And, of course, you could easily say that Fox News. Or CNN. Or... the Wall Street Journal has been known to "distort political and cultural conversations" and "influence elections." But I don't see Prof. Hamburger flipping out about that.
Fox News, CNNLOL, and the WSJ are publishers, not platforms. Platforms have a duty to remain politically neutral; publishers do not.
many retail investors that drove up the stock price, will have bought in at very inflated prices, and many of them will be left holding the bag when it comes crashing back to earth.
One of the good reasons why this short squeeze is happening is because someone has collectively shorted approximately 140% of the available stock. If the shorts are forced to capitulate now, there will theoretically be a buyer for every seller at the current price. I won't predict what will happen, other than that the hedge funds will do everything in their power to manipulate the market back in their favor. But if the longs can successfully hold out, the short interest may not leave any longs holding a bag.
With a recent price over the past 12 months of around $3 to $6, I'd be shocked if any regular investors are actually holding onto this stock. For what seems to be a nearly bankrupt company, the current price of around $150 would seem like it's a dream price to cash out. It looks to me like there's one one reason why anyone is still gambling in this casino: greed.
But fortunately, the Supreme Court found no 1st Amendment protection from liability in Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy decision. Section 230 can be reformed to provide limits to liability immunity unless corporations agree to moderate content on an objective basis, instead of a political editorial one.
"But Telegram appears to comply with Apple's rules for apps relying on third-party content because Telegram allows users to block accounts/content, report violations/abusive accounts, and provides contact info for users seeking to have questions and concerns addressed."
I shouldn't have used the term "doctrine". Hopefully, this part of the article will inform you about the problem.
The core principle is that if a private company builds a public square, then they are also subject to the First Amendment. A company cannot simultaneously claim claim that any speech on its platform is its own, or else it isn't being compelled to host, while also disavowing liability.
Possible Guinsberg lawsuit, Apple/Google says "Telegram follows our rules for the app store, because they allow users to block content, and there is a way to report content we don't like." Probably will result in a case dismissal.
Possible future lawsuit, app company says "Our app complies for inclusion on the Apple/Google store because it had blocking and reporting capabilities. Yet our app was censored and now we want damages." Could be difficult for Apple/Google to defend against, if they previously attested to the same facts in a different case.
If Apple/Google defend themselves with the 3rd party doctrine, I bet they'll win in this situation. But it creates an awkward circumstance if other censored social media companies sue Apple/Google for removal from the app stores. The same court arguments could be used against them. Apple/Google will need to thread this needle extremely carefully.
On our previous episode, regarding newspaper op-eds, senator Tom Cotton was calling for the military to be deployed to quell riots. Despite being heavily criticized, he was proven correct when after Jan 6, democrats deployed armed security en masse to Washington DC.
Judging from that reaction, Josh Hawley is hitting a home run with this one.
He went on to note that it was the first time he'd used the name, that he wasn't given any notice or warning for using it, and that he wasn't given any opportunity to change the name.
According to a well-known YouTuber among the NRS community, the player was told by a moderator to change the name, and supposedly was given a warning in the chat. However, the first warning was given AFTER the game commenced. Reading the chat during the game is unreasonable for a fast-paced game like this. Also, disconnecting from the game in order to change the name would typically result in automatically forfeiting the game anyhow. So, indeed, there was no opportunity to change the name.
I'm interested in this not because of their final recommendation, but to better understand the interplay of motivations, the degree of access the board has to internal information, and any useful guidelines that might come out of the investigation.
Rest assured they will base it on political considerations, and not guidelines. And that therefore gets to the problem with the decision, that binary censor/don't censor decisions cannot have a nuanced outcome. I think it's much more important to predict how the Facebook Spanish Inquisition board will operate, because it can lead you to know exactly how they will operate in most future decisions.
Stand around the water cooler at work and talk about the sports games that happened last weekend? That's okay!
Hang out with your friends in Discord chat while playing Fortnite because the city is on lockdown? Bad, bad bad!
My take is that the writers are jealous that their preferred activities in NY are currently closed down, and they're hoping that everyone else is as miserable as them; but they're not, and they're demonstrating that they don't need nightclubs or whatever social activities the older generation enjoyed.
And, of course, before Parler shut down, a hacker was able to grab nearly the entire corpus of Parler posts, including pictures and videos that did not have location metadata stripped out.
If users upload video or photographs that contain metadata, that's a choice of the user, not the platform. It's like complaining that a bot crawled your website and saw all the stuff.
I mean, if it did, you've just handed Congress a magic tool to effectively nationalize any company
Nationalizing a company doesn't mean what you think it does. It means that the government controls it and makes decisions on its behalf. Instead, applying the first amendment to corporations that have effectively created digital public squares would be a DECREASE of government control.
Leftists believe they have discovered a way to circumvent the 1st amendment by partnering with corporations, and then have the corporations implement the censorship on their behalf. It's quite a loophole.
