It’s long past time for Congress to set clear and fair rules.
I believe FB also wants clear mandates from Congress because then if they follow them, they can wash their hands of any ill effects. "We were just following the regulations, if you don't like it talk to your representative."
One of the problems with websites that I've never had satisfactorily explained to me is why do they think they are in control of my browsing experience.
They aren't, but they are in charge of what they want to serve to your browser if you request a page from them. If you want to go to some other site they aren't going to stop you.
Auto trading software doesn't do anything on the stock market that users can't do themselves, it just makes it easier...
Not true, manual traders can't react with the speed of automated systems. The automated systems can take advantage of market conditions that manual trading simply cannot, due to that speed advantage. There's no such difference with the Facebook tool. A better analogy would be a dishwasher vs hand washing. The effect is exactly the same, it's just easier and more convenient.
Improved how? First you would have to make the case that it is in need of improvement. I haven't even seen that case made successfully, let alone any coherent proposal to "fix" it.
They'll only use it against "bad guys", we can trust them despite the repeated evidence they can & will misuse it.
That's the real crux of it IMO. If we lived in a world where we could actually trust the police to use tools like this responsibly, there probably wouldn't be much outcry about it.
Get with the times, the new right wing talking point is that the climate may be changing but it's not related to human activity. Get ready for the next shift where they admit it's because of human activity but it's too late to do anything about it.
They were WELL paid to both create that loophole and feign that "surprise".
The energy lobbyists wrote the bill, and gave the legislators campaign contributions / bribes to vote on it. I wouldn't doubt they were genuinely surprised to find out about the loophole, because they certainly didn't write the bill, and it's very unlikely they read it either.
Lots of conclusory statements, but no references to any supporting material at all. So we are left to either take the author's word for it or not, that, for example, "this culture is characterized by a libertarian, American, masculine approach that values individualism." And while he never gets around to actually proposing any policy initiatives, the general gist that internet governance should be taken out of the hands of international standards bodies and given to national governments instead is not encouraging.
So, if it's not speech, Congress can make a law...
"No" to "would that lose them 230 protection?". The whole point of 230 is to protect platforms for their moderation decisions, which includes amplifying/promoting third party speech. A law punishing social media platforms for how they promote (or don't promote) the speech of their users would definitely violate the first amendment.
Advertising had no role in this, parents pushing their faded dreams on their children, parents pushing sports dreams on children, society demanding size 0 on runways... yep no role in this at all.
Instagram did it all on its own.
If the study methodology was sound, other effects were controlled for. I don't know how good it was, but in any event it certainly didn't go from "1 in 5 teens feel bad about themselves" to "it must have been Instagram".
I know this is slightly off topic, but why the h*** haven't the Democrats sued the Republicans idiots who keep claiming that the Democrats cheated the election, for defamation?
I don't recall them accusing any specific person. They just say there was "massive fraud". Or maybe they accuse "the Democrats", which I would think is far too vague to rise to defamation. Dominion Voting Systems, which was specifically named as part of the conspiracy, has filed some very large defamation lawsuits.
On the post: Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants
Also
I believe FB also wants clear mandates from Congress because then if they follow them, they can wash their hands of any ill effects. "We were just following the regulations, if you don't like it talk to your representative."
On the post: Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants
Re: Re: Stupid or lying?
No it isn't, because Democrats also want to regulate social media (though for different reasons).
On the post: LinkedIn Caves Again, Blocks US Journalists' Accounts In China
Two options
They can comply, or pull out of China and have the app blocked completely. Would it help anyone for LinkedIn to just not be available there?
On the post: Facebook Banning & Threatening People For Making Facebook Better Is Everything That's Wrong With Facebook
Re:
They aren't, but they are in charge of what they want to serve to your browser if you request a page from them. If you want to go to some other site they aren't going to stop you.
On the post: Facebook Banning & Threatening People For Making Facebook Better Is Everything That's Wrong With Facebook
Re:
Not true, manual traders can't react with the speed of automated systems. The automated systems can take advantage of market conditions that manual trading simply cannot, due to that speed advantage. There's no such difference with the Facebook tool. A better analogy would be a dishwasher vs hand washing. The effect is exactly the same, it's just easier and more convenient.
