There oughtta be a law which says that any surcharges are optional and don't have to be paid. Companies may itemize their charges, but cannot exceed the price quoted for service.
Those in power are demanding retribution. You might want to be careful about opposing those demands, or else they could label your speech as "hate speech" as well.
And you didn't read the next sentence. Public platforms for speech must not be treated any different from that union guy outside the store protesting for higher wages. I don't care if a private company installed the sidewalk, he still has every right to be there in that public space.
A lot of pretzel-twisting to try and justify the censorship of speech with which you disagree. The first amendment protects ALL political speech. Social media are public platforms, and not primarily publishers.
It's very cool to see the practicality of how people are accessing the web, and how the traffic flows. Kind of like one of those long exposure nighttime shots of a freeway. I'm kind of surprised by some of the browsers and o/s on the list; I would have figured that with the hype and advertising that several of them would be doing much better.
Re: Re: Re: 'Our goals are opposite but we want the same thing,
I am unconcerned about the authors. They are the folks that managed to do the legwork in Congress to get the legislation passed. That's fine. They were still the PREFERRED methods by which each side wanted the system to operate. I stand by my statement that it was a bait and switch. Future lawmakers may want to heed that warning.
Re: 'Our goals are opposite but we want the same thing, odd...'
You may be correct about this. Section 230 was originally a bi-partisan solution when it was passed. Republicans and Democrats offered solutions to tackle the problem from different directions. Republicans wanted to prevent the distribution of indecent materials to minors, while Democrats sought to protect websites that wanted to moderate. But the Republican portion got thrown out in court, the internet never got cleaned up, it only got worse, and now a lot of Republicans hate section 230.
why would anyone want to be associated with anything that even remotely hinges on extremism?
Because everything with which the woke mob disagrees will eventually be labeled "extremist" or "hateful" or "potentially maybe dangerous", and therefore worthy of censorship. There is no limit to cancel culture. They will eventually be asked to become the gatekeepers of all speech.
It is better to announce that all speech is allowed, than to become the tool of authoritarianism.
The core problem is that congress often abdicates its duty to make the rules, and instead allows the executive branch to manufacture the rules. Policies, especially major ones, were supposed to be crafted by congress. There ought never be a ping pong without legislation.
Trump did encourage the mob, but mostly by omission... Trump claimed the election was stolen, encouraged the rally, then talked about fine people (just like at Charlottesville) when they started doing bad things. He did nothing to ensure that rally stayed peaceful.
Those were the original concepts of America, that when some people explained what was going on, others became outraged and demanded action. And that's a good thing, and why the First Amendment exists. It appears that you are unable to tolerate dissent when the outrage is directed against your opinion.
There is no such thing as collective punishment here in America. We are individuals, and noone is responsible for the actions of other adults. Noone is under any obligation to modify their political opinion based on how others might or might not react. (And before anyone thinks of going there, fires in movie theaters are not a political opinion.)
But here's the more important point -- especially directed at the people who will falsely claim that this is somehow censorship: President Trump is not being censored. He is not being limited. At any moment of any day (certainly for the next two weeks, and likely beyond) he can walk out of his office and have every major TV news channel (and every internet streaming platform) broadcast whatever he wants to say, and people will see it.
It's kind of like saying that the telephone company can ban you from using a telephone because you still can walk outside and talk to people.
The nice thing about free speech and the Constitution is that the rules are already written. They don't change and morph depending on who did or didn't win an election. If there was a coordination between twitter and democrat officials, then clearly this was a 1st Amendment violation.
Sunstein discusses the "actual malice" standard in NYT v. Sullivan, and starts out by making the correct point that most people misunderstand "actual malice" to mean the dictionary definition, rather than the Supreme Court's definition. In truth, "actual malice" has nothing to do with "malice" (actual or not).
This is why people nowadays don't like lawyers. The lawyers are inventing a completely different language, such that the court system is inaccessible. Laws used to be written and posted in public such that everyone could understand it. But now, lawyers can say one thing, but mean something else entirely, and that's a problem.
It would be great if police departments wouldn't be so militarized, such that if they receive a swatting call, then they don't immediately show up guns-a-blazin'. Maybe call the homeowner back first, and don't trust some ridiculous phone call. Investigate a LITTLE, first.
And, no, Parler would not come out fine either way. He may think so, with Rebekah Mercer's big wallet backing him up, but legal fees add up quickly, and Parler would likely discover that faster than most. No one has an endless supply of cash, and the Mercer family, while rich, is not that rich.
There are many ways to avoid liability without section 230 protection. One such example was demonstrated in Cubby v. Compuserve, which took place before section 230 even existed. Without 230, there would be a lot of opportunity for hands-off models, such as user-defined moderation, or algorithm only moderation. The primary models that would be injured would be the ones that desire to be a platform, as well as a publisher at the same time through the direct manipulation of their content feeds. Parler will no doubt be fine, since they don't engage in that kind of biased behavior.
