Like it or not, the First Amendment’s protections apply to corporate entities, especially when they engage in editorial decision making.
Totally fine, but then you ought not get protections under section 230. You shouldn't editorialize while simultaneously profess that the speech isn't yours.
So he created a front company to hide his real name, and lost the trademark. But could he have created a front company, signed a Work For Hire agreement which assigned the copyright to the front company? If he could, then perhaps he could have registered the copyright through the company, while hiding his identity, instead of trying the bogus trademark thing.
No, I don't want to give up. I'd like to know what can be done to prevent the prediction from happening. Eliminate the union? Legalize drugs? Mandate that vagrants go off to rehab? Sending health professionals out into the street to put out fires doesn't sound like it's getting to the root cause.
Sending in the SWAT team to deal with a homeless guy is like trying to pound a nail with a steamroller. My concern, however is mission creep. Things are probably okay right now, but I'm guessing that it's only a matter of time before someone having a mental health crisis grabs a weapon and does harm to a health professional. Then the union is going to demand safety for their workers, which will require a police escort, and then we're back to square one. It's similar to how fire and ambulance won't currently enter into an area where a confrontation is taking place until after police have the situation under control.
Certainly, the corporatist telecoms have used lobbyist efforts to rig the system and prevent municipalities from setting up their own broadband. But in places where the legislation route hasn't been successful, it has forced the telecom monopolies to get off their duff and get to work. Project Thor in Colorado worked well to shock CenturyLink into action.
You're right that municipalities shouldn't have to wait on telecom monopolies to get service. That's why municipal broadband is such a great idea. It threatens the incumbents into building more/better service, and if the local monopoly fails to follow through, then the municipality gets its broadband anyhow. But if it does, then there's more competition and options for residents.
"O'Rielly gently pushed back the tiniest bit on our plan to ignore the 1st Amendment and compel social media companies to host the propaganda and disinformation we spew, so let's replace him with someone who supports that singularly stupid argument. How about the guy who drafted the executive order!"
This is exactly how editorializing is achieved. Any speech with which the big tech companies don't approve is labelled propaganda or disinformation, and then censored. Disagreement is not a valid reason for censorship. And it is not good faith moderation, which is why section 230 ought not apply. Section 230 reform is needed now.
But this proposal would lead to a world where the originating platform still has tremendous pressure to overmoderate, and the downstream providers then can only moderate over what's left. That seems less than optimal.
Perhaps there is a way to accommodate everyone here -- The originating platform can moderate whatever it wants that is viewed directly through its own platform, but only hides and does not delete such moderated content. It then passes everything onto the downstream providers. People who trust the originating platform's operation continue viewing as always; people who want more removed can choose a downstream provider that does so; those who want to see everything can choose a downstream provider that does so.
The FISA court notes this could result in abuse by the FBI but says that risk is worth taking since it would result in more efficient surveillance efforts.
It would probably be most efficient if investigators could outright ignore constitutional requirements, and simply enter homes to search them at anytime. But I don't buy the "efficiency" argument. In fact, I view the inefficient process of getting a warrant as a beneficial feature. It forces investigators to prioritize their resources and track down more obvious or blatant leads first. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Currently, if someone gets ripped off when attempting to purchase illicit drugs, they usually don't file a police report. Similarly, I don't expect many commercial spammers to file a lawsuit claiming that their solicitations for bogus products were being removed by moderators. The commercial spammers can't afford to come out of hiding. Removal of 230 protection against spam won't increase the levels of spam seen currently, nor does it provide them an avenue for legitimacy in court. No cause for concern.
Apple has resisted helping authorities break into iPhones. Government officials argued that it would just be a limited thing, such as the San Bernadino terrorism case. But we knew better. If Apple cracked open one phone, an endless parade of law enforcement authorities would soon follow, warrants in hand. The ability to spy on a suspect's data is irresistible for investigators.
