Re: So where are your bullet points outlining / justifying?
You should have a list of bullet points.
Because you really to buttress the reasons for UNPRECEDENTED immunity that's been granted to corporations, not least to show WHY and HOW it's good for The Public.
We’ve already told you time and again. We’ve explained repeatedly why and how it’s good for the public, we’ve explained over and over that there’s nothing unprecedented about the immunity, and we’ve explained that the immunity is not just for corporations but also private individuals.
In practice, corporations are simply using that and every other -- granted, they're entirely artificial, mere legal fictions -- power against The Public. They're already stifling opponents, and will not stop, only gain more power as go.
[citation needed]
Maz views that stifling as good, he does not want Neutral Public Forums.
No, neutral public fora are impossible and not always desirable, and it’s unconstitutional for the government to force a private company to host one. Recognizing these facts is not the same as being against neutral public fora.
Re: Msnick denies it's "evil" even before accused!
Actually, you’ve been calling it evil for quite some time. So has the President and a number of politicians. They’re denying something that’s been said quite a bit. Nothing Freudian about this denial.
IF gov't did as Masnick wishes corporations to do, it's PRIOR RESTRAINT.
Yes, because the government is restricted by this little thing called the 1A. Corporations, like any private individuals, are not.
The Public had better consider whether corporatists -- including these leftist politicians -- lie about their true purposes for Section 23O and the "freedom of association".
Well, the freedom of association is a constitutional right we’ve had for a long time, and it’s pretty fundamental. What purpose so-called “corporatists” have for it is immaterial and doesn’t change that law at all.
As for §230, you have not proven that the stated purpose of that law is a lie, nor have you given anyone any reason to believe it might be. Furthermore, the stated purpose is sufficient to justify the law and is both sufficiently well-reasoned and based on true facts that any ulterior motive(s) you believe might exist are outweighed by the benefits the law provides. Basically, even if they are lying about their true motives, the stated motives are still accurate as justifications. But really, you haven’t given any reason to question it in the first place.
Re: IF Section 230 is intended to enable everyone to Publish...
...as wish -- and bear the liability for it themselves -- then WHY allow corporations to control all speech on "platforms" AND give them immunity too?
Because they’re their platforms. Moderating speech on their platform shouldn’t make them liable for what they fail to remove. We don’t do that for bookstores, so why do it for websites? Again, that’s basic 1A rights and private property rights.
What does The Public get from mere web-site hosting corporation immunized for what The Public publishes? -- Maz says we get NOTHING.
Now you’re straight up lying. Masnick has never said that; on the contrary. The immunization frees corporations and individuals from legal disincentives to host the public’s speech, thus allowing sites that host even controversial speech to exist without worrying about legal costs and such, which is good for the public because it gives them the ability to speak online.
It also gives hosts/moderators the ability to moderate freely to remove objectionable content, thus allowing people to choose sites that moderate the way they want. For example, removing spam, bad language, lies, innuendo, porn, and/or commercial speech. Again, since not all people agree on what is too objectionable for them, it’s best to let the public decide by allowing them options. Some people might want a family-friendly forum. Some might want a safe space to discuss racial, sexual, or gender-related issues. Some might prefer a platform that removes what they consider to be false or misleading information. Some might prefer a more open platform. §230 allows those options to exist. This is beneficial to the public by opening the internet to more people without forcing them to see things that they consider offensive.
Whether or not you consider them to be beneficial to you or too empowering to corporations doesn’t change the facts.
They've been granted unprecedented POWER and are gathering MORE! -- With NO obvious way for gov't to limit it!
There never have been ways for the government to limit such things. The Constitution prevents that. Plus, there’s nothing unprecedented about a host and moderator having full control over their own platforms or not being liable for hosting content that they had no part in creating or developing. Again, look at bookstores and libraries. They are not liable for the content of the books they sell/lend, but they can still moderate their shelves freely (except public libraries, which have more limits on what they can refuse to lend out).
Re: Corporation have a fallback "freedom of association",
SO if corporations intend to censor -- as anyone reasonable must admit is an alarming possibility -- then censor they will.
No, they don’t have the power to censor. Censor means that you can’t say it anywhere at all or the government punishes you for saying it. Just because Twitter stops you from saying it on their platform doesn’t keep you from saying it anywhere else. They have the power to moderate their own platforms, and that’s it.
WHAT protection do we have to ensure are ANY Neutral Public Forums?
There is none, and it’d be unconstitutional to force a corporation to do such a thing.
