it will be fun to watch and see if a random "cloud hosting" firm, run by a small time Hollywood producer, that almost no one has heard of, can actually handle this kind of traffic and attention.
Looks like a relatively small company just found a shortcut to enter the big leagues. What I'm more interested what steps Parler has taken to prevent the Cancel Culture from shutting it down again. If Parler is smart, they will have a much stronger contract this time. That's the kind of "traffic and attention" the hosting company has to worry about: what happens when the woke mob comes looking to censor someone?
As a company locayed in the United States, it could easily claim that it is bound only by U.S. law and principles. As such, governments everywhere would have zero jurisdiction. Instead, most big tech companies are starting to kowtow to governments everywhere, doing their bidding for the money.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the MeitY tries to insist that farmers protesting are somehow the equivalent of Trumpist insurrectionists storming the Capitol
This is what it looks like when government attempts to outsource censorship to corporations. If only twitter had some kind principle on which to allow all speech, and stay neutral in the debate? Some kind of Amendment or something?
Let's be clear: the GOP has made "big tech" public enemy number one not because they genuinely care about corporate power or monopolization, but because companies like Twitter finally started more seriously policing hate speech and political disinformation after the country almost imploded.
The terms "hate speech" and "disinformation" are simply speech with which you disagree. If big telecom was engaged in suppressing the leftist speech that you support, then you would clearly identify this behavior as censorship. Government is outsourcing to corporations that which it isn't able to do itself.
Descriptions of a property have been considered to be potentially discriminatory. "Close to a church" or "batchelor pad" demonstrate bias against particular protected groups. Real estate agents have been trained to filter out objectionable advertising descriptions. The minimum service model allows a path for these phrases to re-enter the property description as typed by homeowners, which then does affect the person who buys the home.
Traditional real estate brokerages have, for several decades now, strived to adhere to fair housing law. In recent years, in my state, a new wave of minimum service brokerages have sprouted up, offering little more than the opportunity for For-Sale-By-Owner people to post their home on the local Multiple Listing Service database so that their home gets noticed when a traditional broker does a search for a home. Laws have been changed to accommodate the minimum service brokerages.
It worries me that the direction of home buying is becoming more of a do-it-yourself variety. If the home buying and selling process is reduced to little more than users typing their own home info into a database, combined with the above Roommates.com decision, it opens a path for discrimination to occur once again. It could go beyond just a roommate rental.
Fair point, I guess, but Google doesn't appear to be selling government agencies access to billions of pieces of personal info for them to paw through at their leisure.
With people like that it's not enough for them to be able to speak, they believe that they are owed a large audience
Except that Trump immediately gained millions of followers in the previous election cycle. Now, he ascends to a kind of mythical status, where millions of followers WOULD join him if they could. I think Mike is right, where he considers that part of the attraction of social media is interaction.
Plus, Trump is pretty savvy, so any social media network that he joins would immediately attract millions more followers. I bet he could command a deal, akin to how some video game streamers have negotiated a contract.
But the Republican Party hates section 230 for the opposite reasons.
Thus the "throw them a bone" strategy, which I think is nearly guaranteed to work. Similar to how the Telecommunications Decency Act of 1996 was a bipartisan approach to rid the internet of obscenity, it could be possible for both sides to attempt to take down social media. I think it would be easy to get at least 10 republican Senators, perhaps 20 if necessary to make up a deficiency of Democrat senators.
A portion of the 1996 Telecommunication Decency Act was found unconstitutional, but that didn't stop congress at the time. Of course, the part that wasn't gave us section 230.
Big tech is currently very hated by Republicans. Perhaps the atmosphere is now ripe for the Democrats to throw the Republicans a bone, and if they do, I say there's a high probability of something bipartisan passing into law. Not that I agree with any of it. I'm just making a prediction based on the most likely scenario.
A common practice or not, it's monumentally idiotic to think that the best way to show you're trustworthy as an international telecom vendor is to create fake people to make your case for you.
I view it similarly to a laugh track for a t.v. sitcom. It works, as long as noone can see plain as day that it's fake. It would have worked to improve their image as being trustworthy, except that they got caught.
To counter these challenges, the Biden administration should adopt a positive agenda of supporting the global free flow of data and information, to prove in practice the superiority of digital globalization over repression and protectionism.
