…says the guy who believes the law should be changed to force social media services (including any such service that he owns!) into hosting speech that their owners absolutely don't want to host.
I believe the law should be changed to get social media companies that create an open platform for free discussion for all to live up to their promise. If they don't want to host certain content, that's fine, but JUST COME OUT AND SAY IT. Let them say that they hate conservatives, and that they will ban anyone who shows support for a right wing political position. Spelling out their desires in writing would be very honest of them. The Hawley legislation would allow them to do that.
I mean, you all but said the law should change to favor White supremacist propaganda
No, I never said that, and I do NOT think that the law should ever favor white supremacists. Do not slander; it is very hateful of you to demonize me and pretend that I support a position that I don't. Equal rights are the ultimate counter to white supremacists
Please give us your Social Security number. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
Nobody has identified a problem with my social security number. But another poster (TFG) is DEMANDING to see the moderation data. You better go talk to them first.
But that doesn’t prove they were booted only because they self-identified as “conservative”, or that they were booted without violating the TOS
Then social media companies should be happy with Hawley's proposed legislation. Of course, I suspect that they will not, because either they will need to stop the anti-conservative bias, or else they will have an estoppel problem in court.
Yesterdays article briefly mentioned a "UK-based operation", but no. The operation was not named, who they are was not explained, and their shady dealings with both NBC and Google conveniently omitted. Of course, if this was a Russian group, it would be considered foreign interference against democracy and collusion.
To date, no major social media company has made their moderation data available. It's as if they have something to hide
Instead, the documented events of bias against conservatives has accumulated to the point where it has become undeniable to the general public. No doubt, if left wing activists were treated unfairly, those stories would have made front page news by now.
Today's example of bias on social media is yesterday's demonetization of The Federalist and Zerohedge websites. A left wing UK based group called CCDH was behind the demonetization effort, and was not a complaint from advertisers, or a problem that Google discovered internally. Talk about bad faith! How soon until Google work closely with outside right wing groups to comb websites for undesirable comments? Don't hold your breath.
because dishonest people who are trying to abuse your system are always trying to game things to stay "technically" within the "terms" while still wreaking havoc on your platform.
I was shown an old real estate purchase contract from a few decades past. Yes, it was that oversized legal paper, but everything fit on one page. Over the years, that one page grew to one page front&back, to two pages front &back, to five pages, then six with really tiny print. The contract size grew because there was a problem, and so they fixed it such that the expected outcome of the sale was spelled out in the contract, and noone could complain. It's been about the same size for the past few years now.
This is standard in our society. From rental agreements, to credit cards, to cell phones... Eventually, they work out the rules. What we DON'T want is for the rules to change in the middle of the game to bias one side or the other. You're probably okay with accepting all the other agreements that are a part of daily life.
If there is a complaint that the rules might be clearly spelled out is powerful evidence that bias is currently occurring on social media.
It’s hard to see how the existence of Snapchat’s speedometer encouraged Crystal McGee to drive at 113 miles-per-hour on a busy road. Snapchat doesn’t reward users for achieving high speedometer ratings
For narcissists on the internet, the appeal is to get attention from other people. Numerous fools have posted pictures and videos of themselves doing dangerous things (see: planking, parkour fails, close ups with wildlife, and many more).
People just don't have a sense of personal responsibility anymore. It's sad.
One of the problems of passing legislation that says "don't do this bad thing" then involves the consequences. What if the corporation continues behaving as it always did? What happens if some future White House administration decides to not hold the corporations accountable?
That's where section 230 could be involved. If Big Tech loses section 230 protection because they do targeted advertising, then they open themselves up to a whole world of hurt through private litigation. Government bureaucrats that want to protect the industry, either because they are under orders from a future president, or through regulatory capture, would be powerless to stop it.
It is my understanding that Youtubers can have some videos on their channel monetized, while other videos on their channel are demonetized. In other words: it is not channel specific. Experimenters have concluded that the demonitization comes from any mention of certain key words, especially if they are politically incorrect.
Anyhow, the article is light on details about the proposal, likely because this is still preliminary. There is still time for legislation to be drafted such that it hurts social media companies right in the wallet, which could be one avenue of attack besides just antitrust.
You make an interesting point. I seem to remember the politicians exempting themselves from the telephone telemarketing laws that they passed years ago.
We rightfully assume that when they say "targetted ads" that therefore they must mean political ads. But what if we're wrong? What if the politicians exempt themselves, as they always do? Then this could be at attempt to eliminate the demonetization techniques of platforms such as Youtube. Youtubers affected by the adpocalypse would then love Trump.
Back in 2012, it was Barrack Obama who was praised for having an online presence, and outreach through Facebook. Obviously, Trump had it by 2016. Except that Trump took it to the next level with targeted advertising. No doubt, Biden will attempt it in 2020. The finest political consultants that money can buy have been hard at work over the past four years. I'm skeptical that taking this weapon away from both sides would somehow only hurt Trump.
A fascinating case where a government agency outsources at least a portion of a hacking operation. The FBI didn't write the exploit. It didn't even buy it itself. If you have concerns about what happened, well, now the line has blurred between corporate action and law enforcement.
Fortunately for the FBI, the perp in this case is very well disliked by everyone. But next time, the perp will probably be a "political dissenter". This sort of blurring of responsibility is precisely why I distrust both the FBI and corporations.
