c) 1) 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.
What more is needed? A provider cannot, under any circumstances*, whether through any act of moderation or abstention from moderation, be held liable for something someone else said. Unless you're suggesting they not be liable for their own speech, I don't see how the protection can be any more absolute.
* other than the exceptions for criminal law, etc.
The only way to truly make that better is to shelter a platform from repercussions for ALL content regardless of their choices of moderation, including none.
Still, much of what we have today is awful and toxic.
I'm skeptical of this "common knowledge." I think the awful and toxic is just front and center, because it's not only very noticeable but causes a strong emotional reaction when encountered. This leads to a cognitive bias giving inordinate weight to such content. I would expect the huge majority of content on for example YouTube to be pretty innocuous. For every piece of hate speech online consider how many vacation photos or recipes or lifestyle blogs or city council meeting minutes there are. That stuff just doesn't get any attention like neo-Nazis (appropriately) do.
My own take is busybodies suppressing speech (or images) is ALWAYS a bad thing
It depends what you mean by suppressing. Companies deciding what to host and not is good (and this is often what people making comments like yours are complaining about). Citizens, individually or collectively, advocating for what a company should or should not host is fine. Governments or other entities in a position of power (thinking of payment processors) telling other companies what they must or must not host is a problem.
They really should reconsider something simpler they can implement better.
And then they get attacked for "not doing enough". It doesn't matter that what they are being asked to do is impossible; if they don't claim to be trying to do it, they will never hear the end of it.
Turning off the News Feed ranking algorithm, the researcher found, led to a worse experience almost across the board. People spent more time scrolling through the News Feed searching for interesting stuff, and saw more advertisements as they went (hence the revenue spike). They hid 50% more posts, indicating they weren’t thrilled with what they were seeing. They saw more Groups content, because Groups is one of the few places on Facebook that remains vibrant. And they saw double the amount of posts from public pages they don’t follow, often because friends commented on those pages. “We reduce the distribution of these posts massively as they seem to be a constant quality compliant,” the researcher said of the public pages.
more time scrolling and less time reading/viewing
more ads seen
more posts from pages they don't follow (the opposite of what you said you want)
users so dissatisfied with the experience they complain to FB about it
This is clearly not an improvement.
You see a post you don't like, you indicate that you don't like it, and you stop seeing posts of that nature.
That's how it works if there's an algorithm that is trying to learn your preferences. If not, then they will keep showing up because it's just a feed of everything.
You don't like a group's discourse, you leave that group.
That is fine, but they're also getting this: "double the amount of posts from public pages they don’t follow".
The algorithm preempting your decision-making may be faster but it isn't more accurate.
How did you come to that conclusion? This experiment shows people having a lower percentage of content they want to see in their feed when the algorithm is turned off.
Posts people want to see get hidden from them
How do you know?
posts they want to avoid keep being surfaced
That is what happened with no algorithm. What makes you think it is even worse with the algorithm?
It creates an entire list of federal regulations for elections.
Which is not at all the same thing as federalizing elections. "You must meet these minimum standards" is not "the federal government is now going to be running the election".
When he issues a proclamation that he will not sign any bill (pocket veto) until something else reaches his desk, it becomes a mandate.
No, that's politics. A mandate would force Congress to do something, which again the President cannot do. Regardless of what he or she proclaims, Congress can pass or not pass whatever they want.
And dems are looking to federalise it completely.
Citation needed.
I would have sought a temporary federalisation with a sunset.
How? Seriously, by what mechanism would you federalize elections, keeping in mind that it would almost certainly be immediately challenged in court?
Neither the original article nor Mike's summary here addressed my comment to the long-term effects
It's addressed right here:
"Also, it's entirely possible that over time, the long term result would be less revenue because the increasing annoyances of not finding the more interesting stuff causes people to leave the platform entirely."
The long term effects are not known, so nobody can answer the question with certainty. So what more do you want?
and see what youtube puts it's the front page. That's why algorithms are s***. Because when not carefully curated they reflect the worst of human behaviour.
Dog gets angry at his own hiccups
Relaxing jazz
Maroon 5
Autumn Chill music
Deep Focus Music
3 hour timer and alarm
Looney Tunes
Classic love songs
Corvette Z06
Kevin Gates (more music)
Brawl Stars animation
Jhay Cortez (music)
Soccer highlights
Beautiful relaxing music
Thursday morning jazz
Anything you can fit in the circle I'll pay for
So... the worst of human behavior? Maybe you should have actually conducted this experiment before commenting, because with that run it was mostly music.
I would have used presidential mandate to force congress to vote on a consistent method of voting for this (2020) election. A guarded chain of custody directive. And required counts to be done under clear close action cameras. Allowing segregated poll watchers to see all ballots remotely from separate rooms while still seeing the ballots completely as they had in the past.
None of that is even possible in the US.
there is no such thing as a presidential mandate
the President cannot force Congress to vote on anything
Congress has extremely limited control of how elections are conducted - it's a local process managed by states and counties
I don't see the foundation for objection to this principle.
The foundation is that people should be charged for the crimes they actually committed. For example, if the getaway driver knew the others were going into the house with loaded guns, that's a much stronger case that they were involved in planning violence. Though even there it seems like conspiracy is a more fitting charge than murder. In the case where there were no weapons involved, no violence expected, but someone ended up being killed, it's a miscarriage of justice to charge someone with murder who didn't have a hand in it and had no reason to expect it was going to happen.
(like grand juries... that one dropped the ball)
The grand jury as a check on prosecutors is a joke.
On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
Re: Re: Re: Replace?