On the post: Why Section 230 'Reform' Effectively Means Section 230 Repeal
Re: Mea Culpa
Improved how? First you would have to make the case that it is in need of improvement. I haven't even seen that case made successfully, let alone any coherent proposal to "fix" it.
On the post: Why Section 230 'Reform' Effectively Means Section 230 Repeal
Re: Sign Of Growth
You are already free to return your social media accounts for a full refund of the entire purchase price.
On the post: Accidentally Unsealed Document Shows Feds Are Using Reverse Warrants To Demand Info On Google Searches
Re:
That's the real crux of it IMO. If we lived in a world where we could actually trust the police to use tools like this responsibly, there probably wouldn't be much outcry about it.
On the post: CNN Shutting Down Its Facebook In Australia Shows How Removing 230 Will Silence Speech
Re: Don't Nuke Australia, EVER!!
Don't want to hurt no kangaroo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QbUSjnhv6M
On the post: Texas Pols Shocked To Learn Their Bill Let Gas Companies Off The Hook For Climate Change Preparedness
Re: Shock and Awe
Get with the times, the new right wing talking point is that the climate may be changing but it's not related to human activity. Get ready for the next shift where they admit it's because of human activity but it's too late to do anything about it.
On the post: Texas Pols Shocked To Learn Their Bill Let Gas Companies Off The Hook For Climate Change Preparedness
Re: Please, Let me fix that headine for you...
The energy lobbyists wrote the bill, and gave the legislators campaign contributions / bribes to vote on it. I wouldn't doubt they were genuinely surprised to find out about the loophole, because they certainly didn't write the bill, and it's very unlikely they read it either.
On the post: Survey Suggests Eager Starlink Users Don't Understand Service Will Have Limited Reach
Re:
No, they're legitimately concerned about astronomy.
On the post: Against 'Content Moderation' And The Concentration Of Power
Unsupported
Lots of conclusory statements, but no references to any supporting material at all. So we are left to either take the author's word for it or not, that, for example, "this culture is characterized by a libertarian, American, masculine approach that values individualism." And while he never gets around to actually proposing any policy initiatives, the general gist that internet governance should be taken out of the hands of international standards bodies and given to national governments instead is not encouraging.
On the post: PS4 Battery Time-Keeping Time-Bomb Silently Patched By Sony; PS3 Consoles Still Waiting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ummmm, PS4 support was NOT being killed.
One wonders, then, why it wasn't written clearly and correctly like you just did.
On the post: Facebook: Amplifying The Good Or The Bad? It's Getting Ugly
Re: Re: Re: Right wing dream
"No" to "would that lose them 230 protection?". The whole point of 230 is to protect platforms for their moderation decisions, which includes amplifying/promoting third party speech. A law punishing social media platforms for how they promote (or don't promote) the speech of their users would definitely violate the first amendment.
On the post: Facebook: Amplifying The Good Or The Bad? It's Getting Ugly
Re: Right wing dream
No.
On the post: Facebook's Latest Scandals: The Banality Of Hubris; The Messiness Of Humanity
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but the article is about an internal Facebook survey.
On the post: Facebook's Latest Scandals: The Banality Of Hubris; The Messiness Of Humanity
Re:
If the study methodology was sound, other effects were controlled for. I don't know how good it was, but in any event it certainly didn't go from "1 in 5 teens feel bad about themselves" to "it must have been Instagram".
On the post: The Future Of Streaming TV Looks Increasingly Like Cable, But Free
Re: Don't connect your 'smart' TV to the internet
You hope. I wouldn't be surprised if it was finding a neighbor's open wifi access point and phoning home through that without telling you.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
Re:
I don't recall them accusing any specific person. They just say there was "massive fraud". Or maybe they accuse "the Democrats", which I would think is far too vague to rise to defamation. Dominion Voting Systems, which was specifically named as part of the conspiracy, has filed some very large defamation lawsuits.
Next >>