Okay, so let me get this straight, based on a plain reading of Section 230, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the fluff piece in question:
Section 230, it's plainest possible reading, basically says that only the speaker is liable for their speech, not where they say it
1st Amendment protections only apply to the government impinging on certain rights of the people
Facebook, Google, et al are not government organizations or actors (Williby v Zuckerberg)
Facebook, Google, et al are not a public forum as defined by 1st Amendment case law, at least for now - Techdirt
As private entities, Facebook, Google, et al are allowed to conduct their businesses in whatever manner they see fit, provided that it does not run afoul of the law
In terms of moderation, whether involving user accounts, social media posts, search results, or any public facing information, Facebook, Google, et al have broken no laws defined in the US Constitution or any federal statute.
The only way that Facebook, Google, et al can be held "accountable" for their actions is to alter the law, or create new law, that makes their legal behavior illegal.
Most new tech legislation, or modifications of existing tech legislation, has serious constitutional issues and/or negative side effects. This is why we commonly refer to the editorialized law as Section 230 (one of only a few parts to survive judicial scrutiny), instead of the Communications Decency Act (the entire bill); see CFAA (fraud/abuse), CDA (morality), COPA (children), DMCA (copyright), COPPA (children), CIPA (children), FOSTA (sex trafficking)
Most opponents of Section 230 are individuals who can't sue because of lack of cause (Sidney Blumenthal, Sheriff Tom Dart) , companies that have difficulty competing online (IBM, Marriott, Oracle, Disney), or lawmakers stirred into a froth by either or both of them (too many to count).
Even if Google News were monetized, he makes it sound like Google is in competition with newspapers, trying to wipe them out. It's a news aggregator. It aggregates news. Without the newspapers and other online media, Google News doesn't exist. It's in their best interest for online properties to be successful. And there's no better way to do that than sending them traffic. You know, that very metric that any other advertising web site on the planet treats like gold.
I have heard and read so many pompous and elitist opinions in the last couple of months, it's been quite dizzying. To me, this just seems like a sideways extension of the "nerd harder" diatribe we've heard so much the last few years, by people who should know better, but might not. One of the things that seems to come so hard to people who have no idea about how technology works is the fact that while places like Silicon Valley, MIT, and others are incubators of great ideas, you can't just demand that innovation takes place. It would be like critics of SpaceX lamenting about how Elon is failing as a human being because we don't have faster-than-light space travel.
Most of the things that have shaped the last century or two didn't just spring from a single idea, they came from a series of incremental and evolutionary steps, and some of them were just plain happy accidents, transforming into utilitarian systems that went in different directions from where their creators were steering them, or even forked by people who figured that they could improve on it.
You can't just demand a revolution in technology and expect it to materialize overnight and from thin air.
[w]hen even the Copyright Office can mislead the public about copyright in such a way that it has to come back and qualify its earlier incorrect tweet, how the hell are every day people expected to not accidentally infringe?
Or, taken another way, if I retweet that, then the copyright office comes to their senses and follows up with a clarification and correction, does that mean that I'm considered liable under proposed "fake news" laws in this or other countries, since I just retweeted something that was objectively false?
When I read the headline, this exchange is the first thing that came to my mind:
LEO: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?"
What the actual fuck? How is that a commercial secret?
I'm wondering if a clue to that question comes in the previous article Mike wrote on this subject:
It gives the company extra exclusivity regardless of the validity of Gilead's patents. The FDA will not allow others to use the same chemical for seven years -- again, no matter the status of Gilead's patents. On top of that, Gilead can potentially get a 25% tax credit.
One can't help but wonder when the clock actually started running on this, and how they might be able to strong-arm other companies that don't exactly know when that seven years is really up.
Can somebody in LE explain to me again about how one bad apple isn't such a big deal?
If police had peer accountability from fellow officers and supervisors, instead of after-the-fact in the form of IA investigations or wrist slaps, vacations and reemployment at the behest of police unions, we might actually get somewhere.
I don't think I could ever even come close to understanding claim construction. I can't wrap my brain around somebody suing for infringement because something violates one or more claims on a patent.
As a layperson with no legal experience, just common sense, it just seems like in the real world, you'd only be able to sue over something that violates ALL claims in a patent, and nothing less.
The mindset of the average investor doesn't just affect what the company produces. The internal culture often takes a hit, too.
I've been on the front lines of this a couple of times working for companies that have gone public. Priorities change, and all the sudden the wonderfully creative intangible things that made the company work in the first place, as well as become attractive to investors, has now been pushed off to the side for short term financial gratification. This is where you lose a lot of the idealism and altruism that exists in private firms that really do want to do things to improve peoples' lives.
Since those days, I've made it a point to work only at private SMBs, where the passion hasn't yet been doused by the bean-counters. If my current company decided to go public, I'd be instantly preparing and reviewing my resume'.
