He was not given greater free speech protections. Dorsey noted, accurately, that certain specific tweets did not violate their policies.
This is specifically how the bias occurs. When leftists complain about conservative speech on social media, the tech companies immediately craft new policies to use as a weapon. Ban first, policy soon to arrive. When someone complains about antisemitic conspiracies, they shrug, and say "ooops after all this time I guess we never thought about that". And then they won't lift a finger. One set of rules for me, and another set of rules for thee.
Leftists don't actually oppose "hate speech" or "misinformation" as long as it's something that they agree with.
One of the things that big tech companies enjoy the most about section 230 protection is that it offers a mechanism to avoid court cases while still engaging in bias. With mandated transparency reports, it risks catching the big tech companies in their lies, potentially opening a new avenue to litigation.
Tech companies with a Neutral Point of View will likely have clear policies, and will be incentivized to only censor for clear cut cases. But because a lot of bias is now entrenched in the current batch of social media monopolies, they're starting to sweat at the prospect of accountability.
And I think the upper management is okay with this. If the SJW employees engage in bias and censor accounts for bogus reasons, the management will have good cause to fire them when court cases are on the line.
I liked the part where Dorsey was confronted with the antisemitic conspiracy theories from Iran's Ayatollah. Dorsey pretty much had to admit that they were making up the rules as they go along. It just goes to show that the big tech companies really are editors and publishers. When the Ayatollah is given greater free speech protection than Americans, then it's time to get rid of section 230.
Update: Miles Taylor outed himself as the "senior" administration official behind the anonymous 2018 NYT op ed article. In actuality, he was a chief of staff, under the dept of homeland security, with no access to President Trump. The junior official later resigned from the post, worked for CNNLOL, and lied about his involvement with the op ed in later interviews.
If they just tried to strip it away entirely then no, but then sites would just fall back on the first amendment and continue to moderate as they desired, likely being far more restrictive in the process.
Another possibility would be exemplified by Cubby v CompuServe, where they were much more permissive. In this case, which happened before 230 even existed, CompuServe was determined to be a distributor and not a publisher of 3rd party content. CompuServe wasn't monitoring its message boards, and therefore had no reason to know about the problem. So the case was thrown out in the summary judgement phase.
If Section 230 is eliminated, it could open up new models whereby the the website stays neutral and does not monitor its own site, and therefore maintains a neutral point of view. As mentioned above, any changes would make some people grumpy, including this one. However, it would pave the way for a new generation of 3rd party content distributors, perhaps with new features such user-based content moderation. This could provide a way to break through the current social media monopolies.
Still, it remains somewhat perplexing that this is how Twitch handled all of this, and then claiming it would go back to "normal" DMCA processing as of the end of last week. Why couldn't it have just kept that up this whole time?
My take is that the RIAA made demands behind the scenes, and wants takedowns without the ability for users to fight back with a court case. If users can fight back, there is a risk that fair-use could be determined in a court case. And with precedent, RIAA would be completely unable to attempt these shakedowns in the future.
And it's very similar to the online music system that has emerged over the years. Initially, the recording industry was outraged by people sharing music online. All sorts of ideas were bantered about on how the music producers could charge money, even though online sharing mostly increased sales through essentially free promotion. Some of them even became reality. I seem to remember something about a CD tax....
I skipped ahead and bought a subspace emitter addon to make my phone 9G compatible. Now I'm future-proof, but unfortunately the only other person on the network is some guy named Borg.
If it was only for espousing socialism, then yes they should lose 230 protection. No American should be punished for espousing their political beliefs.
Zoom is just a platform, hosting video conference sessions. They are not editorializing, or engaging in corporate censorship to only permit messages that agree with their viewpoint. Because they have a neutral point of view, I don't think that anyone has a problem with them receiving protections.
For corporations that create an internet version of a town square, they ought to maintain that neutral POV. If they don't, then they don't deserve editorial protection. Bait & switch should not be allowed. Maintain that open platform, or close down.
But of the critics of the administration, there are fewer more long-term and prominent opponents. You need to be a real sourball to dislike today's announcement!
"Two things can both be true: Bill Barr is a corrupt Trump crony who shouldn't be AG, and @TheJusticeDept has the power to pursue a legit antitrust suit against Google. The case is clear – in fact, it could have gone further." -Senator Elizabeth Warren
Even the administration's biggest critics are cheering the decision. Let's give credit where credit is due. Monopolies need to be broken up to prevent additional harm.
Numerous Wisconsinites were forced from their homes using eminent domain, and watched as their homes were subsequently bulldozed as part of a con they had to pay for.
After the terrible 2005 Kelo v New London court decision, a number of states passed legislation in response in order to block the supreme court case from their jurisdiction. I believe Wisconsin was one of those states. I would be interested in knowing how they pushed through the eminent domain seizure, because without it, then the scam couldn't have continued.