Now Google has messed up, and they have the data, but it's unencrypted. And authorities are starting to line up. I bet Google has some obtuse reason for storing cell location data, but I'll say it anyhow: there's no good reason for Google to be storing cell location data of its users. Google better hope they can learn a privacy lesson fast and stop collecting all this data, before a cop in a more favorable jurisdiction wins a case that establishes precedent and screws everyone.
The content "moderation" systems in place by big tech companies is defective, judging from the Markiplier/Critical strike episode from youtube. Human moderation systems are clearly not being used, even when they claim that they are. Non objectionable content is being removed, and the supposed moderation system is all just a big joke. Losing general 230 protection will force big tech to stop hiding behind their awful decisions.
This doesn't sound like a case of human trafficking if all the charges are based around the customers, all and all at one static location. It sounds like the human trafficking claim was just a cheap excuse to install hidden cameras.
It's not like people didn't warn Australia how all of this would play out (just like people warned various European countries). I don't know why each one expects a different result
A few large companies have, in the past, been the targets of frivolous lawsuits, and paid out money to settle, on the basis that it would be cheaper to settle than to fight the court case. In response, some companies (I believe IBM and Newegg are examples) have declared that as a company policy they will no longer settle, and will instead actually pay more money in the short run to fight the cases. They are of course, hoping to discourage future frivolous lawsuits.
Since many places haven't learned their lesson yet, I say that a number of tech companies ought to declare now that their policy is to refuse to publish articles in any jurisdiction that requires payments for links. Do it now, before the laws are passed. News companies are just doing this for the money grab.
Years back, as professional video game players began to emerge, Starcraft 1 was a popular game in South Korea, and even had it's own TV shows that would broadcast games. Very similar to real life sports broadcasts.
Starcraft teams would emerge, where several players would band together, often while being sponsored, and they would take up residence in a house together. The players would collaborate with each other to push the limits of possible strategy, to train against each other, and share their knowledge to make everyone on the team better players.
Now perhaps this model is being copied over to other lines of work. Social network and talent development all under one roof. It might become a model for many other entrepreneurial internet ventures in the future.
It seems like AT&T is jealous. I bet they thought that network providers would be making a ton of money, but instead the service providers like Facebook, Google, and Amazon have been the expanding portion of the economy. While AT&Ts TV and DSL business has withered.
Beware corporations asking governments to do them favors. It is the heart of crony capitalism to have government pick and choose winners and losers.
The article poses a dilemma between the Cubby and Stratton Oakmont decisions, that sites would need to choose between two models without Section 230: either get a lot of moderators to take down a ton of objectionable content, or don't moderate at all.
But there CAN be a third path without Section 230: build tools to allow users to have control. Allow users to decide content which is objectionable, profane, or harassing. Websites could avoid liability by performing no moderation abilities themselves. Those who believe certain community moderation actions are too extreme can choose to view the content anyhow. People who believe it's not strict enough could encourage others to build and share stricter settings. Let the people decide, not big tech corporations.
There has to be some kind of truth-in-advertising law that can cover this. 25x claims, but bandwidth only increases from 29 to 51 Mbps? You'll never get me to buy this snake oil.
On the post: Trump Nominates Guy Who Wants To Police Speech Online To Be The Next FCC Commissioner
Totally fine, but then you ought not get protections under section 230. You shouldn't editorialize while simultaneously profess that the speech isn't yours.
On the post: Banksy's Weakass Attempt To Abuse Trademark Law Flops, Following Bad Legal Advice
Copyright For Hire
So he created a front company to hide his real name, and lost the trademark. But could he have created a front company, signed a Work For Hire agreement which assigned the copyright to the front company? If he could, then perhaps he could have registered the copyright through the company, while hiding his identity, instead of trying the bogus trademark thing.
On the post: Denver Now Routing 911 Calls About Mental Health Issues Away From Cops, Towards Trained Health Professionals
Re: Re: Need Backup
No, I don't want to give up. I'd like to know what can be done to prevent the prediction from happening. Eliminate the union? Legalize drugs? Mandate that vagrants go off to rehab? Sending health professionals out into the street to put out fires doesn't sound like it's getting to the root cause.
