You can't hide behind the 1st Amendment when the full video demonstrates that the events originally reported didn't happen. Just as when police get caught in their own lies from bystander video footage, the media got caught in their own lies from bystander footage. It looks like these news outlets want desperately to escape on a technicality, instead of defending themselves at trial with some facts.
That same poll that you linked says "72 percent said that Facebook has too much power", and "51 percent said Google and YouTube should be split into separate companies". I don't put a lot of faith in polls after the 2016 election. But even this one indicates that social media corporations have a high degree of toxicity.
Because the core concept of tech companies manipulating the free speech in the United States is morally ugly. The bias of social media companies has gained them the public popularity of Microsoft circa 2005, and the Democrats do not want to hitch their wagon.
By choosing to publish such pieces they telling their readers that there is something of worth to be found in what they included, attaching what remains of their reputation to the piece and giving it more credibility as a result, even if the piece absolutely does not deserve it.
I personally don't mind the NYT publishing the Ip opinion piece, but not because I think that there's value to be found in it. I'm confident that those who desire freedom in Hong Kong to be able to articulate their position much better than the official chinese government mouthpieces. I say put those positions side by side, from the best writers on both sides, and then let people decide.
Conversely, to not allow any discussion about an opposing viewpoint does not necessarily preserve reputation. It invites the natural curiosity of people, causing them to seek out other sources, which might not offer any rebuttal.
It is easy to understand when you realize that the NY Times is filled with bias.
but I do wonder if the NY Times admits it shouldn't have published Ip's piece, will they suddenly rush out to call it "cancel culture" and "anti-free speech" and an "unwillingness to hear both sides"? Or will they recognize that the NY Times shouldn't be publishing this garbage whether it comes from a US Senator or a Chinese government official or anyone.
The NY Times demanded for the editor to be cancelled, because they disagreed with the opinion piece; and the editor for the Ip opinion piece will be okay, because they agree with it. Don't hold your breath on a firing this time.
The Better Business Bureau has been an excellent go-between for resolving complaints when consumers don't necessarily know where to go with their problem. They can usually get either a response or a fix out of the business, instead of a consumer just getting the run around.
While not all of the Senators have good ideas on how to reform section 230, it appears that they are beginning to understand that section 230 is among the greatest threats to freedom in the United States today. Today's example of bias is former Twitter CEO Dick Costello's death threat. It proves that big tech has a bias, and will censor those with whom they disagree, while permitting TOS violations of those with whom they agree, while hiding behind 230. Reform is sorely needed.
Re: Re: All speech that you disagree with is hate speech
No one said that, no one believes that, and that's unrelated to the issue here.
More important than what you say, it's what you do. The original comment has now been censored. No obscenity was mentioned, but mere disagreement is enough to get the leftists here to demand that the speech gets shut down. I rest my case.
And so it answers the original post with perfection: Republicans want to do it because leftists are abusing section 230 to shut down unobjectionable free speech on the basis of mere disagreement. Thanks for demonstrating!
but if they actually did claim that they had taken it down that seems like something that might come back to bite them, as if memory serves one of the cases in the past where 230 was found not to apply was because the platform promised to do something but then didn't.
True, and so their main defense at this point might be the timing of when this claim did occur. Unfortunately, I didn't see anything in the linked articles about the date of when the claim happened. Still, it might be a costly lesson for FB to learn: never apologize to the mob.
Years ago I cut the cord. I remember being outraged at the realization that a ton of my cable subscription price was going towards a bunch of sports channels that I didn't even watch. I was rather convinced that there would be a-la-carte cable subscriptions by now, but the industry has steadfastly refused.
I think we've reached peak-sports, where professional teams and their related industries can't squeeze any more from that turnip. Combine that with cancelled sports seasons, limited schedules, and people out of work. The result is a lot of people who are finally fed up and are now willing to cut the cord, just as I was. Cable media just didn't deliver what viewers wanted, and now they're going to pay the price.
Living in this country while undocumented is a civil violation
Be careful, it is also a criminal violation under 8 USC sections 1324 and 1325. Entering, trafficking, or harboring is punishable by several years in jail.
Tech companies don't want to waste time with police warrants and investigations that involve breaking open the security on a device. On the other hand, they want to be able to say that their devices are secure. Maybe this is the compromise? The devices themselves are (maybe) secure, but the cloud storage is not. So dumb people will still get caught, with a minimum of effort copying a customer's data onto a usb stick, while everyone else's device data remains secure.
I bet celebrity lawyers probably treasure their image above most else. It's their image that allows them to be paid for TV appearances to comment on controversial topics, or score high profile court cases. It looks to me like the $300 mil represents his ego, and not any actual damages.
The 1A and free speech means the government isn't allowed to stop you from speaking.
But the first amendment also does not permit you to editorialize and publish with impunity, simultaneously. For that, you need section 230. Many people are beginning to see the assumption, that corporations would primarily use section 230 for the purposes of maintenance editorializing (i.e.- blocking commercial adverisement spam, repetitive post spam, obscenity, pornography) has instead switched to corporations hiding behind section 230 for purposes of political editorializing. Since there is little practical difference between government censorship versus corporatist censorship, the call for section 230 reform grows in the face of ugly biased behavior.