What incentives are in it for them? Why would countries that are attempting to firewall or splinter off the internet decide to go in the other direction? For example, if another country believes that a U.S. tech company could censor their head of state, yet they have free trade and can continue to sell goods and conduct business, why wouldn't they seek to continue the splinter?
Consistency is not what you want, you want the rules changed to make it impossible to ban conservatives for anything, no matter how abhorrent their behaviour, you want to turn the self styled 'silent majority' into protected class based on nothing but their political leanings.
That's where the rules would come into play. Very few conservatives that I've seen have ever supported any of the defamatory things that you mentioned above. And certainly not on a social media. Meanwhile, there's been some ugly comments by leftists that have been allowed to fly (which I think should allowed, on the basis that I personally think all speech should be permitted). That's why big tech is so fearful of defending against bias in court. The corporate overlords would never be able to demonstrate consistent application of their own rules, because of their bias.
Forcing big tech companies live up to their own published speech codes looks to be a great way to prevent selective application. Consistency is the key to fairness. It's a great idea, and I'd love to see it happen.
Of course, this just shows exactly the problem of trying to deal with "disinformation." It is often used as a weapon against people you disagree with, where you might nitpick or argue technicalities, rather than the actual point.
Of course, you were all smiles when the "fact checks" were used against people with whom you disagreed during the 2020 election cycle.
You are concerned that the birdwatch feature won't work, and you're probably right. But reason why it won't work because of bias, on both sides. When it comes to political arguments, the only way for a platform to build trust is to remain neutral and not take sides by becoming an arbiter. For social media, that means remaining hands-off and let the political actors build or perhaps destroy their own reputation. Don't do fact-checks, or bird watching, and noone gets to be the Ministry of Truth.
If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum.
In Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, the subjects were banned from the premises for inciting violence against station employees. They were not banned because the station disagreed with their message. I'm in favor of private property. But if the property owners open the property to speech, they must apply the rules consistently. Allow a court to decide if they were. Consistency is the core of fairness.
And even if you believe in American exceptionalism (which you probably shouldn't) and that it would be okay if the law were changed in the US, but not elsewhere, just note that countries like India (and many others) would use such a law in the US as an excuse for why their own crackdowns on free expression are in accordance with US norms.
You misunderstand American Exceptionalism as simply that the United States is a better nation than others
Throughout human history, government was designed as a way by which the wealthy and powerful maintained their standing. Kings, dictators, generals, and emporers made their decisions on the basis of whatever it was that benefitted themselves. This pattern continued for millennia, with very few exceptions.
Then, came the United States of America, which upended the model of government. Instead of the government operating for the benefit of the elite, the government operated for the benefit of the ordinary people. This model was so successful, so prosperous and free, that people from around the world demanded that it be copied in their country. The American model of government was the exception to thousands of years of rule from around the globe, and it proved to be a lot better than the rest.
Sometimes, the power comes just from the fact that Facebook may feel generally committed to following through, rather than through any kind of actual enforcement mechanism.
In today's day and age of social media, censorship for even a few hours makes a difference for events. They may decide to reinstate the posts, but it's water under the bridge now.
Speech said by someone else over a network is not the speech of the network. The concept of "forced speech" is the fraudulent part of section 230. Site operators cannot in good faith claim "I'm being forced to speak!" while simultaneously saying "It's not me who's doing the speaking, so I'm immune from all liability".
Just as your speech over the telephone is not forced speech onto the telecom carrier, and words printed in a newspaper is not forcing speech onto a paper mill, speech on an internet platform is not the speech of the site operator.
I thought you said earlier that platforms become publishers if they moderate, doesn't that also mean they don't have to be neutral per your argument above?
It's true, they do become publishers when they engage in biased and bad faith moderation. But they ought to lose their section 230 immunity for doing so. That's why 230 needs reform.
Anyway, I'm very interested in knowing more about this "duty". Care to elaborate? Please make it coherent and logically sound in accordance with reality.
"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum, or free speech dies."
