There is great exceptionalism in people claiming others are gullible morons unable to think for themselves, being controlled by magic words on the internet while they themselves are immune to this by virtue of their superior intellect or something. But no, we're all only human.
It is also not reasonable to suppose that nobody is more or less gullible than anyone else. Or that everyone is equally prone to believe in conspiracy theories. And so on.
Are you sure payment processors' resistance to sales of adult material "has nothing at all to do with FOSTA/SESTA"?
If its objection is specific to US companies or markets, it may well be related. If the Dutch payment processor is refusing sales of adult content worldwide, I'd say another explanation is in order.
This person already stated earlier they're opposed to the existence of private property. Though I don't see how that comment bears on freedom of speech.
My issue is that the questions and debates on what form those laws and frameworks should take keep getting stalled and slowed via tech advocates wringing their hands about an infinite number of trade-offs and consequences and assuming that the free market running its course and multi-billion-dollar corporations acting voluntarily will solve most of the issues with how the Internet exacerbates societal problems.
I would phrase that as a recognition that these are extremely complicated and difficult issues, and a lot of things people want the government to do to "fix" them would violate freedom of speech principles. It's rare to come across an internet reform proposal that wouldn't make things much worse than they are now.
I take issue with the idea that governments that have shown to actually care about improving things for their citizens have to walk on eggshells, ever so slowly, because “What if oppressive governments see this and use it to justify being even more oppressive?”
I think the point is more that the UK should take stock and consider whether the way they're dealing with the internet is characteristic of a liberal democracy, or more like a dictatorship. If they're moving in the same direction as China, that's not a good sign.
If that involves Western democracies crafting new laws and legal frameworks, then so be it.
Nobody is arguing that. The question is what form should those laws and frameworks take.
As long as the signal doesn’t leave the confines of your property line. In all 6 directions.
Which means for most people it's not going to be practical to do it legally. A signal strong enough to be effective at jamming things is probably going to emanate past your property line unless you live on a large plot of land, or you're using it in a shielded room. In the latter case you don't need a jammer anyway.
There is tax money going into it, but that doesn't mean subscribers aren't going to also have a bill to pay. Even community broadband (which this mostly isn't) usually charges money for the service. I don't remember hearing about one that doesn't.
taking away the ability of payment processors to deny any legal service, even if that means shielding them from liability from a 'in good faith' legal service being not so
An excellent idea. A version of section 230 for payment processors. Given how Congress seems to feel about 230, it's probably not going to happen any time soon.
In prior articles you’ve written regarding antitrust, as well as in your arguments on Twitter, the consumer harm standard is important to your arguments.
Is that not the current standard in US antitrust law?
On the post: eBay's FOSTA-Inspired Ban On 'Adult Content' Is Erasing LGBTQ History
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothing to do with FOSTA
It is possible, but I have not seen any reason to think that is actually the explanation.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Duh!
Is this... is this anti-dirt? Or anti-Mike, I forget what he called himself.
On the post: Most Information About Disinformation Is Misinformation
Re:
It is also not reasonable to suppose that nobody is more or less gullible than anyone else. Or that everyone is equally prone to believe in conspiracy theories. And so on.
On the post: eBay's FOSTA-Inspired Ban On 'Adult Content' Is Erasing LGBTQ History
Re:
The one that was ruled by tribal warlords? I would be interested to read about how progressive it was if you have any resources.
On the post: eBay's FOSTA-Inspired Ban On 'Adult Content' Is Erasing LGBTQ History
Re: Re: Nothing to do with FOSTA
If its objection is specific to US companies or markets, it may well be related. If the Dutch payment processor is refusing sales of adult content worldwide, I'd say another explanation is in order.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Intersting
Of what??
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This person already stated earlier they're opposed to the existence of private property. Though I don't see how that comment bears on freedom of speech.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re:
Well that's definitely not true. For example, the recent kerfuffle over mysterious moderation decisions by Twitch.
On the post: China's New Internet Regulations, Building On Western Internet Regulations, Requires Algorithms To 'Vigorously Disseminate Positive Energy'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would phrase that as a recognition that these are extremely complicated and difficult issues, and a lot of things people want the government to do to "fix" them would violate freedom of speech principles. It's rare to come across an internet reform proposal that wouldn't make things much worse than they are now.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Mike Masnick isn't a Texan
You mean other peoples' business.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Yes, if you define the categories narrowly enough, they are each a monopoly. But that isn't how antitrust law works.
On the post: China's New Internet Regulations, Building On Western Internet Regulations, Requires Algorithms To 'Vigorously Disseminate Positive Energy'
Re: Re:
I think the point is more that the UK should take stock and consider whether the way they're dealing with the internet is characteristic of a liberal democracy, or more like a dictatorship. If they're moving in the same direction as China, that's not a good sign.
Nobody is arguing that. The question is what form should those laws and frameworks take.
On the post: Canadian Cops Blow Off Drone Operation Laws, Crash Their Drone Into A Landing Airplane
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which means for most people it's not going to be practical to do it legally. A signal strong enough to be effective at jamming things is probably going to emanate past your property line unless you live on a large plot of land, or you're using it in a shielded room. In the latter case you don't need a jammer anyway.
On the post: Canadian Cops Blow Off Drone Operation Laws, Crash Their Drone Into A Landing Airplane
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is not at all what the AC above is claiming, namely that jamming by private parties is not against FCC regulations if:
On the post: FCC Bungled Broadband Mapping And Subsidies So Badly, It Got Boxed Out Of Broadband Infrastructure Plan
Dingos
We need another non-dingo in the FCC. Get on it Biden!
On the post: Canadian Cops Blow Off Drone Operation Laws, Crash Their Drone Into A Landing Airplane
Re: Re: Re:
The FCC disagrees with your interpretation of the law. They believe all jamming of authorized radio transmissions is illegal.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement
On the post: Canadian Cops Blow Off Drone Operation Laws, Crash Their Drone Into A Landing Airplane
Re:
Because all too often police believe they have no obligation to follow rules.
On the post: California's 'Open Access' Fiber Broadband Plan Is Making Telecom Giants Like AT&T Nervous
Re:
Why?
Where did you get that?
There is tax money going into it, but that doesn't mean subscribers aren't going to also have a bill to pay. Even community broadband (which this mostly isn't) usually charges money for the service. I don't remember hearing about one that doesn't.
On the post: OnlyPrudes: OnlyFans, The Platform For Sexually Explicit Content, Says No More Sexually Explicit Content (Except For Nudes)
Re:
An excellent idea. A version of section 230 for payment processors. Given how Congress seems to feel about 230, it's probably not going to happen any time soon.
On the post: FTC Tries Tries Again With An Antitrust Case Against Facebook
Re: Re: Re:
Is that not the current standard in US antitrust law?
Next >>