Keep in mind that “neutrality” cannot be enforced by the government on private individuals or private organizations/corporations, and neither Facebook nor Twitter are or claim to be public fora at all nor neutral. “Neutral” is so subjective that it’d be impractical for any website to be considered neutral by everyone, anyways.
What is true is that neutral fora open to the public could not exist without §230.
mere hosts can enforce their bias for even political ends.
Because that’s what common law says, and it’d be impractical to allow any hosts to host a variety of speech without that. Also, you can just set up your own website that hosts the stuff that Facebook and Twitter won’t. Again, that you don’t like this reality doesn’t change it.
Re: Re: WHERE'S rest of Communications Decency Act? UNCONSTITUTI
MOST of what Wyden and Cox wrote was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
§230 was the only part of the CDA that Wyden and Cox wrote, and none of what they wrote was deemed unconstitutional.
clearly corporations are going for total control of The Public's speech.
No, only basic control of their own platforms. You’ve been told this multiple times and have yet to offer evidence to the contrary.
WHY indeed do they renew claims if obviously good resulted?
No one said it was obvious to everyone. Some people don’t understand the law, some people don’t understand the technology, some people don’t know the history, and some people lie to those who don’t understand.
Re: WHERE'S rest of Communications Decency Act? UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The rest of the CDA was completely separate from §230. That which made most of the CDA unconstitutional is not present at all in §230. Furthermore, the two were made completely severable and unconnected.
The bulk and main focus of CDA was CLEARLY just cover for corporation-enabling unprecedented immunity.
No, it was not unprecedented. It’s the same immunity found for bookstores, libraries, and physical publishers. It also helps Individuals as much if not more than it helps corporations. If anything, removing that immunity would prevent smaller websites run by individuals completely incapable of hosting user content, while large corporations could just absorb the cost.
This is getting ridiculous. Political points shouldn’t be tied to making sure that the government runs. It was ridiculous when it was about the ACA, and it’s ridiculous now.
A judge does not consider the facts in the case at all
On a motion to dismiss, the judge only takes well-pleaded facts as true to see if there is an actual case/controversy between the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s) that can be legally remedied by the court and that is within the court’s jurisdiction. If the alleged facts are insufficient even if true to maintain a plausible case, then the case gets dismissed without further evaluation of the factuality of the evidence. If the provided evidence do not support the claims being made, then the case may be dismissed. If the law does not support the requested remedy for the given facts, the case may be dismissed.
Furthermore, the more extraordinary the claims being made or the wilder the remedies being sought, the harder it is for the case to survive past dismissal.
Re: If has one legitimate use, then it's totally legit.
If the product/service has substantial noninfringing uses, then the creator(s) of the product/service has not infringed just because they know some—or even many—users use it to infringe as long as they themselves don’t encourage the infringing use(s). That doesn’t make all uses of the product/service legit or absolve infringers that use the tool; just the product/service itself and its creator(s). Basically, don’t blame the tool or toolmaker for the fact that a number of people use the tool for unlawful purposes. That’s like blaming Microsoft for blackmail just because some people use Microsoft Word to write blackmail letters.
Furthermore, hacking one’s own device is completely different from hacking another person’s device.
I don’t believe that §230 applies to federal antitrust laws, and some of the allegations have to do with Google’s business actions rather than moderation or content on Google Search, so §230 wouldn’t apply to those, anyways.
When men are […] denied justice in cases of rape (to the point where any accusation they make is not taken seriously possibly even if there’s hard evidence)
Well, I mean, aren’t they? Lots of men get raped who don’t get taken seriously, if they can even bring up the courage to talk about it.
The point I tried to make clear is that whilst the disagreement between states was over slavery/white-supremacy, the reason that disagreement became civil war is that the Constitution isn't clear enough on whether e.g. Abolitionist states have the right to impose their views on other states. IMO, that problem has never been resolved, and explains the polarisation of current US politics, so it isn't an idle point.
Uh, I’d say the 13th through 15th Amendments and a number of Supreme Court cases have largely settled that particular question. The abolitionist states imposed their view that slavery is wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For starters, the flag is the symbol of
No one’s saying the North was good; they just didn’t have the specific evil (slavery) that the South did. And no one is saying that the way the worst slave owners treated slaves was the only problem with slavery. You’re attacking a strawman that no one believes is true.
Slavery isn't efficient - unless you ignore the costs of keeping the social conditions and laws needed to make it work.
Whether or not that’s true, it’s all about what the slave owners in the South thought was true, and they thought slavery was efficient enough to merit those costs. They also thought it was their moral imperative and God-given right, but perception of costs was also a factor.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For starters, the flag is the symbol
The South had the stuff you claim was only under slavery. People were still being burned alive with no law enforcement. (That was illegal before abolition too, for what that's worth.)