On the post: Denver Now Routing 911 Calls About Mental Health Issues Away From Cops, Towards Trained Health Professionals
Need Backup
Sending in the SWAT team to deal with a homeless guy is like trying to pound a nail with a steamroller. My concern, however is mission creep. Things are probably okay right now, but I'm guessing that it's only a matter of time before someone having a mental health crisis grabs a weapon and does harm to a health professional. Then the union is going to demand safety for their workers, which will require a police escort, and then we're back to square one. It's similar to how fire and ambulance won't currently enter into an area where a confrontation is taking place until after police have the situation under control.
On the post: Over At Politico, The AT&T Monopoly Gives Tips On Fixing A Broadband Problem It Spent Thirty Years Creating
Re: Re:
Certainly, the corporatist telecoms have used lobbyist efforts to rig the system and prevent municipalities from setting up their own broadband. But in places where the legislation route hasn't been successful, it has forced the telecom monopolies to get off their duff and get to work. Project Thor in Colorado worked well to shock CenturyLink into action.
You're right that municipalities shouldn't have to wait on telecom monopolies to get service. That's why municipal broadband is such a great idea. It threatens the incumbents into building more/better service, and if the local monopoly fails to follow through, then the municipality gets its broadband anyhow. But if it does, then there's more competition and options for residents.
On the post: Over At Politico, The AT&T Monopoly Gives Tips On Fixing A Broadband Problem It Spent Thirty Years Creating
Every time a rural community threatens to create a public broadband utility, the private sector companies come running to establish their own.
On the post: Apparently The New Litmus Test For Trump's FCC: Do You Promise To Police Speech Online
This is exactly how editorializing is achieved. Any speech with which the big tech companies don't approve is labelled propaganda or disinformation, and then censored. Disagreement is not a valid reason for censorship. And it is not good faith moderation, which is why section 230 ought not apply. Section 230 reform is needed now.
On the post: Addison Cain Really Doesn't Want You Watching This Video About Her Attempts To Silence Another Wolf Kink Erotica Author
Disappearing Act
I'm remembering some guy named Thomas Goolnik and an EU Right To Be Forgotten case. How long until we see a replay of that here? Is there an O/U?
On the post: Could A Narrow Reform Of Section 230 Enable Platform Interoperability?
Re: Would this actually work?
Perhaps there is a way to accommodate everyone here -- The originating platform can moderate whatever it wants that is viewed directly through its own platform, but only hides and does not delete such moderated content. It then passes everything onto the downstream providers. People who trust the originating platform's operation continue viewing as always; people who want more removed can choose a downstream provider that does so; those who want to see everything can choose a downstream provider that does so.
On the post: FISA Court Decides FBI, NSA Surveillance Abuses Should Be Rewarded With Fewer Restrictions On Searching 702 Collections
It would probably be most efficient if investigators could outright ignore constitutional requirements, and simply enter homes to search them at anytime. But I don't buy the "efficiency" argument. In fact, I view the inefficient process of getting a warrant as a beneficial feature. It forces investigators to prioritize their resources and track down more obvious or blatant leads first. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
On the post: GOP Senators Release Latest Truly Stupid Section 230 Reform Bill; Would Remove 'Otherwise Objectionable'; Enable Spamming
Commercial Spam
Currently, if someone gets ripped off when attempting to purchase illicit drugs, they usually don't file a police report. Similarly, I don't expect many commercial spammers to file a lawsuit claiming that their solicitations for bogus products were being removed by moderators. The commercial spammers can't afford to come out of hiding. Removal of 230 protection against spam won't increase the levels of spam seen currently, nor does it provide them an avenue for legitimacy in court. No cause for concern.
On the post: Government's 'Reverse' Warrant Rejected By Two Consecutive Federal Judges
Irresistible
Apple has resisted helping authorities break into iPhones. Government officials argued that it would just be a limited thing, such as the San Bernadino terrorism case. But we knew better. If Apple cracked open one phone, an endless parade of law enforcement authorities would soon follow, warrants in hand. The ability to spy on a suspect's data is irresistible for investigators.