On the post: Parler's Found A New Host (And A New CEO)... For Now
Big Time
Looks like a relatively small company just found a shortcut to enter the big leagues. What I'm more interested what steps Parler has taken to prevent the Cancel Culture from shutting it down again. If Parler is smart, they will have a much stronger contract this time. That's the kind of "traffic and attention" the hosting company has to worry about: what happens when the woke mob comes looking to censor someone?
On the post: Twitter & India Still Arguing Over Whether Or Not Twitter Accounts Supporting Farmer Protests Need To Be Removed
Re: Re: If only...
As a company locayed in the United States, it could easily claim that it is bound only by U.S. law and principles. As such, governments everywhere would have zero jurisdiction. Instead, most big tech companies are starting to kowtow to governments everywhere, doing their bidding for the money.
On the post: Twitter & India Still Arguing Over Whether Or Not Twitter Accounts Supporting Farmer Protests Need To Be Removed
If only...
This is what it looks like when government attempts to outsource censorship to corporations. If only twitter had some kind principle on which to allow all speech, and stay neutral in the debate? Some kind of Amendment or something?
On the post: Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because!
Handoff
The terms "hate speech" and "disinformation" are simply speech with which you disagree. If big telecom was engaged in suppressing the leftist speech that you support, then you would clearly identify this behavior as censorship. Government is outsourcing to corporations that which it isn't able to do itself.
On the post: If We're Going To Talk About Discrimination In Online Ads, We Need To Talk About Roommates.com
Re: Re: FSBO Model
Descriptions of a property have been considered to be potentially discriminatory. "Close to a church" or "batchelor pad" demonstrate bias against particular protected groups. Real estate agents have been trained to filter out objectionable advertising descriptions. The minimum service model allows a path for these phrases to re-enter the property description as typed by homeowners, which then does affect the person who buys the home.
On the post: If We're Going To Talk About Discrimination In Online Ads, We Need To Talk About Roommates.com
FSBO Model
Traditional real estate brokerages have, for several decades now, strived to adhere to fair housing law. In recent years, in my state, a new wave of minimum service brokerages have sprouted up, offering little more than the opportunity for For-Sale-By-Owner people to post their home on the local Multiple Listing Service database so that their home gets noticed when a traditional broker does a search for a home. Laws have been changed to accommodate the minimum service brokerages.
It worries me that the direction of home buying is becoming more of a do-it-yourself variety. If the home buying and selling process is reduced to little more than users typing their own home info into a database, combined with the above Roommates.com decision, it opens a path for discrimination to occur once again. It could go beyond just a roommate rental.
On the post: Canadian Privacy Commission Says Clearview's App Is Illegal, Tells It To Pack Its Things And Leave
Re:
....as far as the public is currently aware.
On the post: Without Twitter, Trump Is Left To Write Tweets He Would Have Said On Paper
Re: Re:
Except that Trump immediately gained millions of followers in the previous election cycle. Now, he ascends to a kind of mythical status, where millions of followers WOULD join him if they could. I think Mike is right, where he considers that part of the attraction of social media is interaction.
Plus, Trump is pretty savvy, so any social media network that he joins would immediately attract millions more followers. I bet he could command a deal, akin to how some video game streamers have negotiated a contract.
On the post: Now It's The Democrats Turn To Destroy The Open Internet: Mark Warner's 230 Reform Bill Is A Dumpster Fire Of Cluelessness
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thus the "throw them a bone" strategy, which I think is nearly guaranteed to work. Similar to how the Telecommunications Decency Act of 1996 was a bipartisan approach to rid the internet of obscenity, it could be possible for both sides to attempt to take down social media. I think it would be easy to get at least 10 republican Senators, perhaps 20 if necessary to make up a deficiency of Democrat senators.
On the post: Now It's The Democrats Turn To Destroy The Open Internet: Mark Warner's 230 Reform Bill Is A Dumpster Fire Of Cluelessness
Re: Re: Re:
A portion of the 1996 Telecommunication Decency Act was found unconstitutional, but that didn't stop congress at the time. Of course, the part that wasn't gave us section 230.
Big tech is currently very hated by Republicans. Perhaps the atmosphere is now ripe for the Democrats to throw the Republicans a bone, and if they do, I say there's a high probability of something bipartisan passing into law. Not that I agree with any of it. I'm just making a prediction based on the most likely scenario.