The last part is absolutely true, but slaves also had separation from families, being treated as property, being whipped by their owners, etc. under slavery, which was not the case after abolition.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For starters, the flag is the symbol of a re
Here’s the difference between feeding workers in an industrial city/town vs an agricultural town/village: in an industrial company, food is an external cost that ultimately goes elsewhere. In agriculture, the work is being done to make food, so food is not an external cost. Slaves were essentially harvesting what they’d eventually eat (among other things like cotton or tobacco). There was no need to sell the food to the workers to recoup costs associated with obtaining food. That’s why slavery worked in the primarily agricultural South and not the industrial North.
As for your views on the cruelty of slavery, apparently the fact that the same stuff was still going on a hundred years later has passed you by. Have you realy never heard of Martin Luther King, the civil rights movement, or Jim Crow laws?
Oh, we’ve heard about them, all right, but as bad as blacks were treated 100 years after slavery ended, it was nothing compared to how they were treated as slaves.
Re: Re: Re: For starters, the flag is the symbol of a rebellion
slavery isn't as profitable as freeing the slaves and giving them jobs
Let’s assume that that’s true. Did the southern slave owners know and believe that that was true? If they genuinely believed that slavery was more profitable than paid workers stuck in debt, then it really doesn’t matter which is actually cheaper; what matters is the perception. Southern writings at the time make it clear that they believed slavery to be integral to the southern economy. As far as establishing motivations, contemporaneous writings by the people themselves are the best evidence. After all, people can be easily motivated to act against their best interests if they believe it to be in their best interest, whatever the actual facts are.
The Southern rebellion is also a unique event, and the root cause isn't slavery, but a failure of the constitution to adequately define and/or limit Federal power. (Let's call it that instead of 'states' rights'.)
It was never that. They only cared about “the failure of the Constitution to adequately define and/or limit federal power” to the extent it affected their ability to own slaves and/or discriminate against blacks. That’s it. I encourage you to read the writings of the people responsible for the secession of the South and who ran the Confederacy. They make it crystal clear that slavery was the primary cause.
On the post: Once Again, Section 230's Authors Feel The Need To Tell Everyone That Section 230 Is Not The Evil You Think It Is
Re: So where are your bullet points outlining / justifying?
We’ve already told you time and again. We’ve explained repeatedly why and how it’s good for the public, we’ve explained over and over that there’s nothing unprecedented about the immunity, and we’ve explained that the immunity is not just for corporations but also private individuals.
[citation needed]
No, neutral public fora are impossible and not always desirable, and it’s unconstitutional for the government to force a private company to host one. Recognizing these facts is not the same as being against neutral public fora.
On the post: Once Again, Section 230's Authors Feel The Need To Tell Everyone That Section 230 Is Not The Evil You Think It Is
Re: Re: Msnick denies it's "evil" even before accused!
You define “free speech” differently. And it’s a well known filter that’s always on.
On the post: Once Again, Section 230's Authors Feel The Need To Tell Everyone That Section 230 Is Not The Evil You Think It Is
Re: Msnick denies it's "evil" even before accused!
Actually, you’ve been calling it evil for quite some time. So has the President and a number of politicians. They’re denying something that’s been said quite a bit. Nothing Freudian about this denial.
Yes, because the government is restricted by this little thing called the 1A. Corporations, like any private individuals, are not.
Well, the freedom of association is a constitutional right we’ve had for a long time, and it’s pretty fundamental. What purpose so-called “corporatists” have for it is immaterial and doesn’t change that law at all.
As for §230, you have not proven that the stated purpose of that law is a lie, nor have you given anyone any reason to believe it might be. Furthermore, the stated purpose is sufficient to justify the law and is both sufficiently well-reasoned and based on true facts that any ulterior motive(s) you believe might exist are outweighed by the benefits the law provides. Basically, even if they are lying about their true motives, the stated motives are still accurate as justifications. But really, you haven’t given any reason to question it in the first place.
On the post: Once Again, Section 230's Authors Feel The Need To Tell Everyone That Section 230 Is Not The Evil You Think It Is
Re: IF Section 230 is intended to enable everyone to Publish...
Because they’re their platforms. Moderating speech on their platform shouldn’t make them liable for what they fail to remove. We don’t do that for bookstores, so why do it for websites? Again, that’s basic 1A rights and private property rights.
Now you’re straight up lying. Masnick has never said that; on the contrary. The immunization frees corporations and individuals from legal disincentives to host the public’s speech, thus allowing sites that host even controversial speech to exist without worrying about legal costs and such, which is good for the public because it gives them the ability to speak online.
