Ask Michael Moore if his 4 seconds of use of some film the original author used to file a takedown notice causing his movie to be taken down is censorship.
It happens much more commonly and there are people who simply troll the DCMA report box to take things down for a day or two and just force the people to respond.
This is also a serious problem but also "content moderation". Because someone with a gmail account which has only existed for 20 minutes says it violates their copyright, we must remove your content.
So when someone posts something which is offensive, and a mob then doxxes them, gets them fired, has their bank and/or payment processor, their ISP, their hosting service drop them, how is that not "censorship"?
Then there's the problem that "We DO do that around here, except to X", take the tweets that get banned when you simply s/white/black/g. In the above post, note how it is someone who is uncomfortable with LGBTQ, not someone like Dan Savage who said worse in public at a conference showing what by the reciprocal standards would be anti-Christian bigoted hate speech.
The upside is the war is now open instead of a slow attrition where Alex Jones gets banned but not Rachel Maddow. Milo but not Savage.
The second great thing to come from this is the nonsense like the post above trying to use reason and proper argument when everything is about hurting someone's feelings, and the accuracy of the post isn't relevant, or isn't even contested but belittled or condemned.
Take the current cause. There ARE lots of opportunities for fraud in "Mail In Ballots". They can be mitigated with strong voter-ID laws (including a signature sample that must match the ballot), bans on ballot harvesting, and have the postal inspectors and USPS secure the mail in path.
The problem is we can't have that discussion. If we could the above points would be the response to Trump, not "Fact Check: False - see these CNN and NBC #FakeNews articles".
Also note the controversy over Mail In Ballots doesn't even come close to talking about hate speech, yet that, something which should not be about feelings, is the cause. Is Trump calling for the slaughter of Gay people like Ric Grenell or Milo? Well, maybe you don't see any difference.
Me: Come, let us reason together and discuss and debate, using reason and evidence without getting personal or profane.
You: We don't do that around here.
With Kathy Griffin that suggested he be killed by an air embolism in a Tweet and doubled down?
Realize that Trump won, you lost. Maybe if you attempted to understand WHY instead of quintupling down we could have a rational conversation instead of you and TD (Trump Deranged) spreading far more toxic vitriol than Trump does. Trump is only one man. You have the people at CNN, MSNBC, comics, Hollywood throwing far more AT Trump than he throws back. You should call out that hate if you don't think hate is proper.
Such a discussion is very important and I fall on the libertarian side of things. But I don't think that is what you want if your other articles are any indication.
What is the point of yet another "Orange Man Bad!" forum? Expert echo chamber? My opinions are orthognal to both sides on most occasions, and more subtle. I usually find my self burned as a heretic.
Consider "privacy". I posted about Anonymity. But that would interfere with targeted ads. Google (and Apple) maintain IDs, and I trust neither, but they don't fund the EFF to create a cryptographic persistent pseudonym system. Instead they use web bugs, javascript fingerprinting and other tracking. (TD - I really like some of the products you email me in your deals, but instead of any page or any easy way to find them on your deals site I get a tracking site; the cost to my privacy is too high a price).
I go back to the PGP export wars during the 1990s on that (I go back further, but we are talking privacy). There are both legal and technical challenges. And they could be worked out. I don't think anyone really wants to do so if it will give "the other side" an advantage, or will demonitize Google who decided to be evil - Avarice is a deadly sin - and go full China but under a layer of virtue signalling.
I have a bridge over the Chappaquiddic river to sell you.
What no one seems to consider is a system of user moderation. "I don't want to see any tweets about X". Or if I follow X and they upvoted Y, I would see Y. But then I would be controlling the narrative, not them.
(Twitter is a horrible platform for complex issues like mail in ballots - should we require Real IDs to get on the voter rolls every few years? Should we send them to inactive voters? Doesn't fit well, so any discussion requires a very long and cumbersome tweetstorm).
The worst problem is the arbitraryness. The rules seem to be "Fine for Anti-Fa to call for specific violence, but don't misgender anyone". It is too easy to find X banned but Y allowed though they break the same rule. And I dont see CCP propoganda being fact checked. Well, the WHO said there isn't human to human transmission of Covid because China said so.
Overall I'd prefer the reason and evidence and having discussions, rhetorical if not dialectic, to hash it out. Instead there are ARBITRARY deletions and bans. Instead of bad ideas, there are bad persons (Mile, Alex Jones) - somehow no one on the Left including those who have called for Trump to be assassinated.
