An Onymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 10:58am
Re:
All of this was public info before Verizon bought Yahoo. It stalled their deal for a while and they ended up getting a big discount on the purchase price as a result. In theory they already offset the costs of this litigation on the assumption that it would cost $billions. That reduction in purchase price should be considered by the court as an acknowledgement of their fiscal responsibility to the class members.
This. Can we please do away with the electoral college now? Please? It's an antiquated system easily replaced by the instant communication of which we're now capable.
Spotify all but killed the major sources of pirated content. Suddenly the labels were getting paid for music they were not previously. And now they want to try to extract more out of Spotify (and every other similar provider).
If they succeed in killing Spotify, et. al., all they will do is wreck yet another source of revenue and fertilize the soil for more pirate sites to pop up. How is it possible they can collectively be that dumb?
The generation after "the millennials" are already entering the work force, often dubbed "Gen Z". It's only natural that each successive generation has its own predominant perspective, at least one that differs from the preceding generation. We are all products of the times during which we grew up but its rarely if ever as simple as "one perspective".
Even if it had protected status, there are no laws protecting *any* speech on a private platform from that same platform. Too many people think Free Speech means that you should be able to say anything you want anywhere you like and that simply is not true.
Citation needed. Really, you're going to need to provide some kind of justification for these claims. No law says a blog platform has to allow anything and everything be posted on their platform. This runs directly counter to your own argument that that same platform police what is posted. How can a platform deny any message if they're not allowed to deny any at all?
> they are to provide SERVICE to the public, not rule over it. Period.
That part is imaginary. Nothing in 230 says any given platform has to allow anything on their service. Nothing in any other law says that either. Do you think a Christian social network should allow Satanist propaganda on their platform, even if presented in "good" taste?
An Onymous Coward (profile), 28 Feb 2018 @ 12:43pm
Re:
Not all lawyers work on contingency. That's the beauty of being a lawyer. You can get paid regardless of whether you win. You just maybe get paid more if you do.
An Onymous Coward (profile), 28 Feb 2018 @ 12:41pm
Re: "Put differently, section 230 incentivized companies to neither restrict content nor bury their heads in the sand in order to avoid liability." -- Is SAME as I say. But Techdirt construes 230 to be ABSOLUTE immunity, plus power to CONTROL all speech.
You're interpreting "incentivized" to mean "dictated" and that is absolutely not true. 230 added no requirements that companies police the content hosted on their platforms. It simply encouraged them to do some good faith policing with the promise they wouldn't be liable for anything they missed.
Let's ban you from using a computer so you can't spread your anti-gun propaganda. Your efforts are (in the most infinitesimal way) eroding my right to bear arms to protect my home. If you are silenced then the world is better off for it.
I'm not actually taking a position either way on the topic of gun control but please try to understand what you're saying at least as you're saying it if not before. You can't simply silence everyone you disagree with, for any reason. At least not in the US.
On the post: Judge Says Yahoo Still On The Hook For Multiple Claims Related To Three Billion Compromised Email Accounts
Re:
On the post: Trump Administration Wants To Start Sending Secret Service Agents To Polling Stations
Re: Techdirt carrying the water
On the post: Trump Administration Wants To Start Sending Secret Service Agents To Polling Stations
Re: Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
On the post: The US Government Is Considering Drafting Middle-Aged Hackers To Fight The Cyberwar
Re: Re: Re: Re: "mandatory service requirement"
On the post: The US Government Is Considering Drafting Middle-Aged Hackers To Fight The Cyberwar
Re: Re: Re: "mandatory service requirement"
On the post: Killing The Golden Goose (Again); How The Copyright Stranglehold Dooms Spotify
Re:
If they succeed in killing Spotify, et. al., all they will do is wreck yet another source of revenue and fertilize the soil for more pirate sites to pop up. How is it possible they can collectively be that dumb?
On the post: Middle Schoolers Cheer As Oregon Passes A Net Neutrality Law
Re:
On the post: Can Someone Explain How SESTA Will Stop Sex Trafficking?
On the post: Famous Racist Sues Twitter Claiming It Violates His Civil Rights As A Racist To Be Kicked Off The Platform
Re: I read it again...
On the post: Wireless Carriers, Hardware Companies Use Flimsy IOT Security To Justify Attacks On Right To Repair Laws
Re:
On the post: Wireless Carriers, Hardware Companies Use Flimsy IOT Security To Justify Attacks On Right To Repair Laws
Re: Re: Re: And yet...
On the post: Sprint's CEO Thinks This Whole Killing Net Neutrality Thing Is Pretty Nifty
Re: Re: Re: Re: regulations and 'free market'
Way to avoid the point he was really making.
On the post: DC Appeals Court Tosses Silly Lawsuit Woman Filed Against Google Because Someone With A Blog Said Mean Things
Again, please provide citations for your claims.
On the post: DC Appeals Court Tosses Silly Lawsuit Woman Filed Against Google Because Someone With A Blog Said Mean Things
On the post: DC Appeals Court Tosses Silly Lawsuit Woman Filed Against Google Because Someone With A Blog Said Mean Things
That part is imaginary. Nothing in 230 says any given platform has to allow anything on their service. Nothing in any other law says that either. Do you think a Christian social network should allow Satanist propaganda on their platform, even if presented in "good" taste?
On the post: DC Appeals Court Tosses Silly Lawsuit Woman Filed Against Google Because Someone With A Blog Said Mean Things
Re:
On the post: DC Appeals Court Tosses Silly Lawsuit Woman Filed Against Google Because Someone With A Blog Said Mean Things
Re: "Put differently, section 230 incentivized companies to neither restrict content nor bury their heads in the sand in order to avoid liability." -- Is SAME as I say. But Techdirt construes 230 to be ABSOLUTE immunity, plus power to CONTROL all speech.
On the post: AT&T Fails In Bid To Kill FTC Authority Over Broadband Monopolies
Re: Hmm - needs a slight name change
On the post: Anti-NRA Censorship Efforts Echo Earlier Pro-NRA Censorship Efforts, And Learn No Lessons From Them
Re:
Let's ban you from using a computer so you can't spread your anti-gun propaganda. Your efforts are (in the most infinitesimal way) eroding my right to bear arms to protect my home. If you are silenced then the world is better off for it.
I'm not actually taking a position either way on the topic of gun control but please try to understand what you're saying at least as you're saying it if not before. You can't simply silence everyone you disagree with, for any reason. At least not in the US.
On the post: NRA Gives FCC Boss An Award For 'Courageously' Killing Net Neutrality, May Have Violated Ethics Rules
Re:
Next >>