Wait, let's backtrack here a moment, because I think I'm losing track of what point you are trying to make.
The assertion was made that Facebook is heavily partisan in who it chooses to ban from its platform, not basing its decisions on the actual content or whether it violates its policy, but on the political leaning of the content in question, and specifically that it discriminates against right-wing politics.
I argued that, in the current political landscape - especially in online communities - the right is far more likely to engage in conduct that violates Facebook's rules on hate speech, harassment, etc. Not exclusively, but far more likely.
You agreed that this may be true, that the left doesn't "do these things itself". But you said it "provides cover" for other people who do, and then clarified with an example of a Pride event which internally censored criticism of Islamists
So... what exactly is your conclusion here? That in addition to taking down direct violations of its content policies (which appear to be more frequently committed by the right, as you agree or at least admit is quite possible), it should be investigating left-wing groups to ensure that they are being adequately critical of the hate speech of others, and take them down if they fail to do so?
The Court finds the CDA bars Plaintiff’s claims against Google and YouTube. Both Google and YouTube are “interactive computer service[s].” ... Plaintiff does not allege Google or YouTube played any role in producing the allegedly defamatory content. Instead, Plaintiff alleges both websites failed to remove the defamatory content, despite his repeated requests. Plaintiff does not cite any authority in his opposition to Google and YouTube’s motion, and instead argues the CDA does not bar claims for the “failure to remove the videos” or to “take corrective action.” To the contrary, the CDA expressly protects internet companies from such liability. Pursuant to the CDA, Plaintiff cannot assert a claim against Google or YouTube for “decisions ‘relating to the monitoring, screening, and deletion of content from its network.’”
The online left may not do these things itself - but it does provide cover for the Islamic right which is by far the leader in threats, hate speech and violence worldwide.
*Theatrics is correct. I would rather see an article dedicated to the stupidity of Senator Cruz's ignorance of the law, especially since he has the capability of making them.
Such as his approval of SESTA.*
As I point out several times, Facebook also played a critical role in designing and supporting SESTA. Which is exactly why I'm not letting Zuck off the hook on this one - but you are free to if you wish.
And let's add, from Levitt v. Yelp (emphasis mine):
"Furthermore, it should be noted that traditional editorial functions often include subjective judgments informed by political and financial considerations. Determining what motives are permissible and what are not could prove problematic. Indeed, from a policy perspective, permitting litigation and scrutiny motive could result in the "death by ten thousand duck-bites" against which the Ninth Circuit cautioned in interpreting § 230(c)(1) [citing Fair Housing Council v. Roommates]. As illustrated by the case at bar, finding a bad faith exception to immunity under § 230(c)(1) could force Yelp to defend its editorial decisions in the future on a case by case basis and reveal how it decides what to publish and what not to publish."
“lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions — such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content — are barred”
“lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions — such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content — are barred” - Zeran v. America Online Inc.
Indeed, the entirety of the statue, including declaration of intent and list of definitions, is longer. However, the core of the statue - the part that is cited in many court rulings, and the part that lays out the fundamental meaning of the law and defines who it applies to - is just one sentence:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
And the words "neutral public forum" - or any synonym thereof - appear exactly nowhere in the law. In fact even just the words "neutral" and "public" do not appear in the law, at all. (The word "forum" does, once.)
Hate to break it to you, but no. The fact is, right now, the online right is far more likely to engage in hate speech, harassment, incitement to violence, etc. than is the online left. If you want things to be more "balanced", then the right has to grow the fuck up.
Fraley v. Facebook drew a distinction between information services and content providers. It explicitly noted that it is possible to be *both*. It found that, in the specific case of the sponsored stories that the lawsuit was over, Facebook qualified as the latter. It did not, in any way, use the term "neutral public forum" or make even the slightest suggestion that being that is a prerequisite to 230 immunity. You're just projecting that onto it out of nowhere.
(Either way though, this does not change the fact that the earlier comment makes no sense. The presence of Javascript does not itself indicate tracking by facebook or google, any more than the presence of a hammer indicates what someone's building.)
This wasn't a hypothetical exercise, it was part of a real-world workflow for a very small team - the survey needed to be built in a couple of days by someone without any html/css knowledge, and needed to have certain specific capabilities. This was the appropriate solution.
You will perhaps be more pleased to know that the main Working Futures site, which was indeed hand-coded from scratch, involves no JavaScript whatsoever, and I agree it is silly when simple non-interactive one-pager websites are built using robust and elaborate script frameworks.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swap out the encryption for gun control .
*You do realize that cell phone providers are licensed by and operate only with government approval, right? Unruly networks can be easily shutdown.*
Tell that to any country that has tried to take full control of those networks.
*Why would they need to? What would they have to fear?*
The eyes of the world. Or is it the case in your fantasy apocalypse scenario that even though a bunch of AR-toting gun nuts can oppose the tyranny of the US government, the rest of the world is helpless?