Oh, and "build your own platform"? See Gab that was demonitized and deplatformed more than once for alleged posts that simply paralled Facebook (like the NZ massacre deadstream). If you refuse to allow any alternative platform unless they are as blue as Twitter, what do you expect? Every platform that permits free speech (anything that the 1st amendment allows, and perhaps bans doxxing and defamation) gets a SJW mob and gets shut down.
Yes, that bad, a Google Drive copy of Plandemic was deleted by Google. Censorship is argumentum ad balaculum. If there were no rational or evidence based arguments, ought I not assume Plandemic is true? Or see Michael Moore's recent takedown.
However Facebook outed many transitioning transgenders, but Zuck wrote a huge check to the gay pride parade promoters so their float was allowed.
Facebook has a "real names" policy, but that means the privacy violation goes deeper. There can be no privacy because your name can easily be linked (by facebook if no one else), and "people you may know" will include you even where you might not want it to be. Another example was a teacher that had a nightlife - under two different identities.
I don't think you can fence things. The lady in central park with the dog was doxxed and is now "on leave". Comply or lose your job? A virtual windowed Kristallnacht?
This is another reason for the divide in our country. If you are open and willing to discuss, instead of a rational argument you will be attacked, doxxed, hacked, demonitized, and deplatformed.
But this is a simple metric for privacy. Can you freely express any opinion, or any legal activity, and not be in danger of this.
Back then it was "clicks" and "eyeballs", and trying to make the IPO before you burned through the VC.
Now it involves more rounds and VC in the billions, but is the same thing. WeWork, Uber, DoorDash... I doubt they have any patents or anything else actually valuable.
Uber underprices by a large amount, and breaks Taxi laws.
The only difference here is you do pay something for the service, but not as much as it would reasonably cost to provide.
The only really useful and profitable version was shut down by the FAA - where private pilots could advertise they were flying somewhere and had room for passengers.
The Shipper example - deliver the box without opening it to inspect it, you aren't liable. If you start picking, you better net deliver anything illegal.
Yes, we need to ban anything that suggests against the WTO that Covid can be spread by human to human contact, or to wear masks since Dr. Fauci said we shoudn't do so.
There are some clear lines to adult or illegal content (copyright, defamation, calls to violence). But we see AntiFa calling for throwing caustic chemical milkshakes and they aren't taken down, but some suggestion that South Dakota was right not to go to full lockdown is intolerable.
If there were 100 platforms it woudn't be a problem.
Fine. Let the restrictions apply only to 50%+ market monopolies like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook (and their purchased platforms).
That boat sailed long ago.
Even now, since I listen offline (literally, driving through the Zero Bar Ranch) I find myself having to view-source: and dig through iframes and javascript players and other junk to find the mp3 file. Or use a site that does it for me for things like SoundCloud.
The Browsers COULD offer to save the stream as a file with turboed download, but they don't - mostly. The Samsung Browser does for Video sometimes
I have never been able to get anything off of Apple's site.
There are downloaders (and to audio converters) for YouTube but not BitChute and vimeo doesn't always work. Bitchutes magnet links never download.
There is youtube-dl which is in Python, but doesn't convert video only.
And after this, out! out! damned Spotify!
Wait until podcasts go to Amazon Prime.
But there's worse. No discussion would be complete without metioning the deplatforing and demonitizing. Consider the Covid censorship - unofficial sources aren't allowed, only the WHO that said there is no human to human transmission, and Dr. Fauci that told everyone to NOT wear masks. But controversial politics. And don't you dare say the name of a Chiropractor from Illinois - that is an instant erasure. (will TechDirt interview him? instead of a bleep,they can blow a whistle).
That is a worse problem. It will be interesting if Rogan can get into edgy topics.
Which is important out here in the Zero Bar Ranch country where many areas are still EVDO 3G only. But the phones won't do that anymore, but 5G won't be there either.
First there are nasty people on the net. What happens if the pic is photoshopped into porn? Or if some rage mob sees what school they go to. What if Granny or the parents have unpopular opinions, and the kids school peers bully them over it?
Second, when applying for a job 20 years later, these pics will come up. Children have no means to protect themselves from this or even consent and it is a light form of doxxing.
There are reasons there is an "age of consent" for various activities, including statutory rape.