Now Google has messed up, and they have the data, but it's unencrypted. And authorities are starting to line up. I bet Google has some obtuse reason for storing cell location data, but I'll say it anyhow: there's no good reason for Google to be storing cell location data of its users. Google better hope they can learn a privacy lesson fast and stop collecting all this data, before a cop in a more favorable jurisdiction wins a case that establishes precedent and screws everyone.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Says NSA's Bulk Phone Records Collection Was Illegal, Most Likely Unconstitutional
Appeal Will Tell Alot
If the bulk collection activity has truly ended, then they won't appeal. But if they still operate a surreptitious collection program, then they will.
On the post: My Comment To The FCC Regarding The Ridiculous NTIA Petition To Reinterpret Section 230
Non Objectionable
The content "moderation" systems in place by big tech companies is defective, judging from the Markiplier/Critical strike episode from youtube. Human moderation systems are clearly not being used, even when they claim that they are. Non objectionable content is being removed, and the supposed moderation system is all just a big joke. Losing general 230 protection will force big tech to stop hiding behind their awful decisions.
On the post: Court Tosses Surreptitious Video Recordings Holding Together Sketchy 'Human Trafficking' Investigation
Bait and Switch
This doesn't sound like a case of human trafficking if all the charges are based around the customers, all and all at one static location. It sounds like the human trafficking claim was just a cheap excuse to install hidden cameras.
On the post: Facebook Says It Will Block News Sharing In Australia If Murdoch's Social Media Tax Becomes Law
A few large companies have, in the past, been the targets of frivolous lawsuits, and paid out money to settle, on the basis that it would be cheaper to settle than to fight the court case. In response, some companies (I believe IBM and Newegg are examples) have declared that as a company policy they will no longer settle, and will instead actually pay more money in the short run to fight the cases. They are of course, hoping to discourage future frivolous lawsuits.
Since many places haven't learned their lesson yet, I say that a number of tech companies ought to declare now that their policy is to refuse to publish articles in any jurisdiction that requires payments for links. Do it now, before the laws are passed. News companies are just doing this for the money grab.
On the post: Collaboration Houses: How Technology & A Pandemic Have Created Entirely New Ways To Go To College
Korean Gaming Model
Years back, as professional video game players began to emerge, Starcraft 1 was a popular game in South Korea, and even had it's own TV shows that would broadcast games. Very similar to real life sports broadcasts.
Starcraft teams would emerge, where several players would band together, often while being sponsored, and they would take up residence in a house together. The players would collaborate with each other to push the limits of possible strategy, to train against each other, and share their knowledge to make everyone on the team better players.
Now perhaps this model is being copied over to other lines of work. Social network and talent development all under one roof. It might become a model for many other entrepreneurial internet ventures in the future.
On the post: Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality
Big Business
It seems like AT&T is jealous. I bet they thought that network providers would be making a ton of money, but instead the service providers like Facebook, Google, and Amazon have been the expanding portion of the economy. While AT&Ts TV and DSL business has withered.
Beware corporations asking governments to do them favors. It is the heart of crony capitalism to have government pick and choose winners and losers.
On the post: Fighting Hate Speech Online Means Keeping Section 230, Not Burying It
3rd Possibility
The article poses a dilemma between the Cubby and Stratton Oakmont decisions, that sites would need to choose between two models without Section 230: either get a lot of moderators to take down a ton of objectionable content, or don't moderate at all.
But there CAN be a third path without Section 230: build tools to allow users to have control. Allow users to decide content which is objectionable, profane, or harassing. Websites could avoid liability by performing no moderation abilities themselves. Those who believe certain community moderation actions are too extreme can choose to view the content anyhow. People who believe it's not strict enough could encourage others to build and share stricter settings. Let the people decide, not big tech corporations.
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows U.S. 5G Is Far Slower Than Many Other Nations
Snake Oil
There has to be some kind of truth-in-advertising law that can cover this. 25x claims, but bandwidth only increases from 29 to 51 Mbps? You'll never get me to buy this snake oil.
Next >>