If FB is tweaking the algorithm, it means that there is a bias occurring. Just let it go. Don't engage in corporate censorship in the first place and everything will be okay, except for the people who want to engage in bias.
Corporate subsidies are generally a huge waste. Good riddance. Americans would be much better served by increased tariffs instead. It achieves the same goal, while being far less susceptible to corporatism, and it can generate revenue instead of wasting it.
The lack of users on those platforms is a good indicator of how popular that bias is.
The number of followers for Trump, along with other conservatives on Twitter, is the reason why Twitter is engaging in corporate censorship. Twitter has a political bias, and it drives them insane that they have as many followers as they do. They are desperate to prevent Americans to hear the other side of the argument.
On top of that, not wishing to host certain stories is not, in any way shape or form, making a "contribution" to a political campaign. If it was, Fox News has spent most of its life "interfering" with Democratic candidates, and providing "contributions" in the form of news coverage "of value... for the purpose of influencing an election."
Twitter is supposed to be an open platform, while Fox News is not. If Twitter wants to not appear to be making a political contribution, then they need to stop engaging in editorialization while operating an open platform.
Somehow, I don't think that support for Obama's net neutrality ideas would have prevented the social media monopolies, nor would they have prevented the anti-conservative bias. Support for bad net neutrality policy doesn't fix the current problem.
On the post: The Senate Snowflake Grievance Committee Quizzes Tech CEOs On Tweets & Employee Viewpoints
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt getting political
This is specifically how the bias occurs. When leftists complain about conservative speech on social media, the tech companies immediately craft new policies to use as a weapon. Ban first, policy soon to arrive. When someone complains about antisemitic conspiracies, they shrug, and say "ooops after all this time I guess we never thought about that". And then they won't lift a finger. One set of rules for me, and another set of rules for thee.
Leftists don't actually oppose "hate speech" or "misinformation" as long as it's something that they agree with.
On the post: Transparency Is Important; Mandated Transparency Is Dangerous And Will Stifle Innovation And Competition
Path to Litigation
One of the things that big tech companies enjoy the most about section 230 protection is that it offers a mechanism to avoid court cases while still engaging in bias. With mandated transparency reports, it risks catching the big tech companies in their lies, potentially opening a new avenue to litigation.
Tech companies with a Neutral Point of View will likely have clear policies, and will be incentivized to only censor for clear cut cases. But because a lot of bias is now entrenched in the current batch of social media monopolies, they're starting to sweat at the prospect of accountability.
And I think the upper management is okay with this. If the SJW employees engage in bias and censor accounts for bogus reasons, the management will have good cause to fire them when court cases are on the line.
On the post: The Senate Snowflake Grievance Committee Quizzes Tech CEOs On Tweets & Employee Viewpoints
Re: Techdirt getting political
I liked the part where Dorsey was confronted with the antisemitic conspiracy theories from Iran's Ayatollah. Dorsey pretty much had to admit that they were making up the rules as they go along. It just goes to show that the big tech companies really are editors and publishers. When the Ayatollah is given greater free speech protection than Americans, then it's time to get rid of section 230.
On the post: The Trump Swamp Fights Itself Over Multi-Billion Dollar No-Bid Spectrum Grab
Re: Re: Fancy That
Update: Miles Taylor outed himself as the "senior" administration official behind the anonymous 2018 NYT op ed article. In actuality, he was a chief of staff, under the dept of homeland security, with no access to President Trump. The junior official later resigned from the post, worked for CNNLOL, and lied about his involvement with the op ed in later interviews.
On the post: The Trump Swamp Fights Itself Over Multi-Billion Dollar No-Bid Spectrum Grab
Fancy That
We can stop reading right there.
On the post: Zuckerberg And Facebook Throw The Open Internet Under The Bus; Support Section 230 Reform
Re: Re:
Another possibility would be exemplified by Cubby v CompuServe, where they were much more permissive. In this case, which happened before 230 even existed, CompuServe was determined to be a distributor and not a publisher of 3rd party content. CompuServe wasn't monitoring its message boards, and therefore had no reason to know about the problem. So the case was thrown out in the summary judgement phase.
If Section 230 is eliminated, it could open up new models whereby the the website stays neutral and does not monitor its own site, and therefore maintains a neutral point of view. As mentioned above, any changes would make some people grumpy, including this one. However, it would pave the way for a new generation of 3rd party content distributors, perhaps with new features such user-based content moderation. This could provide a way to break through the current social media monopolies.
On the post: Twitch's Freak Out Response To RIAA Takedown Demands Raises Even More DMCA Questions
My take is that the RIAA made demands behind the scenes, and wants takedowns without the ability for users to fight back with a court case. If users can fight back, there is a risk that fair-use could be determined in a court case. And with precedent, RIAA would be completely unable to attempt these shakedowns in the future.