The First Amendment is likely to insulate platforms from liability in their users' content, and it's also likely to insulate them from liability for their moderation decisions.... but even if there were no Section 230 the First Amendment would still be there to do the job of protecting platforms in this way. At least in theory.
A lot of the pro-230 people seem to think that it's backed by the First Amendment, but the First Amendment didn't save Prodigy v Stratton Oakmont in the court case that started it all. I agree that 230 needs reform, at least to clarify that it is only designed to allow moderation for the purposes of profanity, commercial spam, or repetition spam. Moderating user content based on political preference changes a platform into a publisher, which ought to take away the blanket immunity that the tech monopolies currently enjoy.
There's no such thing as "talking to police to clear your name" when there's already an arrest warrant. Hire a lawyer immediately if this type of thing happens.
Says a lot about our politicians when they are the ones deciding what changes to the law are up for debate / reform. Instead of the public.
Section 230 reform had gained a lot of public popularity in recent years, up from zero percent, to whatever it is now. The morally ugly position of the internet censors has taken its toll. There is now considerable support to prevent tech companies from being both a publisher and a platform simultaneously, and the politicians are reflecting that.
That is, of course, utterly ridiculous. Section 230 protects working Americans more than it protects "big tech."
Section 230 is what allows big tech to engage in the selective enforcement of supposed "rules" which ultimately promotes censorship. It is the little-guy that is hurt by section 230, not the corporations. The proof is to simply look to whom big tech and the globalist corporations donated. It wasn't Trump.
I think the message from Trump is clear: the swampy congress can override his veto, both for the Porkulus spending bill, and for the defense bill. But then they become responsible for it, and not him. He won't be left holding the bag without some compensation.
When criminals hear that police funding will be cut, and prosecution will be lessened, they feel emboldened. And this crime spike is what it looks like when crooks are emboldened. Welcome to the Ferguson Effect.
On the post: House Lawmakers Question Telecom Giants Over Broadband Price Gouging During A Pandemic
Oughtta
From the "there oughtta be a law" department:
There oughtta be a law which says that any surcharges are optional and don't have to be paid. Companies may itemize their charges, but cannot exceed the price quoted for service.
On the post: Bad Idea: President-Elect Biden Wants To Turn 1/6 Into The New 9/11
Demanding
Those in power are demanding retribution. You might want to be careful about opposing those demands, or else they could label your speech as "hate speech" as well.
On the post: Some Thoughts On Twitter Pulling The Plug On Trump's Account
Re: Re: Occam's Razor
And you didn't read the next sentence. Public platforms for speech must not be treated any different from that union guy outside the store protesting for higher wages. I don't care if a private company installed the sidewalk, he still has every right to be there in that public space.
On the post: Some Thoughts On Twitter Pulling The Plug On Trump's Account
Occam's Razor
A lot of pretzel-twisting to try and justify the censorship of speech with which you disagree. The first amendment protects ALL political speech. Social media are public platforms, and not primarily publishers.
On the post: Techdirt 2020: The Stats.
History Snapshot
It's very cool to see the practicality of how people are accessing the web, and how the traffic flows. Kind of like one of those long exposure nighttime shots of a freeway. I'm kind of surprised by some of the browsers and o/s on the list; I would have figured that with the hype and advertising that several of them would be doing much better.
On the post: Twitter Bans Sci-Hub's Account Because Of 'Counterfeit Goods' Policy, As Indian Copyright Case Heats Up
Masters Of The Universe
But only "plainly wrong" to those who disagree with Twitter's decision, at least if you believe the theory that platforms can ban anyone they want.
On the post: Dear Section 230 Critics: When Senators Hawley And Cruz Are Your Biggest Allies, It's Time To Rethink
Re: Re: Re: 'Our goals are opposite but we want the same thing,
I am unconcerned about the authors. They are the folks that managed to do the legwork in Congress to get the legislation passed. That's fine. They were still the PREFERRED methods by which each side wanted the system to operate. I stand by my statement that it was a bait and switch. Future lawmakers may want to heed that warning.
On the post: Dear Section 230 Critics: When Senators Hawley And Cruz Are Your Biggest Allies, It's Time To Rethink
Re: 'Our goals are opposite but we want the same thing, odd...'
You may be correct about this. Section 230 was originally a bi-partisan solution when it was passed. Republicans and Democrats offered solutions to tackle the problem from different directions. Republicans wanted to prevent the distribution of indecent materials to minors, while Democrats sought to protect websites that wanted to moderate. But the Republican portion got thrown out in court, the internet never got cleaned up, it only got worse, and now a lot of Republicans hate section 230.