Forgot to mention - there is no "knew or should have known" aspect to section 230.
On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
Re: Re: Re: Replace?
c) 1) 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.
What more is needed? A provider cannot, under any circumstances*, whether through any act of moderation or abstention from moderation, be held liable for something someone else said. Unless you're suggesting they not be liable for their own speech, I don't see how the protection can be any more absolute.
* other than the exceptions for criminal law, etc.
On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
Re: Replace?
You know 230 already does that, right?
On the post: As Prudes Drive Social Media Takedowns, Museums Embrace... OnlyFans?
Re: A bit late?
This is an opinion blog, not a breaking news site.
On the post: T-Mobile, Dish Continue Petty Squabbles As Sprint Merger 'Solution' Looks Shaky
Re:
The simplest explanation is that keeping the 3G system going costs T-Mobile money, so they want to stop doing it as soon as possible.
On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
Much of
I'm skeptical of this "common knowledge." I think the awful and toxic is just front and center, because it's not only very noticeable but causes a strong emotional reaction when encountered. This leads to a cognitive bias giving inordinate weight to such content. I would expect the huge majority of content on for example YouTube to be pretty innocuous. For every piece of hate speech online consider how many vacation photos or recipes or lifestyle blogs or city council meeting minutes there are. That stuff just doesn't get any attention like neo-Nazis (appropriately) do.
On the post: As Prudes Drive Social Media Takedowns, Museums Embrace... OnlyFans?
Re: Re: Or run away, that's an answer too
It depends what you mean by suppressing. Companies deciding what to host and not is good (and this is often what people making comments like yours are complaining about). Citizens, individually or collectively, advocating for what a company should or should not host is fine. Governments or other entities in a position of power (thinking of payment processors) telling other companies what they must or must not host is a problem.
On the post: As Prudes Drive Social Media Takedowns, Museums Embrace... OnlyFans?
Re:
And then they get attacked for "not doing enough". It doesn't matter that what they are being asked to do is impossible; if they don't claim to be trying to do it, they will never hear the end of it.
On the post: When Facebook Turned Off Its News Feed Algorithm, It Made Everyone's Experience Worse... But Made Facebook More Money
Re:
Here's the whole quote:
This is clearly not an improvement.
That's how it works if there's an algorithm that is trying to learn your preferences. If not, then they will keep showing up because it's just a feed of everything.
That is fine, but they're also getting this: "double the amount of posts from public pages they don’t follow".
How did you come to that conclusion? This experiment shows people having a lower percentage of content they want to see in their feed when the algorithm is turned off.
How do you know?
That is what happened with no algorithm. What makes you think it is even worse with the algorithm?
On the post: The Whistleblower And Encryption: Everyone Has An Angle, And Not Everyone Is A Policy Expert
Re: Re: Not even a whistleblower
I don't see any problem with being a whistelblower about immoral but legal activity.
On the post: Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Name ten things
Which is not at all the same thing as federalizing elections. "You must meet these minimum standards" is not "the federal government is now going to be running the election".
On the post: Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Name ten things
No, that's politics. A mandate would force Congress to do something, which again the President cannot do. Regardless of what he or she proclaims, Congress can pass or not pass whatever they want.
Citation needed.
How? Seriously, by what mechanism would you federalize elections, keeping in mind that it would almost certainly be immediately challenged in court?
On the post: When Facebook Turned Off Its News Feed Algorithm, It Made Everyone's Experience Worse... But Made Facebook More Money
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's addressed right here:
"Also, it's entirely possible that over time, the long term result would be less revenue because the increasing annoyances of not finding the more interesting stuff causes people to leave the platform entirely."
The long term effects are not known, so nobody can answer the question with certainty. So what more do you want?
On the post: When Facebook Turned Off Its News Feed Algorithm, It Made Everyone's Experience Worse... But Made Facebook More Money
Re: Open a private browser session
So... the worst of human behavior? Maybe you should have actually conducted this experiment before commenting, because with that run it was mostly music.
On the post: When Facebook Turned Off Its News Feed Algorithm, It Made Everyone's Experience Worse... But Made Facebook More Money
Re:
To you. Have you considered that you may not be a typical Facebook user?
On the post: Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate
Re: Re: Name ten things
None of that is even possible in the US.
On the post: Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate
Re: Re:
I don't know the barrel length or gauge, but would you accept an internet cafe?
https://www.villages-news.com/2021/03/13/summerfield-man-arrested-in-robbery-with-shotgun-at-i nternet-cafe/
On the post: Judge Dumps Felony Manslaughter Charges Brought Against An Arrestee After A Deputy Ran Over Another Deputy
Re: Re:
He never said it was about innocent bystanders.
On the post: If Courts Won't Protect People's Phones At The Border, Congress Needs To Act Now
Re: Constitutional exceptions
In court decisions, for example:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180526/08271639919/11th-circuit-says-no-reasonable-susp icion-needed-invasive-device-searches-border.shtml
On the post: Judge Dumps Felony Manslaughter Charges Brought Against An Arrestee After A Deputy Ran Over Another Deputy
Re: Re: Re:
The foundation is that people should be charged for the crimes they actually committed. For example, if the getaway driver knew the others were going into the house with loaded guns, that's a much stronger case that they were involved in planning violence. Though even there it seems like conspiracy is a more fitting charge than murder. In the case where there were no weapons involved, no violence expected, but someone ended up being killed, it's a miscarriage of justice to charge someone with murder who didn't have a hand in it and had no reason to expect it was going to happen.
The grand jury as a check on prosecutors is a joke.
Next >>