You might suppose that after someone complains about speech controls, that you would be a little more self-aware and not attempt to engage in speech controls. But I guess not. The term "SJW" is probably now being considered for Facebook's banned word list.
The big tech platforms don't give a damn about who says what, they want to make money.
Evidently not AWS. They stood to lose nothing, yet voluntarily engaged in banning instead of making more $$$.
They don't care about the political leanings of anyone but their board members, Facebook has a Roger Stone associate who served in the Bush II admin overseeing their political content for ***ks sake, put in place and kept there against the will of the rest of their employees.
The "rest of their employees" are the very definition of "SJW"s. Actually, it's not all of the remainder employees, but the politically active ones will try to scream louder as to seem like they represent 100% of the group. But thanks for letting us know that the SJWs are still very much a thing.
But in spite of everything Facebook hass done to the detriment of society over the past decade, all the propagandists, fr right conspiracy theorists they've promoted, all the targeted adverts that enabled the election of people who are unfit for office all over the world, they're just so goshdarn biased against the right because the right won't be happy until legitimate journalism is de-listed entirely
That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. But your recourse against speech with which you disagree is to speak out and try to convince people otherwise. It isn't to ban people for disagreement. It isn't to fact check political opinions or satire websites. It isn't to only allow reporting for people who you deem to be legitimate journalists. It sounds like you are afraid of anything close to a level playing field.
Just because people have free speech rights, it doesn't mean that Parler (or anyone) has to assist them.
But when people have free speech rights, they sure want to express it, and there's a big market for it, and the current tech oligopoly truly fears it. The SJWs that currently work for the tech companies don't want competition, and they don't want to provide a free speech platform; they want to control everyone's speech.
Theoretically having certain freedoms, but no means to express them is worthless.
On the post: Columbia Law Professor Spews Blatantly False Information About Section 230 In The Wall Street Journal
Easy Difference
Fox News, CNNLOL, and the WSJ are publishers, not platforms. Platforms have a duty to remain politically neutral; publishers do not.
On the post: Robinhood App Decides To Stop Helping The Poor Steal From The Rich
Re: Reality check needed on this.
One of the good reasons why this short squeeze is happening is because someone has collectively shorted approximately 140% of the available stock. If the shorts are forced to capitulate now, there will theoretically be a buyer for every seller at the current price. I won't predict what will happen, other than that the hedge funds will do everything in their power to manipulate the market back in their favor. But if the longs can successfully hold out, the short interest may not leave any longs holding a bag.
On the post: Britain Helps Children Learn From Home By Procuring Them Laptops Preloaded With Russian Malware
The Great Procurement
They should have sourced from a Chinese supplier. I hear their equipment doesn't come pre-installed with malware, instead it's only a firewall.
On the post: For Basically No Reason, Gamestop's Stock Price Is Rollercoastering In A Tug Of War Being Fought On Reddit
Cash Out Moment
With a recent price over the past 12 months of around $3 to $6, I'd be shocked if any regular investors are actually holding onto this stock. For what seems to be a nearly bankrupt company, the current price of around $150 would seem like it's a dream price to cash out. It looks to me like there's one one reason why anyone is still gambling in this casino: greed.
On the post: House Republicans Have A Big Tech Plan... That Is Both Unconstitutional And Ridiculous
Re: Re: Very Simple
But fortunately, the Supreme Court found no 1st Amendment protection from liability in Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy decision. Section 230 can be reformed to provide limits to liability immunity unless corporations agree to moderate content on an objective basis, instead of a political editorial one.
On the post: Former US Ambassador Sues Apple Because Telegram Users Are Making Him Feel Scared [Update]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Awkward
"But Telegram appears to comply with Apple's rules for apps relying on third-party content because Telegram allows users to block accounts/content, report violations/abusive accounts, and provides contact info for users seeking to have questions and concerns addressed."
I shouldn't have used the term "doctrine". Hopefully, this part of the article will inform you about the problem.
On the post: House Republicans Have A Big Tech Plan... That Is Both Unconstitutional And Ridiculous
Very Simple
The core principle is that if a private company builds a public square, then they are also subject to the First Amendment. A company cannot simultaneously claim claim that any speech on its platform is its own, or else it isn't being compelled to host, while also disavowing liability.
On the post: Former US Ambassador Sues Apple Because Telegram Users Are Making Him Feel Scared [Update]
Re: Re: Awkward
Possible Guinsberg lawsuit, Apple/Google says "Telegram follows our rules for the app store, because they allow users to block content, and there is a way to report content we don't like." Probably will result in a case dismissal.
Possible future lawsuit, app company says "Our app complies for inclusion on the Apple/Google store because it had blocking and reporting capabilities. Yet our app was censored and now we want damages." Could be difficult for Apple/Google to defend against, if they previously attested to the same facts in a different case.