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re: More liberal partisan nonsense.
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, let's backtrack here a moment, because I think I'm losing track of what point you are trying to make.
The assertion was made that Facebook is heavily partisan in who it chooses to ban from its platform, not basing its decisions on the actual content or whether it violates its policy, but on the political leaning of the content in question, and specifically that it discriminates against right-wing politics.
I argued that, in the current political landscape - especially in online communities - the right is far more likely to engage in conduct that violates Facebook's rules on hate speech, harassment, etc. Not exclusively, but far more likely.
So... what exactly is your conclusion here? That in addition to taking down direct violations of its content policies (which appear to be more frequently committed by the right, as you agree or at least admit is quite possible), it should be investigating left-wing groups to ensure that they are being adequately critical of the hate speech of others, and take them down if they fail to do so?
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Utter deluded nonsense.
While even mild deviations from the Facebook party line are subject to bans.
I just tried this search, as an example:
https://www.facebook.com/search/pages/?q=trump
I found countless pages both for and against Trump, and indeed at a glance it appears to lean more to the pro-Trump side.
So what's the party line, exactly?
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re: Re: You're actually wrong, though.
https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Defamation:_CDA_Cases#Exercise_of_Editorial_Functions
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re: Re: You're actually wrong, though.
And another:
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re:
The online left may not do these things itself - but it does provide cover for the Islamic right which is by far the leader in threats, hate speech and violence worldwide.
...What?
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: More liberal partisan nonsense.
Hate speech is nonsense
No, it's one of the explicitly specified types of banned content on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards#hate-speech
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re:
*Theatrics is correct. I would rather see an article dedicated to the stupidity of Senator Cruz's ignorance of the law, especially since he has the capability of making them.
Such as his approval of SESTA.*
As I point out several times, Facebook also played a critical role in designing and supporting SESTA. Which is exactly why I'm not letting Zuck off the hook on this one - but you are free to if you wish.
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re:
Usually part of that prep for congressional hearing is "don't tell obvious lies" too, I'd imagine.
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re: Re: You're actually wrong, though.
And let's add, from Levitt v. Yelp (emphasis mine):
"Furthermore, it should be noted that traditional editorial functions often include subjective judgments informed by political and financial considerations. Determining what motives are permissible and what are not could prove problematic. Indeed, from a policy perspective, permitting litigation and scrutiny motive could result in the "death by ten thousand duck-bites" against which the Ninth Circuit cautioned in interpreting § 230(c)(1) [citing Fair Housing Council v. Roommates]. As illustrated by the case at bar, finding a bad faith exception to immunity under § 230(c)(1) could force Yelp to defend its editorial decisions in the future on a case by case basis and reveal how it decides what to publish and what not to publish."
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Ted Cruz was not wrong
http://blogs.harvard.edu/cyberlawclinicold/2010/02/08/cda-230-and-traditional-editorial-fun ctions/
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re: You're actually wrong, though.
“lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions — such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content — are barred” - Zeran v. America Online Inc.
http://blogs.harvard.edu/cyberlawclinicold/2010/02/08/cda-230-and-traditional-editorial-function s/
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: like, one sentence long [was Re: ]
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
And the words "neutral public forum" - or any synonym thereof - appear exactly nowhere in the law. In fact even just the words "neutral" and "public" do not appear in the law, at all. (The word "forum" does, once.)
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re:
it is used in a heavily politically biased way.
Hate to break it to you, but no. The fact is, right now, the online right is far more likely to engage in hate speech, harassment, incitement to violence, etc. than is the online left. If you want things to be more "balanced", then the right has to grow the fuck up.
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: You're actually wrong, though.
Fraley v. Facebook drew a distinction between information services and content providers. It explicitly noted that it is possible to be *both*. It found that, in the specific case of the sponsored stories that the lawsuit was over, Facebook qualified as the latter. It did not, in any way, use the term "neutral public forum" or make even the slightest suggestion that being that is a prerequisite to 230 immunity. You're just projecting that onto it out of nowhere.
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Not that implausible
On the post: Reminder: Take Our Survey On What Forces Will Impact The Future Of Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Broken
On the post: Reminder: Take Our Survey On What Forces Will Impact The Future Of Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Broken
You will perhaps be more pleased to know that the main Working Futures site, which was indeed hand-coded from scratch, involves no JavaScript whatsoever, and I agree it is silly when simple non-interactive one-pager websites are built using robust and elaborate script frameworks.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: March 18th - 24th
Re: Re: Link To Arthur C Clarke?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swap out the encryption for gun control .
Tell that to any country that has tried to take full control of those networks.
*Why would they need to? What would they have to fear?*
The eyes of the world. Or is it the case in your fantasy apocalypse scenario that even though a bunch of AR-toting gun nuts can oppose the tyranny of the US government, the rest of the world is helpless?
Next >>