On the post: Creative Director At Google Stadia Advocates Streamers Paying Game Devs And Publishers
Re: So, basically just like Link Tax.
And it's very similar to the online music system that has emerged over the years. Initially, the recording industry was outraged by people sharing music online. All sorts of ideas were bantered about on how the music producers could charge money, even though online sharing mostly increased sales through essentially free promotion. Some of them even became reality. I seem to remember something about a CD tax....
On the post: We're Already Hyping 6G When 5G Hasn't Even Finished Disappointing Us Yet
Luddites
I skipped ahead and bought a subspace emitter addon to make my phone 9G compatible. Now I'm future-proof, but unfortunately the only other person on the network is some guy named Borg.
On the post: Jeffrey Toobin's Zoom Dick Incident Is The Perfect Example Of Why We Need Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Platform not a Publisher
If it was only for espousing socialism, then yes they should lose 230 protection. No American should be punished for espousing their political beliefs.
On the post: Jeffrey Toobin's Zoom Dick Incident Is The Perfect Example Of Why We Need Section 230
Re: Re: Platform not a Publisher
Then they SHOULD lose their 230 protection. No American should lose their ability to speak on an open platform for political reasons.
On the post: Jeffrey Toobin's Zoom Dick Incident Is The Perfect Example Of Why We Need Section 230
Platform not a Publisher
Zoom is just a platform, hosting video conference sessions. They are not editorializing, or engaging in corporate censorship to only permit messages that agree with their viewpoint. Because they have a neutral point of view, I don't think that anyone has a problem with them receiving protections.
For corporations that create an internet version of a town square, they ought to maintain that neutral POV. If they don't, then they don't deserve editorial protection. Bait & switch should not be allowed. Maintain that open platform, or close down.
On the post: Bill Barr's Google 'Antitrust Inquiry' Is A Weaponized Farce
Re: Re: Pretty Clear
But of the critics of the administration, there are fewer more long-term and prominent opponents. You need to be a real sourball to dislike today's announcement!
On the post: Bill Barr's Google 'Antitrust Inquiry' Is A Weaponized Farce
Pretty Clear
"Two things can both be true: Bill Barr is a corrupt Trump crony who shouldn't be AG, and @TheJusticeDept has the power to pursue a legit antitrust suit against Google. The case is clear – in fact, it could have gone further." -Senator Elizabeth Warren
Even the administration's biggest critics are cheering the decision. Let's give credit where credit is due. Monopolies need to be broken up to prevent additional harm.
On the post: Employees Say Foxconn & Donald Trump's Wisconsin Factory Scam Was An Absurdist Hellscape
After the terrible 2005 Kelo v New London court decision, a number of states passed legislation in response in order to block the supreme court case from their jurisdiction. I believe Wisconsin was one of those states. I would be interested in knowing how they pushed through the eminent domain seizure, because without it, then the scam couldn't have continued.
On the post: Facebook Is So 'Biased Against Conservatives' That Mark Zuckerberg Personally Agreed To Diminish The Reach Of 'Left-Leaning' Sites
No Censorship = No Bias
If FB is tweaking the algorithm, it means that there is a bias occurring. Just let it go. Don't engage in corporate censorship in the first place and everything will be okay, except for the people who want to engage in bias.
On the post: Wisconsin Gets Wise To Foxconn's Grift, Blocks New Subsidies
Good Riddance
Corporate subsidies are generally a huge waste. Good riddance. Americans would be much better served by increased tariffs instead. It achieves the same goal, while being far less susceptible to corporatism, and it can generate revenue instead of wasting it.
On the post: Republicans, Who Have Made Sure The Federal Election Commission Can't Do Anything, File A Complaint About Twitter's Moderation Practices
Re: Re:
The number of followers for Trump, along with other conservatives on Twitter, is the reason why Twitter is engaging in corporate censorship. Twitter has a political bias, and it drives them insane that they have as many followers as they do. They are desperate to prevent Americans to hear the other side of the argument.
On the post: Republicans, Who Have Made Sure The Federal Election Commission Can't Do Anything, File A Complaint About Twitter's Moderation Practices
Twitter is supposed to be an open platform, while Fox News is not. If Twitter wants to not appear to be making a political contribution, then they need to stop engaging in editorialization while operating an open platform.
On the post: The GOP's Blisteringly Hypocritical Road From Whining About Net Neutrality To Supporting Trump's Idiotic Attack On Social Media
Bad Policy
Somehow, I don't think that support for Obama's net neutrality ideas would have prevented the social media monopolies, nor would they have prevented the anti-conservative bias. Support for bad net neutrality policy doesn't fix the current problem.
Next >>