On the post: Former US Ambassador Sues Apple Because Telegram Users Are Making Him Feel Scared [Update]
Awkward
If Apple/Google defend themselves with the 3rd party doctrine, I bet they'll win in this situation. But it creates an awkward circumstance if other censored social media companies sue Apple/Google for removal from the app stores. The same court arguments could be used against them. Apple/Google will need to thread this needle extremely carefully.
On the post: Disingenuous, Lying, Whining, Bloviating, Insurrection Encouraging Senator Josh Hawley Given Pages Of Major Newspaper To Explain How He's Being Silenced
Previously
On our previous episode, regarding newspaper op-eds, senator Tom Cotton was calling for the military to be deployed to quell riots. Despite being heavily criticized, he was proven correct when after Jan 6, democrats deployed armed security en masse to Washington DC.
Judging from that reaction, Josh Hawley is hitting a home run with this one.
On the post: The Esports Industry Grew; Now It's Time For It To Grow Up
Suddenly
According to a well-known YouTuber among the NRS community, the player was told by a moderator to change the name, and supposedly was given a warning in the chat. However, the first warning was given AFTER the game commenced. Reading the chat during the game is unreasonable for a fast-paced game like this. Also, disconnecting from the game in order to change the name would typically result in automatically forfeiting the game anyhow. So, indeed, there was no opportunity to change the name.
On the post: Oversight Board Agrees To Review Facebook's Trump Suspension
Rest assured they will base it on political considerations, and not guidelines. And that therefore gets to the problem with the decision, that binary censor/don't censor decisions cannot have a nuanced outcome. I think it's much more important to predict how the Facebook Spanish Inquisition board will operate, because it can lead you to know exactly how they will operate in most future decisions.
On the post: New York Times Decides Kids Are Playing Too Many Video Games During The Pandemic
Not Hip Anymore
Stand around the water cooler at work and talk about the sports games that happened last weekend? That's okay!
Hang out with your friends in Discord chat while playing Fortnite because the city is on lockdown? Bad, bad bad!
My take is that the writers are jealous that their preferred activities in NY are currently closed down, and they're hoping that everyone else is as miserable as them; but they're not, and they're demonstrating that they don't need nightclubs or whatever social activities the older generation enjoyed.
On the post: Parler Attempting to Come Back Online, Still Insisting The Site's Motivation Is 'Privacy' Despite Leaking Details On All Its Users
Public Information
If users upload video or photographs that contain metadata, that's a choice of the user, not the platform. It's like complaining that a bot crawled your website and saw all the stuff.
On the post: Ridiculous: Yale Law Prof Argues That Because Some In Congress Want More Moderation, That Makes Twitter A State Actor
Re: Re:
Mike definitely brings up some good points. As an example, there is no 1st Amendment defense for violations of the 1960s federal Civil Rights acts.
On the post: Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation
He knows
Because tech company decisions lately have not been in good faith, they have been based on politics. It turns out, he got that part correct.
It sounds like he understands in his heart that there is a difference between a platform and a publisher.
On the post: Ridiculous: Yale Law Prof Argues That Because Some In Congress Want More Moderation, That Makes Twitter A State Actor
Vicarious
Nationalizing a company doesn't mean what you think it does. It means that the government controls it and makes decisions on its behalf. Instead, applying the first amendment to corporations that have effectively created digital public squares would be a DECREASE of government control.
Leftists believe they have discovered a way to circumvent the 1st amendment by partnering with corporations, and then have the corporations implement the censorship on their behalf. It's quite a loophole.
On the post: Broadband Market Failure Keeps Forcing Americans To Build Their Own ISPs
Re:
If the lawmakers want to do something about the problem, one thing they could do halt the ISP vs. ISP lawsuits that prevent competition.
On the post: Parler's CEO Promises That When It Comes Back... It'll Moderate Content... With An Algorithm
Re: Re: Freedom is Feared
You might suppose that after someone complains about speech controls, that you would be a little more self-aware and not attempt to engage in speech controls. But I guess not. The term "SJW" is probably now being considered for Facebook's banned word list.
Evidently not AWS. They stood to lose nothing, yet voluntarily engaged in banning instead of making more $$$.
The "rest of their employees" are the very definition of "SJW"s. Actually, it's not all of the remainder employees, but the politically active ones will try to scream louder as to seem like they represent 100% of the group. But thanks for letting us know that the SJWs are still very much a thing.
That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. But your recourse against speech with which you disagree is to speak out and try to convince people otherwise. It isn't to ban people for disagreement. It isn't to fact check political opinions or satire websites. It isn't to only allow reporting for people who you deem to be legitimate journalists. It sounds like you are afraid of anything close to a level playing field.
On the post: Parler's CEO Promises That When It Comes Back... It'll Moderate Content... With An Algorithm
Freedom is Feared
But when people have free speech rights, they sure want to express it, and there's a big market for it, and the current tech oligopoly truly fears it. The SJWs that currently work for the tech companies don't want competition, and they don't want to provide a free speech platform; they want to control everyone's speech.
Theoretically having certain freedoms, but no means to express them is worthless.
Next >>