Twitter's mission statement: "To give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers." More like "only the people we agree with, otherwise we'll put up a lot of barriers."
Similar statements from other free speech platforms--
Youtube: “to give everyone a voice and show them the world.”
Facebook: “to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.”
They sound all-inclusive, free speech for everyone, until they enter the world of disagreement. Then they demand silence and disconnections.
If this type of advertising plan becomes popular, then I predict that the discount will disappear. The advertising phone plan will get raised up to the regular price, and then they will offer a plan with no advertising at an even higher price. It's just a scheme to try to normalize spying on customers for advertising purposes, and perhaps worse.
if I am entertaining Alice and Bob in my parlor, and Bob tells a lie, I'm not allowed to point out the lie to Alice without then becoming subject to prosecution for anything that either Alice or Bob might say? In such a regime, I obviously can't have guests in my house at all.
Sure you could. The key is that in your parlor, you are not publishing anything. Attempting to carry this analogy over to the internet is very problematic, as evidenced by the pre- Telecommunication Act of 1996 lawsuits. With internet forums, websites that monitored and participated in the forums appeared to be publishers.
As for the rest of the problematic analogy, know that political speech cannot be labeled as true or false. As such, for websites to create a free speech platform, claim 1st amendment protection, and then deny free speech protection to other Americans is a repugnant act. If you want to participate the same as everyone else, go ahead. But that isn't what's going on. Instead, we're seeing biased censorship, shadowbanning, and preferential treatment for only some viewpoints. This type of behavior is ugly.
On the post: Judge Refuses To Dismiss Batch Of Nicholas Sandmann's Media Lawsuits In The Laziest Defamation Ruling I've Ever Seen
Weasels
You can't hide behind the 1st Amendment when the full video demonstrates that the events originally reported didn't happen. Just as when police get caught in their own lies from bystander video footage, the media got caught in their own lies from bystander footage. It looks like these news outlets want desperately to escape on a technicality, instead of defending themselves at trial with some facts.
On the post: Why Are Senate Democrats Helping Move Forward Trump's Strategy Of Attacking The Internet?
Re: Re: Ugly
That same poll that you linked says "72 percent said that Facebook has too much power", and "51 percent said Google and YouTube should be split into separate companies". I don't put a lot of faith in polls after the 2016 election. But even this one indicates that social media corporations have a high degree of toxicity.
On the post: Why Are Senate Democrats Helping Move Forward Trump's Strategy Of Attacking The Internet?
Ugly
Because the core concept of tech companies manipulating the free speech in the United States is morally ugly. The bias of social media companies has gained them the public popularity of Microsoft circa 2005, and the Democrats do not want to hitch their wagon.
On the post: NY Times Editorial Pages Fuck Up Again: Publishes Chinese Official's Ridiculous Defense Of Stifling Freedom In Hong Kong
Re: Re: I take the opposite viewpoint
I personally don't mind the NYT publishing the Ip opinion piece, but not because I think that there's value to be found in it. I'm confident that those who desire freedom in Hong Kong to be able to articulate their position much better than the official chinese government mouthpieces. I say put those positions side by side, from the best writers on both sides, and then let people decide.
Conversely, to not allow any discussion about an opposing viewpoint does not necessarily preserve reputation. It invites the natural curiosity of people, causing them to seek out other sources, which might not offer any rebuttal.
On the post: Jim Jordan Releases Yet ANOTHER Anti-230 Bill (Yes Another One)
Frazzled
At this point, I'm starting to think that they're just trolling section 230 supporters. It's making some people blow a fuse, each and every time.
On the post: NY Times Editorial Pages Fuck Up Again: Publishes Chinese Official's Ridiculous Defense Of Stifling Freedom In Hong Kong
Understanding
It is easy to understand when you realize that the NY Times is filled with bias.
The NY Times demanded for the editor to be cancelled, because they disagreed with the opinion piece; and the editor for the Ip opinion piece will be okay, because they agree with it. Don't hold your breath on a firing this time.
On the post: Report Says 20 Million U.S. Broadband Complaints Went Unresolved Last Year
BBB
The Better Business Bureau has been an excellent go-between for resolving complaints when consumers don't necessarily know where to go with their problem. They can usually get either a response or a fix out of the business, instead of a consumer just getting the run around.
On the post: Because Congress Apparently Has NOTHING AT ALL IMPORTANT To Work On, It Introduced TWO MORE Section 230 Bills Yesterday
Re: Re: Right Idea
Dick's tweet was in response to Coinbase's CEO Brian Armstrong, and their new attempt to create a neutral office.
On the post: Because Congress Apparently Has NOTHING AT ALL IMPORTANT To Work On, It Introduced TWO MORE Section 230 Bills Yesterday
Right Idea
While not all of the Senators have good ideas on how to reform section 230, it appears that they are beginning to understand that section 230 is among the greatest threats to freedom in the United States today. Today's example of bias is former Twitter CEO Dick Costello's death threat. It proves that big tech has a bias, and will censor those with whom they disagree, while permitting TOS violations of those with whom they agree, while hiding behind 230. Reform is sorely needed.
