If a mandatory filter can't do a fair use analysis, preventing such speech from being posted, wouldn't that be prior restraint?
The workaround is that it isn't the government doing the filtering, so it can't be a first amendment issue. IANAL so I don't know how well it might work but it seems like it would be an uphill climb to have such a law invalidated on prior restraint grounds. Not to say impossible, but doesn't sound like an open and shut case to me.
The research is interesting, but I must have missed the part about it getting us closer to a more civil social media landscape, let alone a more civil world.
It shows us (if correct) that social media is not the problem. Thus, focusing attention on fixing the flaws in social media will not ultimately fix the problem of terrible people. The first step to solving a problem is understanding what it is - and what it is not.
Especially if, as in the situation described here, it seems explicitly targeted toward attacking the revenue stream that underlies the platform.
I would say any effect on the revenue is an accidental side effect, not the target of the tool.
"I still remember the feeling of unfollowing everything for the first time. It was near-miraculous. I had lost nothing, since I could still see my favorite friends and groups by going to them directly. But I had gained a staggering amount of control. I was no longer tempted to scroll down an infinite feed of content. The time I spent on Facebook decreased dramatically. Overnight, my Facebook addiction became manageable. "
That's the purpose, not attacking Facebook's revenue. No argument though about whether this tool might cause people to use FB differently.
The quoted text doesn’t say anything about debt collection
It may not use the word "collection" but it does say this: “To take advantage of this special debt removal offer, all you have to do is purchase a Spectrum TV, internet and/or voice product.”
The obvious implication is that if you don't, the "debt" (which may or may not exist) will remain outstanding, and we know what often happens with outstanding debts.
fairly obviously is suggesting (true or not) that entering into a subscription agreement with Charter could help the recipient build their credit, with all the benefits mention that said good credit could afford them.
It's also suggesting bad things could happen if they don't.
“A well-established credit history will more likely allow you to qualify for lower mortgage rates, better chances for obtaining credit cards and approvals for home rentals... You have worked hard to build a great future for yourself and your family. We look forward to welcoming you back.”
I'll start worrying about it if it ever passes in California. I'm not holding my breath.
There is no reason this funding (transport funding) couldn’t be done with less or non invasive methods.
Agreed, and from I've heard there a huge degree of public opposition to vehicle tracking. I think that might be even more unpopular than raising the gas tax, and politicians are terrified of doing that. So I'm not too concerned about that one either.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'That took care of them, now why does my foo
insinuates that anyone who didn't vote for Trump wouldn't believe him and would understand the difference.
The first part yes, the second part no. There is no implication that non-Trump voters know the difference, only that they wouldn't take the governor's word for it. It seems like a pretty good bet to me.
This has nothing to do with politics, and making it so is a dangerous way of thinking.
Everything a governor says in his official capacity has something to do with politics.
In my state if the car is over 15 years old it can use an antique plate to bypass emissions but that requires limited mileage usage.
But that car will never be required to meet any emissions standards that weren't in place when it was made. At least I have never heard of any state that does that. And no single vehicle has ever had an efficiency standard; those are at the corporate level. The idea that any regulation of cars (whether emissions, efficiency, or safety) has ever been used to curtail the sale of used vehicles is not supported by any facts I'm aware of.
Re: Re: Re: 'That took care of them, now why does my foot hurt s
So you're really willing to stand on the statement that "All non-Trump supporters understand the difference between a hacker and a responsible disclosure."
A company that chooses to express recommendations wholesale via a newsfeed is not expressing reasoned beliefs. It is making available the results of an algorithm. The algorithm itself is neither recommendation nor opinion, and I see no reason why the first amendment should apply to it.
You're either talking about regulating the expression of the results of the algorithm, which would be a first amendment issue because the government is not supposed to regulate speech whether it's a political opinion or a dick joke or a company saying "this is what our algorithm thinks you will be interested in" - or you're talking about regulating what the algorithm itself does. Which would also be a first amendment issue, because a human wrote that algorithm, and the government is not supposed to regulate what people write, whether it's on a protest poster or typed into a computer to make software.
no one would ever be dumb enough to employ more people than s/he could conveniently monitor when there will always be one single individual who stands as owner and point of legal accountability for everything tens of thousands of employees might do.
There's a difference between corporate personhood and liability limitation.
Re: Sacrificing the minority for the sake of the majority
By that argument the chinese government or any other oppressive government would be granted free reign
It's not an argument, it's a fact. Those are their two options. And it is also a fact that oppressive governments can demand anything of companies operating in their borders. The companies can comply, or not do business there. The question is, on a case by case basis, which is worse? Apparently MS has decided it can no longer comply, and is pulling out. So now there is no LinkedIn in China except by using a VPN. Is that better? I don't know.
On the post: Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll
Re: UK's National Crime Agency?
No, that was Tim's rephrasing of what they said in the paragraph above.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re:
The workaround is that it isn't the government doing the filtering, so it can't be a first amendment issue. IANAL so I don't know how well it might work but it seems like it would be an uphill climb to have such a law invalidated on prior restraint grounds. Not to say impossible, but doesn't sound like an open and shut case to me.
On the post: New Research Shows Social Media Doesn't Turn People Into Assholes (They Already Were), And Everyone's Wrong About Echo Chambers
Re: Re: Re: Yes, sort-of?
It shows us (if correct) that social media is not the problem. Thus, focusing attention on fixing the flaws in social media will not ultimately fix the problem of terrible people. The first step to solving a problem is understanding what it is - and what it is not.
On the post: New Research Shows Social Media Doesn't Turn People Into Assholes (They Already Were), And Everyone's Wrong About Echo Chambers
Re: Re:
If the proposal were "give lower class people cash and do nothing else" you would have a point. But it isn't.