It also gives hosts/moderators the ability to moderate freely to remove objectionable content, thus allowing people to choose sites that moderate the way they want. For example, removing spam, bad language, lies, innuendo, porn, and/or commercial speech. Again, since not all people agree on what is too objectionable for them, it’s best to let the public decide by allowing them options. Some people might want a family-friendly forum. Some might want a safe space to discuss racial, sexual, or gender-related issues. Some might prefer a platform that removes what they consider to be false or misleading information. Some might prefer a more open platform. §230 allows those options to exist. This is beneficial to the public by opening the internet to more people without forcing them to see things that they consider offensive.
Whether or not you consider them to be beneficial to you or too empowering to corporations doesn’t change the facts.
There never have been ways for the government to limit such things. The Constitution prevents that. Plus, there’s nothing unprecedented about a host and moderator having full control over their own platforms or not being liable for hosting content that they had no part in creating or developing. Again, look at bookstores and libraries. They are not liable for the content of the books they sell/lend, but they can still moderate their shelves freely (except public libraries, which have more limits on what they can refuse to lend out).
On the post: Once Again, Section 230's Authors Feel The Need To Tell Everyone That Section 230 Is Not The Evil You Think It Is
Re: Corporation have a fallback "freedom of association",
No, they don’t have the power to censor. Censor means that you can’t say it anywhere at all or the government punishes you for saying it. Just because Twitter stops you from saying it on their platform doesn’t keep you from saying it anywhere else. They have the power to moderate their own platforms, and that’s it.
There is none, and it’d be unconstitutional to force a corporation to do such a thing.
Keep in mind that “neutrality” cannot be enforced by the government on private individuals or private organizations/corporations, and neither Facebook nor Twitter are or claim to be public fora at all nor neutral. “Neutral” is so subjective that it’d be impractical for any website to be considered neutral by everyone, anyways.
What is true is that neutral fora open to the public could not exist without §230.
Because that’s what common law says, and it’d be impractical to allow any hosts to host a variety of speech without that. Also, you can just set up your own website that hosts the stuff that Facebook and Twitter won’t. Again, that you don’t like this reality doesn’t change it.
On the post: Once Again, Section 230's Authors Feel The Need To Tell Everyone That Section 230 Is Not The Evil You Think It Is
Re: Re: WHERE'S rest of Communications Decency Act? UNCONSTITUTI
§230 was the only part of the CDA that Wyden and Cox wrote, and none of what they wrote was deemed unconstitutional.
No, only basic control of their own platforms. You’ve been told this multiple times and have yet to offer evidence to the contrary.
No one said it was obvious to everyone. Some people don’t understand the law, some people don’t understand the technology, some people don’t know the history, and some people lie to those who don’t understand.
On the post: Once Again, Section 230's Authors Feel The Need To Tell Everyone That Section 230 Is Not The Evil You Think It Is
Re: WHERE'S rest of Communications Decency Act? UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The rest of the CDA was completely separate from §230. That which made most of the CDA unconstitutional is not present at all in §230. Furthermore, the two were made completely severable and unconnected.
No, it was not unprecedented. It’s the same immunity found for bookstores, libraries, and physical publishers. It also helps Individuals as much if not more than it helps corporations. If anything, removing that immunity would prevent smaller websites run by individuals completely incapable of hosting user content, while large corporations could just absorb the cost.
On the post: Apparently Trump Refuses To Allow The Government To Do Anything At All Until The Open Internet Is Destroyed
This is getting ridiculous. Political points shouldn’t be tied to making sure that the government runs. It was ridiculous when it was about the ACA, and it’s ridiculous now.
On the post: Georgia Court Streams Ridiculous 'Kraken' Lawsuit Hearing On YouTube; Then Tells People They Can't Repost Recordings
Re: Ridiculous
On a motion to dismiss, the judge only takes well-pleaded facts as true to see if there is an actual case/controversy between the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s) that can be legally remedied by the court and that is within the court’s jurisdiction. If the alleged facts are insufficient even if true to maintain a plausible case, then the case gets dismissed without further evaluation of the factuality of the evidence. If the provided evidence do not support the claims being made, then the case may be dismissed. If the law does not support the requested remedy for the given facts, the case may be dismissed.
Furthermore, the more extraordinary the claims being made or the wilder the remedies being sought, the harder it is for the case to survive past dismissal.
On the post: Schools Are Using Phone-Cracking Tech To Access The Contents Of Students' Devices
Re: If has one legitimate use, then it's totally legit.