On the post: Why Do Republican Senators Seem To Want To Turn Every Website Into A Trash Heap Of Racism & Abuse?
Re: Re: All speech that you disagree with is hate speech
More important than what you say, it's what you do. The original comment has now been censored. No obscenity was mentioned, but mere disagreement is enough to get the leftists here to demand that the speech gets shut down. I rest my case.
And so it answers the original post with perfection: Republicans want to do it because leftists are abusing section 230 to shut down unobjectionable free speech on the basis of mere disagreement. Thanks for demonstrating!
On the post: Why Do Republican Senators Seem To Want To Turn Every Website Into A Trash Heap Of Racism & Abuse?
All speech that you disagree with is hate speech
"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies."
On the post: Facebook Sued For Not Preventing A Bunch A White Guys With Guns From Traveling To A Protest To Shoot People
Re: Maybe not so clear cut
True, and so their main defense at this point might be the timing of when this claim did occur. Unfortunately, I didn't see anything in the linked articles about the date of when the claim happened. Still, it might be a costly lesson for FB to learn: never apologize to the mob.
On the post: Cord Cutting Has Utterly Exploded During the Covid Crisis
Re:
Years ago I cut the cord. I remember being outraged at the realization that a ton of my cable subscription price was going towards a bunch of sports channels that I didn't even watch. I was rather convinced that there would be a-la-carte cable subscriptions by now, but the industry has steadfastly refused.
I think we've reached peak-sports, where professional teams and their related industries can't squeeze any more from that turnip. Combine that with cancelled sports seasons, limited schedules, and people out of work. The result is a lot of people who are finally fed up and are now willing to cut the cord, just as I was. Cable media just didn't deliver what viewers wanted, and now they're going to pay the price.
On the post: ICE Is Hauling In More Data Than Ever And Palantir Is Helping It Turn Data Into Detainments
Not Just Civil
Be careful, it is also a criminal violation under 8 USC sections 1324 and 1325. Entering, trafficking, or harboring is punishable by several years in jail.
On the post: FBI Tracks Down Cop Car Firebomber Using Info The FBI Claims Is Way Less Useful Than An Encryption Backdoor
Happy Medium
Tech companies don't want to waste time with police warrants and investigations that involve breaking open the security on a device. On the other hand, they want to be able to say that their devices are secure. Maybe this is the compromise? The devices themselves are (maybe) secure, but the cloud storage is not. So dumb people will still get caught, with a minimum of effort copying a customer's data onto a usb stick, while everyone else's device data remains secure.
On the post: Alan Dershowitz Files SLAPP Suit Against CNN; Says Not Airing More Of What He Said Is Defamation
Celebrity
I bet celebrity lawyers probably treasure their image above most else. It's their image that allows them to be paid for TV appearances to comment on controversial topics, or score high profile court cases. It looks to me like the $300 mil represents his ego, and not any actual damages.
On the post: Trump Nominates Guy Who Wants To Police Speech Online To Be The Next FCC Commissioner
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the first amendment also does not permit you to editorialize and publish with impunity, simultaneously. For that, you need section 230. Many people are beginning to see the assumption, that corporations would primarily use section 230 for the purposes of maintenance editorializing (i.e.- blocking commercial adverisement spam, repetitive post spam, obscenity, pornography) has instead switched to corporations hiding behind section 230 for purposes of political editorializing. Since there is little practical difference between government censorship versus corporatist censorship, the call for section 230 reform grows in the face of ugly biased behavior.
On the post: Trump Nominates Guy Who Wants To Police Speech Online To Be The Next FCC Commissioner
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Twitter's mission statement: "To give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers." More like "only the people we agree with, otherwise we'll put up a lot of barriers."
Similar statements from other free speech platforms--
Youtube: “to give everyone a voice and show them the world.”
Facebook: “to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.”
They sound all-inclusive, free speech for everyone, until they enter the world of disagreement. Then they demand silence and disconnections.
On the post: AT&T Says It's Eyeing 'Wireless Discounts For Ads.' But It's Not Going To Be What You Think.
Ratchet Effect
If this type of advertising plan becomes popular, then I predict that the discount will disappear. The advertising phone plan will get raised up to the regular price, and then they will offer a plan with no advertising at an even higher price. It's just a scheme to try to normalize spying on customers for advertising purposes, and perhaps worse.
On the post: Trump Nominates Guy Who Wants To Police Speech Online To Be The Next FCC Commissioner
Re: Re:
Sure you could. The key is that in your parlor, you are not publishing anything. Attempting to carry this analogy over to the internet is very problematic, as evidenced by the pre- Telecommunication Act of 1996 lawsuits. With internet forums, websites that monitored and participated in the forums appeared to be publishers.
As for the rest of the problematic analogy, know that political speech cannot be labeled as true or false. As such, for websites to create a free speech platform, claim 1st amendment protection, and then deny free speech protection to other Americans is a repugnant act. If you want to participate the same as everyone else, go ahead. But that isn't what's going on. Instead, we're seeing biased censorship, shadowbanning, and preferential treatment for only some viewpoints. This type of behavior is ugly.
Next >>