Encryption, like many other tools are only as good as how they're used, or even if they're used. Take another security product for example: backups. The best backup technology in the world does no good if don't have a good backup regimen.
For them to lament against "encryption like that" is genuine, even if not in the way they intend it to be. The average Joe or Josephine has an owners manual, some online help files, and maybe a tech support hotline or community forum, to help them implement security on their devices.
What does the government have? Whole buildings full of trained security staff, available at a moment's notice. Reams of extensively researched best practices, policies and mandates for implementation of protective measures on department-supplied hardware. Incident teams to immediately respond to breaches.In other words, they have an army of nerds to deal with the hardening issues that the regular user can't be bothered with. Most wouldn't even know where to start protecting themselves.
They certainly have the resources to acquire infiltration technologies from the private sector. And no matter how poorly funded a CSI lab is, it's still far more capable than the garden-variety smartphone user.
When they say they don't have "encryption like that", well, in a sense, they're right. They have much more.
I can remember, it doesn't seem like that long ago, back in 2010, when Sony (a Techdirt darling) without notice, removed the ability to load Linux onto a Playstation unit. Notably, a Playstation unit that used this functionality as one of its selling points. Non-hackers brushed it off, wondering why they would even need to worry about such a thing. It's just a trivial feature for a tiny sliver of Linux fanboys that don't matter much anyway in a Microsoft- and Apple-dominated world.
No countries are innocent here. Climate scientists have been dealing with this for decades. Fortunately, they have not had to die for it....for the most part, anyway.
I agree, that was totally the wrong headline for Reuters to use. It should have been, "Mnuchin Urges Apple, Other Technology Companies To Bend Over And Pretend They Like It".
On the post: Newsweek Publishes Facts Optional, Wronger Than Wrong, Piece About Section 230
Okay, so let me get this straight, based on a plain reading of Section 230, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the fluff piece in question:
Is that it? Did I miss anything.
On the post: FBI Holds Press Conference To Claim Apple Prevented It From [Checks Notes] Verifying Attribution In The Pensacola Air Base Shooting
Because why pay a foreign company millions when you can strongarm a local company to do it for free???
On the post: Hedge Fund 'Asshole' Destroying Local News & Firing Reporters Wants Google & Facebook To Just Hand Him More Money
Even if Google News were monetized, he makes it sound like Google is in competition with newspapers, trying to wipe them out. It's a news aggregator. It aggregates news. Without the newspapers and other online media, Google News doesn't exist. It's in their best interest for online properties to be successful. And there's no better way to do that than sending them traffic. You know, that very metric that any other advertising web site on the planet treats like gold.
On the post: As We're All Living, Working, And Socializing Via The Internet... MIT Tech Review Says It Proves Silicon Valley Innovation Is A Myth
I have heard and read so many pompous and elitist opinions in the last couple of months, it's been quite dizzying. To me, this just seems like a sideways extension of the "nerd harder" diatribe we've heard so much the last few years, by people who should know better, but might not. One of the things that seems to come so hard to people who have no idea about how technology works is the fact that while places like Silicon Valley, MIT, and others are incubators of great ideas, you can't just demand that innovation takes place. It would be like critics of SpaceX lamenting about how Elon is failing as a human being because we don't have faster-than-light space travel.
Most of the things that have shaped the last century or two didn't just spring from a single idea, they came from a series of incremental and evolutionary steps, and some of them were just plain happy accidents, transforming into utilitarian systems that went in different directions from where their creators were steering them, or even forked by people who figured that they could improve on it.
You can't just demand a revolution in technology and expect it to materialize overnight and from thin air.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Or, taken another way, if I retweet that, then the copyright office comes to their senses and follows up with a clarification and correction, does that mean that I'm considered liable under proposed "fake news" laws in this or other countries, since I just retweeted something that was objectively false?
On the post: Anti-Piracy Copyright Lawyer Decides To Abuse Trademarks To Shut Down Pirates
Many of them are simply 21st century ambulance-chasers, nothing more than opportunistic mercenaries.
There, that should give them a few more ideas for trademarks. And, if that fails, some interesting new band names.
"21st Century Ambulance Chasers? I think I saw them open for Phish..."
On the post: Bad Idea Is Bad: Senator Sasse Wants To Give Whoever Patents COVID-19 Treatments 10 Extra Years Of Patent Protection
I thought this plan was ludicrous, plain unbridled capitalism trying to run amok.
Then I saw that Martin Shkrelli wants to be released from prison to be the world's COVID-19 messiah.
Looks like he read this article, too.
On the post: Court Tells Lying Cops That Someone Asserting Their Rights Isn't 'Reasonably Suspicious'
When I read the headline, this exchange is the first thing that came to my mind:
LEO: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?"
Suspect: Yes, sir.
LEO: GOTCHA! GUILTY!!!!