If the product/service has substantial noninfringing uses, then the creator(s) of the product/service has not infringed just because they know some—or even many—users use it to infringe as long as they themselves don’t encourage the infringing use(s). That doesn’t make all uses of the product/service legit or absolve infringers that use the tool; just the product/service itself and its creator(s). Basically, don’t blame the tool or toolmaker for the fact that a number of people use the tool for unlawful purposes. That’s like blaming Microsoft for blackmail just because some people use Microsoft Word to write blackmail letters.
Furthermore, hacking one’s own device is completely different from hacking another person’s device.
On the post: Another Day, Another Antitrust Lawsuit For Google:
Re:
I don’t believe that §230 applies to federal antitrust laws, and some of the allegations have to do with Google’s business actions rather than moderation or content on Google Search, so §230 wouldn’t apply to those, anyways.
On the post: NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs Law Banning Sale Of Confederate Flags That Will Absolutely Get Nullified
Re:
Well, I mean, aren’t they? Lots of men get raped who don’t get taken seriously, if they can even bring up the courage to talk about it.
On the post: NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs Law Banning Sale Of Confederate Flags That Will Absolutely Get Nullified
Re: Re:
Uh, I’d say the 13th through 15th Amendments and a number of Supreme Court cases have largely settled that particular question. The abolitionist states imposed their view that slavery is wrong.
On the post: NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs Law Banning Sale Of Confederate Flags That Will Absolutely Get Nullified
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For starters, the flag is the symbol of
No one’s saying the North was good; they just didn’t have the specific evil (slavery) that the South did. And no one is saying that the way the worst slave owners treated slaves was the only problem with slavery. You’re attacking a strawman that no one believes is true.
Whether or not that’s true, it’s all about what the slave owners in the South thought was true, and they thought slavery was efficient enough to merit those costs. They also thought it was their moral imperative and God-given right, but perception of costs was also a factor.
On the post: NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs Law Banning Sale Of Confederate Flags That Will Absolutely Get Nullified
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For starters, the flag is the symbol
The last part is absolutely true, but slaves also had separation from families, being treated as property, being whipped by their owners, etc. under slavery, which was not the case after abolition.
On the post: NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs Law Banning Sale Of Confederate Flags That Will Absolutely Get Nullified
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For starters, the flag is the symbol
An apologist for the South =/= an apologist for slavery, and Wilberforce was never explicitly mentioned.
Oh, absolutely. That doesn’t change anything, though.
On the post: NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs Law Banning Sale Of Confederate Flags That Will Absolutely Get Nullified
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For starters, the flag is the symbol of a re
Here’s the difference between feeding workers in an industrial city/town vs an agricultural town/village: in an industrial company, food is an external cost that ultimately goes elsewhere. In agriculture, the work is being done to make food, so food is not an external cost. Slaves were essentially harvesting what they’d eventually eat (among other things like cotton or tobacco). There was no need to sell the food to the workers to recoup costs associated with obtaining food. That’s why slavery worked in the primarily agricultural South and not the industrial North.
Oh, we’ve heard about them, all right, but as bad as blacks were treated 100 years after slavery ended, it was nothing compared to how they were treated as slaves.
On the post: NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs Law Banning Sale Of Confederate Flags That Will Absolutely Get Nullified
Re: Re: Re: For starters, the flag is the symbol of a rebellion
Let’s assume that that’s true. Did the southern slave owners know and believe that that was true? If they genuinely believed that slavery was more profitable than paid workers stuck in debt, then it really doesn’t matter which is actually cheaper; what matters is the perception. Southern writings at the time make it clear that they believed slavery to be integral to the southern economy. As far as establishing motivations, contemporaneous writings by the people themselves are the best evidence. After all, people can be easily motivated to act against their best interests if they believe it to be in their best interest, whatever the actual facts are.
On the post: NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs Law Banning Sale Of Confederate Flags That Will Absolutely Get Nullified
Re: Re: Re: States' rights?
It was never that. They only cared about “the failure of the Constitution to adequately define and/or limit federal power” to the extent it affected their ability to own slaves and/or discriminate against blacks. That’s it. I encourage you to read the writings of the people responsible for the secession of the South and who ran the Confederacy. They make it crystal clear that slavery was the primary cause.
On the post: Smaller Internet Companies Say They're Open To 230 Reform... To Keep Facebook From Being The Only Voice In The Room
Re: Re: another option
Except they do police their own behavior and don’t censor anyone. They’re also just exercising rights given to them by the Constitution.
Also, leftists are for more regulation of businesses.
Next >>