting On Facebook Demonstrates The Impossibility Of Content Moderation At Scale
Hidden In Plain Sight
For awhile now, many creators on other platforms have been producing content, unrelated to militias or race, that use code words and lingo. It usually works to avoid demonetization or censorship. I bet it's actually helping these communities to grow, much to the chagrin of those that want to limit their reach. They get to be an edgy underground rebel, instead of a conformist.
On the post: What I Hope Tech CEOs Will Tell Congress: 'We're Not Neutral'
Re:
Hah! Talk about "forced speech"!
Next >>