When AI denies bail disproportionately to blacks v.s. whites, it is called racism even if those denied have more convictions.
Can anyone list even 5 people on the political left that have been banned by Twitter, YouTube, or Facebook?
If the algorithms were neutral but errant, they would identify "I wish all [white/black/yellow] people" as something to be banned. Yet when the term used is "white", no matter how hateful, it is banned. See Candace Owens (who is black and called out an Asian hired by the NYT by doing a search and replace on the tweets).
That is why it is provably NOT neutral.
To return to my original example, are police neutral? There are lots of reports of brutality. Maybe it is just that some groups commit more crimes and people are "bitching and moaning ... and mewling" about injuries and deaths that are "just Anecdotal".
So you get a notification that you were "near" someone. What is the probability it is a false positive? That the contact was on the other side of a shield, wearing PPG, etc? The app detects NONE of that, but assumes proximity=positive.
Now what? An EXPENSIVE test you have to pay for yourself to see if you test positive? And again when the app goes off next week? Rinse, lather, repeat? Isolate yourself and use DoorDash for 2 weeks? Oh, and you are in your 20's where you are more likely to die of a flu infection than a covid infection.
But keep forcing the nursing homes with ocotgenarians to accept the covid positive patients - app or not. So what if half die? We can virtue signal using spread spectrum and feel good we are doing our part.
The first amendment protects publishers, who can be held responsible for what they publish (after the fact, see "prior restraint").
A Movie theatre is NOT responsible for someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, unless they "moderate" and tell people who enter they are free to yell "fire".
But the underlying content is NOT protected by #1A
There is a difference between a publisher and a platform (cluebat available).
If you are a "common carrier", you aren't responsible for what is in packages you don't rip open to inspect, including USPS, USP, FedEx, and the other shipping services. They are shipping "platforms"
When you start editing content - opening the packages - and deciding what you think is acceptable to ship - you are a publisher and are responsible for what you let through because the act of editing makes it YOUR content, not some 3rd party's.
On the post: Moderation v. Discretion v. Censorship: They're Not The Same
one stone, two birds
On the post: Moderation v. Discretion v. Censorship: They're Not The Same
Then there's DCMA notices
On the post: Moderation v. Discretion v. Censorship: They're Not The Same
We don't do what exactly?
On the post: When The Problem Isn't Twitter But President Trump
Do you agree...
On the post: Introducing The Tech Policy Greenhouse: Let's Have Thoughtful Conversations About The Biggest Tech Policy Challenges
Really?
On the post: Trump, Twitter, And Free Speech
If you believe that about Scarborough
On the post: Our First Greenhouse Topic: Privacy
Anonymity = Privacy
On the post: A Mess In The House: Dirty Pool As Rep. Schiff Inserts Loophole To Help The FBI Spy On You
Biden?
On the post: If You're Reporting On Trump's Supposed Plans For 'Anti-Conservative Bias' Panel, Shouldn't You Mention The 1st Amendment?
Obama's Operation Chokepoint could be a good model.
On the post: The Great Pizza Arbitrage Scheme Of 2020 Is Spotlighting The Strangeness Of Food Delivery Services
1998 DotCom bust redux
On the post: Newsweek Publishes Facts Optional, Wronger Than Wrong, Piece About Section 230
Then they are publishers, not platforms
On the post: We Lose A Lot When Podcasts Go Closed Instead Of Open
Will there be spotify torrents?
On the post: Verizon Tries To Temper 5G Enthusiasm After Report Clearly Shows US 5G Is Slow, Lame
But they can use it as an excuse to kill 3G
On the post: Court Tells Grandma To Delete Photos Of Grandkids On Facebook For Violating The GDPR
No one should ever post children's pictures.
On the post: Let's Talk About 'Neutrality' -- And How Math Works
There is evidence...
On the post: The Case For Contact Tracing Apps Built On Apple And Google's Exposure Notification System
Don't minimize the problems
On the post: London's Facial Recognition Rollout Trips Over The Pandemic As Facemasks Render The System Even More Useless
They should continue to wear masks
On the post: Idiots Begin Attacking US 5G Cell Towers Because, Idiots
Quixotic
On the post: No, CDA 230 Isn't The Only Thing Keeping Conservatives Off YouTube
Publisher or Platform?
On the post: No, CDA 230 Isn't The Only Thing Keeping Conservatives Off YouTube
But the underlying content is NOT protected by #1A
Next >>