On the post: FDA Won't Say When Gilead Applied For Orphan Status On COVID-19 Treatment, Calling It 'Secret'
I'm wondering if a clue to that question comes in the previous article Mike wrote on this subject:
One can't help but wonder when the clock actually started running on this, and how they might be able to strong-arm other companies that don't exactly know when that seven years is really up.
On the post: Federal Court Blasts Lying Cop Using His Warrantless Search Of A Room To Fraudulently Obtain A Search Warrant
Can somebody in LE explain to me again about how one bad apple isn't such a big deal?
If police had peer accountability from fellow officers and supervisors, instead of after-the-fact in the form of IA investigations or wrist slaps, vacations and reemployment at the behest of police unions, we might actually get somewhere.
On the post: Another Baltimore Cop Facing Criminal Charges, This Time For Stealing 3 Kilos Of Coke From A Drug Bust
I guess it really is RICO every once in a while.
On the post: SoftBank Owned Patent Troll, Using Monkey Selfie Law Firm, Sues To Block Covid-19 Testing, Using Theranos Patents
I don't think I could ever even come close to understanding claim construction. I can't wrap my brain around somebody suing for infringement because something violates one or more claims on a patent.
As a layperson with no legal experience, just common sense, it just seems like in the real world, you'd only be able to sue over something that violates ALL claims in a patent, and nothing less.
On the post: Will Wall Street Get In The Way Of Jack Dorsey's Lofty Plans To Turn Twitter Into A Protocol?
The mindset of the average investor doesn't just affect what the company produces. The internal culture often takes a hit, too.
I've been on the front lines of this a couple of times working for companies that have gone public. Priorities change, and all the sudden the wonderfully creative intangible things that made the company work in the first place, as well as become attractive to investors, has now been pushed off to the side for short term financial gratification. This is where you lose a lot of the idealism and altruism that exists in private firms that really do want to do things to improve peoples' lives.
Since those days, I've made it a point to work only at private SMBs, where the passion hasn't yet been doused by the bean-counters. If my current company decided to go public, I'd be instantly preparing and reviewing my resume'.
On the post: Law Enforcement Official Claims Citizens Use Better Encryption Than Cops Do
Encryption, like many other tools are only as good as how they're used, or even if they're used. Take another security product for example: backups. The best backup technology in the world does no good if don't have a good backup regimen.
For them to lament against "encryption like that" is genuine, even if not in the way they intend it to be. The average Joe or Josephine has an owners manual, some online help files, and maybe a tech support hotline or community forum, to help them implement security on their devices.
What does the government have? Whole buildings full of trained security staff, available at a moment's notice. Reams of extensively researched best practices, policies and mandates for implementation of protective measures on department-supplied hardware. Incident teams to immediately respond to breaches.In other words, they have an army of nerds to deal with the hardening issues that the regular user can't be bothered with. Most wouldn't even know where to start protecting themselves.
They certainly have the resources to acquire infiltration technologies from the private sector. And no matter how poorly funded a CSI lab is, it's still far more capable than the garden-variety smartphone user.
When they say they don't have "encryption like that", well, in a sense, they're right. They have much more.
On the post: The Next Risk In Buying An IOT Product Is Having It Bricked By A Patent Dispute
Re: Re:
Sorry, I must have left my snarky sarcasm tags in my other pants...
On the post: The Next Risk In Buying An IOT Product Is Having It Bricked By A Patent Dispute
I can remember, it doesn't seem like that long ago, back in 2010, when Sony (a Techdirt darling) without notice, removed the ability to load Linux onto a Playstation unit. Notably, a Playstation unit that used this functionality as one of its selling points. Non-hackers brushed it off, wondering why they would even need to worry about such a thing. It's just a trivial feature for a tiny sliver of Linux fanboys that don't matter much anyway in a Microsoft- and Apple-dominated world.
My, how far we've come.
On the post: When You Set Out To Block Misinformation, You Can Wind Up Blocking A Hero Like Li Wenliang
No countries are innocent here. Climate scientists have been dealing with this for decades. Fortunately, they have not had to die for it....for the most part, anyway.
On the post: Court To Cop: We Don't Need On-Point Precedent To Deny You Immunity For Killing A Dog That Couldn't Hurt You
I believe Judge Sol Wachtler said that a ham sandwich could get qualified immunity, or something like that.
On the post: Dear Reuters: This Is NOT How You Report On Dishonest, Disingenuous Talking Points From US Officials Regarding Encryption
I agree, that was totally the wrong headline for Reuters to use. It should have been, "Mnuchin Urges Apple, Other Technology Companies To Bend Over And Pretend They Like It".
On the post: Company Sells Surveillance Cameras Hidden In Tombstones, Threatens Websites For Talking About Its Tombstone Cameras
Does that mean it includes the baby?
Next >>