On the post: Huawei Attempts To Rebuild Trust By Using... Fake Twitter Telecom Experts
I view it similarly to a laugh track for a t.v. sitcom. It works, as long as noone can see plain as day that it's fake. It would have worked to improve their image as being trustworthy, except that they got caught.
On the post: We're Living Our Lives On The Internet, And We Can't Be Free If It Isn't.
Incentives?
What incentives are in it for them? Why would countries that are attempting to firewall or splinter off the internet decide to go in the other direction? For example, if another country believes that a U.S. tech company could censor their head of state, yet they have free trade and can continue to sell goods and conduct business, why wouldn't they seek to continue the splinter?
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Consistent Rules
That's where the rules would come into play. Very few conservatives that I've seen have ever supported any of the defamatory things that you mentioned above. And certainly not on a social media. Meanwhile, there's been some ugly comments by leftists that have been allowed to fly (which I think should allowed, on the basis that I personally think all speech should be permitted). That's why big tech is so fearful of defending against bias in court. The corporate overlords would never be able to demonstrate consistent application of their own rules, because of their bias.
Forcing big tech companies live up to their own published speech codes looks to be a great way to prevent selective application. Consistency is the key to fairness. It's a great idea, and I'd love to see it happen.
On the post: Can A Community Approach To Disinformation Help Twitter?
Good for the Gander
Of course, you were all smiles when the "fact checks" were used against people with whom you disagreed during the 2020 election cycle.
You are concerned that the birdwatch feature won't work, and you're probably right. But reason why it won't work because of bias, on both sides. When it comes to political arguments, the only way for a platform to build trust is to remain neutral and not take sides by becoming an arbiter. For social media, that means remaining hands-off and let the political actors build or perhaps destroy their own reputation. Don't do fact-checks, or bird watching, and noone gets to be the Ministry of Truth.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Consistent Rules
In Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, the subjects were banned from the premises for inciting violence against station employees. They were not banned because the station disagreed with their message. I'm in favor of private property. But if the property owners open the property to speech, they must apply the rules consistently. Allow a court to decide if they were. Consistency is the core of fairness.
On the post: Indian Government Threatens To Jail Twitter Employees For Restoring Accounts The Government Wants Blocked
Exceptionalism
You misunderstand American Exceptionalism as simply that the United States is a better nation than others
Throughout human history, government was designed as a way by which the wealthy and powerful maintained their standing. Kings, dictators, generals, and emporers made their decisions on the basis of whatever it was that benefitted themselves. This pattern continued for millennia, with very few exceptions.
Then, came the United States of America, which upended the model of government. Instead of the government operating for the benefit of the elite, the government operated for the benefit of the ordinary people. This model was so successful, so prosperous and free, that people from around the world demanded that it be copied in their country. The American model of government was the exception to thousands of years of rule from around the globe, and it proved to be a lot better than the rest.
On the post: Facebook Oversight Board's First Decisions... Seem To Confirm Everyone's Opinions Of The Board
Aftermath
In today's day and age of social media, censorship for even a few hours makes a difference for events. They may decide to reinstate the posts, but it's water under the bridge now.
On the post: Joe Lieberman Couldn't Understand Content Moderation When He Was A Senator, But Says If We Get Rid Of 230, It'll Be Fine
Already Exists
Better check out the Cubby v. Compuserve decision from 1991.
On the post: Columbia Law Professor Spews Blatantly False Information About Section 230 In The Wall Street Journal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy Difference
Speech said by someone else over a network is not the speech of the network. The concept of "forced speech" is the fraudulent part of section 230. Site operators cannot in good faith claim "I'm being forced to speak!" while simultaneously saying "It's not me who's doing the speaking, so I'm immune from all liability".
Just as your speech over the telephone is not forced speech onto the telecom carrier, and words printed in a newspaper is not forcing speech onto a paper mill, speech on an internet platform is not the speech of the site operator.
On the post: Columbia Law Professor Spews Blatantly False Information About Section 230 In The Wall Street Journal
Re: Re: Easy Difference
It's true, they do become publishers when they engage in biased and bad faith moderation. But they ought to lose their section 230 immunity for doing so. That's why 230 needs reform.
"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum, or free speech dies."
Next >>