On the post: The Slope Gets More Slippery As You Expect Content Moderation To Happen At The Infrastructure Layer
Because everything with which the woke mob disagrees will eventually be labeled "extremist" or "hateful" or "potentially maybe dangerous", and therefore worthy of censorship. There is no limit to cancel culture. They will eventually be asked to become the gatekeepers of all speech.
It is better to announce that all speech is allowed, than to become the tool of authoritarianism.
On the post: A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled
Re: like ping pong
The core problem is that congress often abdicates its duty to make the rules, and instead allows the executive branch to manufacture the rules. Policies, especially major ones, were supposed to be crafted by congress. There ought never be a ping pong without legislation.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Encouraging violence by omission
Those were the original concepts of America, that when some people explained what was going on, others became outraged and demanded action. And that's a good thing, and why the First Amendment exists. It appears that you are unable to tolerate dissent when the outrage is directed against your opinion.
There is no such thing as collective punishment here in America. We are individuals, and noone is responsible for the actions of other adults. Noone is under any obligation to modify their political opinion based on how others might or might not react. (And before anyone thinks of going there, fires in movie theaters are not a political opinion.)
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Definitely Censorship
It's kind of like saying that the telephone company can ban you from using a telephone because you still can walk outside and talk to people.
The nice thing about free speech and the Constitution is that the rules are already written. They don't change and morph depending on who did or didn't win an election. If there was a coordination between twitter and democrat officials, then clearly this was a 1st Amendment violation.
On the post: Cass Sunstein's No Good, Horrible, Very Bad Idea For Using Defamation To Fight 'Fake News'
Insert Lawyer Joke Here
This is why people nowadays don't like lawyers. The lawyers are inventing a completely different language, such that the court system is inaccessible. Laws used to be written and posted in public such that everyone could understand it. But now, lawyers can say one thing, but mean something else entirely, and that's a problem.
On the post: FBI Warns Assholes Are Now Combining Compromised IoT Devices With Swatting Because That's The Hell We Now Live In
De-escalation
It would be great if police departments wouldn't be so militarized, such that if they receive a swatting call, then they don't immediately show up guns-a-blazin'. Maybe call the homeowner back first, and don't trust some ridiculous phone call. Investigate a LITTLE, first.
On the post: Parler, Desperate For Attention, Pretends It Doesn't Need Section 230
No Bias, No Liability
There are many ways to avoid liability without section 230 protection. One such example was demonstrated in Cubby v. Compuserve, which took place before section 230 even existed. Without 230, there would be a lot of opportunity for hands-off models, such as user-defined moderation, or algorithm only moderation. The primary models that would be injured would be the ones that desire to be a platform, as well as a publisher at the same time through the direct manipulation of their content feeds. Parler will no doubt be fine, since they don't engage in that kind of biased behavior.
On the post: Section 230 Isn't A Subsidy; It's A Rule Of Civil Procedure
Re: CONTROL means "platforms" are PUBLISHERS.
A lot of the pro-230 people seem to think that it's backed by the First Amendment, but the First Amendment didn't save Prodigy v Stratton Oakmont in the court case that started it all. I agree that 230 needs reform, at least to clarify that it is only designed to allow moderation for the purposes of profanity, commercial spam, or repetition spam. Moderating user content based on political preference changes a platform into a publisher, which ought to take away the blanket immunity that the tech monopolies currently enjoy.
On the post: Facial Recognition Helps New Jersey Cops Jail The Wrong Man For Ten Days [Update]
Don't Talk
There's no such thing as "talking to police to clear your name" when there's already an arrest warrant. Hire a lawyer immediately if this type of thing happens.
On the post: Coalition Of Internet Companies Who Are Decidedly Not 'Big Tech' Raise Their Voices About The Importance Of Section 230
Re: False premise
Section 230 reform had gained a lot of public popularity in recent years, up from zero percent, to whatever it is now. The morally ugly position of the internet censors has taken its toll. There is now considerable support to prevent tech companies from being both a publisher and a platform simultaneously, and the politicians are reflecting that.
On the post: Apparently Trump Refuses To Allow The Government To Do Anything At All Until The Open Internet Is Destroyed
Section 230 is what allows big tech to engage in the selective enforcement of supposed "rules" which ultimately promotes censorship. It is the little-guy that is hurt by section 230, not the corporations. The proof is to simply look to whom big tech and the globalist corporations donated. It wasn't Trump.
I think the message from Trump is clear: the swampy congress can override his veto, both for the Porkulus spending bill, and for the defense bill. But then they become responsible for it, and not him. He won't be left holding the bag without some compensation.
On the post: US Attorney Blames Violent Crime Spike In Austin, Texas On Police Budget Cuts That Haven't Even Been Implemented Yet
Confidence
When criminals hear that police funding will be cut, and prosecution will be lessened, they feel emboldened. And this crime spike is what it looks like when crooks are emboldened. Welcome to the Ferguson Effect.
Next >>