On the post: Facebook Banning & Threatening People For Making Facebook Better Is Everything That's Wrong With Facebook
Re: Re: Re:
I would say any effect on the revenue is an accidental side effect, not the target of the tool.
"I still remember the feeling of unfollowing everything for the first time. It was near-miraculous. I had lost nothing, since I could still see my favorite friends and groups by going to them directly. But I had gained a staggering amount of control. I was no longer tempted to scroll down an infinite feed of content. The time I spent on Facebook decreased dramatically. Overnight, my Facebook addiction became manageable. "
That's the purpose, not attacking Facebook's revenue. No argument though about whether this tool might cause people to use FB differently.
On the post: Charter Spectrum Threatens To Ruin Potential Customers Over Debt They Don't Owe
Re: Article seems disingenuous
It may not use the word "collection" but it does say this: “To take advantage of this special debt removal offer, all you have to do is purchase a Spectrum TV, internet and/or voice product.”
The obvious implication is that if you don't, the "debt" (which may or may not exist) will remain outstanding, and we know what often happens with outstanding debts.
It's also suggesting bad things could happen if they don't.
On the post: University Of Hong Kong Wants To Remove A Sculpture Commemorating Tiananmen; To Preserve It, People Have Crowdsourced A Digital 3D Replica
Re: Re: Re: Wrong bear
I was sure you had been paying more attention than that over the last several years.
On the post: Billy Mitchell Survives Anti-SLAPP Motion From Twin Galaxies A Second Time
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a criminal standard. This is a civil case, which is decided on preponderance of the evidence.
Unless you just mean you will personally choose to believe him until he's been proven wrong, in which case of course believe whatever you want.
On the post: The Surveillance And Privacy Concerns Of The Infrastructure Bill's Impaired Driving Sensors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll start worrying about it if it ever passes in California. I'm not holding my breath.
Agreed, and from I've heard there a huge degree of public opposition to vehicle tracking. I think that might be even more unpopular than raising the gas tax, and politicians are terrified of doing that. So I'm not too concerned about that one either.
On the post: Journalists In St. Louis Discover State Agency Is Revealing Teacher Social Security Numbers; Governors Vows To Prosecute Journalists As Hackers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'That took care of them, now why does my foo
The first part yes, the second part no. There is no implication that non-Trump voters know the difference, only that they wouldn't take the governor's word for it. It seems like a pretty good bet to me.
Everything a governor says in his official capacity has something to do with politics.
On the post: The Surveillance And Privacy Concerns Of The Infrastructure Bill's Impaired Driving Sensors
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that car will never be required to meet any emissions standards that weren't in place when it was made. At least I have never heard of any state that does that. And no single vehicle has ever had an efficiency standard; those are at the corporate level. The idea that any regulation of cars (whether emissions, efficiency, or safety) has ever been used to curtail the sale of used vehicles is not supported by any facts I'm aware of.
What restrictions are you referring to?
On the post: Journalists In St. Louis Discover State Agency Is Revealing Teacher Social Security Numbers; Governors Vows To Prosecute Journalists As Hackers
Re: Re: Re: 'That took care of them, now why does my foot hurt s
That is not even close to what that person said.
On the post: The Surveillance And Privacy Concerns Of The Infrastructure Bill's Impaired Driving Sensors
Re: Re:
Any evidence for this, or just completely made up?
On the post: Journalists In St. Louis Discover State Agency Is Revealing Teacher Social Security Numbers; Governors Vows To Prosecute Journalists As Hackers
Re: Re: Multi-step process, my ass
Did you actually fall for the narrative that right click -> view source is "hacking"?
On the post: Journalists In St. Louis Discover State Agency Is Revealing Teacher Social Security Numbers; Governors Vows To Prosecute Journalists As Hackers
Re: Re:
And yet it would be outrageous to prosecute someone for listening to an English phone call in France.
On the post: Journalists In St. Louis Discover State Agency Is Revealing Teacher Social Security Numbers; Governors Vows To Prosecute Journalists As Hackers
Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...
There is approximately zero percent chance the governor of Missouri understands the difference between encoding and encrypting.
On the post: House Democrats Decide To Hand Facebook The Internet By Unconstitutionally Taking Section 230 Away From Algorithms
Re:
You're either talking about regulating the expression of the results of the algorithm, which would be a first amendment issue because the government is not supposed to regulate speech whether it's a political opinion or a dick joke or a company saying "this is what our algorithm thinks you will be interested in" - or you're talking about regulating what the algorithm itself does. Which would also be a first amendment issue, because a human wrote that algorithm, and the government is not supposed to regulate what people write, whether it's on a protest poster or typed into a computer to make software.
On the post: Journalists In St. Louis Discover State Agency Is Revealing Teacher Social Security Numbers; Governors Vows To Prosecute Journalists As Hackers
Re: actually was encrypted in transit
But it wasn't encrypted at the time the reporters viewed it.
On the post: Facebook Banning & Threatening People For Making Facebook Better Is Everything That's Wrong With Facebook
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's a difference between corporate personhood and liability limitation.
On the post: LinkedIn Caves Again, Blocks US Journalists' Accounts In China
Re: Sacrificing the minority for the sake of the majority
It's not an argument, it's a fact. Those are their two options. And it is also a fact that oppressive governments can demand anything of companies operating in their borders. The companies can comply, or not do business there. The question is, on a case by case basis, which is worse? Apparently MS has decided it can no longer comply, and is pulling out. So now there is no LinkedIn in China except by using a VPN. Is that better? I don't know.
Next >>