Once upon a time, kids in school didn't dream of laying a finger upon a teacher or school administrator. Otherwise, the kid would be swiftly and permanently expelled.
About 15 years ago, I had acquaintances with school teachers who had been personally involved in altercations with students. The kids would throw punches at teachers. One teacher got pepper sprayed. The schools had gone too easy on the kids. The next progression in the cycle was to wait for the kids to become violent, and then have the school cop make the arrest.
This is a major contributor to the decline of U.S. schools. Disruptive students bring down the quality of learning for everyone in the class. Sadly, schools which begin to remove police from schools will now see their learning achievement drop even more. And these are typically not schools with high learning achievement that can afford to drop down a little. The kids from these schools will no doubt be more disrupted, undisciplined, and uneducated than ever before. A recipe for more poverty and lifelong unhappiness has seldom been seen.
In my experience that touches upon TCPA abuse, the vexatious lawsuits from the troll lawyers will try to grab money from the lowest hanging fruit. That then causes an industry response, which results in the troll lawyers having to work harder, and the lawyers will present more bizarre legal theories with more desperate court cases. Certainly, there is an up-front litigation cost.
But, if the industry dots its I's and crosses its T's, and the courts shoot down the crazy legal theories and impose court costs, the troll lawyers go away. Unfortunately, sometimes a bad court ruling opens a window for a flood of news litigious lawyers. But if after a few rounds of troll litigation, and the claimants lose so badly that they end up paying the court costs, then the troll industry goes away. The cost to industry shifts from litigation to ongoing compliance.
Possibly we could have a private enforcement mechanism IF courts and legislators are responsive enough. But how can you ensure that there is a speedy resolution when problems emerge? Can there be an ongoing legislative committee ready to get involved in disputes and update the law to clearly and properly define technical terms? Require some kind of technical competency of judges before they make a decision? I don't have a good answer, but any system is probably only as good as the people that make up the system. I'm willing to give the private enforcement system and statutory damages a shot, especially if we can somehow mandate refinement into the process. I've seen some adjacent TCPA businesses come close, even without much help from judges or lawmakers.
I have never understood why essentially totalitarian dictators like Duterte, Castro, Kim, Jinping, etc always try to maintain a facade of "legality" by using twisted laws, compliant courts, and obedient prosecutors and judges.
Throughout much of human history, it has been the case that there is one set of laws designed to protect the establishment ruling party, and another set of laws for everyone else. That was one of the big achievements with the Magna Carta: same rules for everyone, even the king!
Without such a concept of equal rights, many rulers viewed the law as a weapon, and they think that they deserve to have the law "on their side" because they feel that they are so important and righteous to their country. For totalitarians, laws are not a set of rules for everyone to live by. Instead, laws are a way to punish people who are not on your side.
I guess you are unable to view anything outside of a legal liability. That a corporation is involved in publishing, but is immune from the consequences, you seem unable to grasp that both can be true at the same time.
As for your slanderous comments about my motivation regarding hosting, yours is false, and I desire to keep power and editorial control out of the hands of corporations. I could give 2 cents about white supremacists. Your desire to demonize others merely for disagreeing with you is a hateful path to take in life.
The "moderation creates speech the platform becomes liable for" lie didn't dupe the judge when Pustule Nickleback McHitler tried it.
There's no duping involved. Section 230 gives the platforms immunity because that's the law. But the platform is nonetheless acting as a publisher. Being immune to liability does not mean they cannot behave as such. And those who want 230 reform are very much concerned about this behavior.
Most of these polls suffer from oversampling problems, the same problem that led to the 2016 election shock. While I doubt that you can sue to force a candidate poll to discontinue use of a method which has produced questionable results in the past, and so it doesn't reach the level necessary to qualify for defamation, these polls do seem kind of shady.
How many times are you going to repeat this myth, despite every time you do so everyone explaining to you why you're wrong?
It is truth, not myth. Social media corporations create a platform, at first with the promise of free speech for everyone. Then they begin censoring viewpoints with which they disagree. By publishing only the agreement, the platforms become a defacto publisher. The corporation most certainly endorses a viewpoint.
For the President and his supporters to insist that we need to get rid of Section 230 to encourage more speech is exactly wrong.
I am confident that if the corporate employees of social media platforms were (ab)using their moderation abilities to actively supress meetoo and BLM, that it would be the left wing of the nation which would be calling for section 230 reform. (And rightfully so!)
I think we know the intent of section 230. However, there are unforeseen consequences of allowing interactive computer services to act as both a platform and a publisher simultaneously, and while enjoying certain legal immunities. Identifying a problem and wanting reform doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the law's intent.
Software vendors could create tools that allowed community members to communicate in private, using encrypted messages that are unintelligible to Facebook's data-mining tools, but whose potential members could still discover and join the group using Facebook.
Just this right here probably sends chills up the spine of Facebook execs. Sure, there's probably other ways to track a user, but this right here causes Facebook to lose control with regards to HOW users are interacting if they can't see the message. And they NEED that message to sell that ad. This hits too close to the FB bottom line that they will never willingly allow it.
On the post: Senator Hawley's Section 230 Reform Even Dumber Than We Expected; Would Launch A Ton Of Vexatious Lawsuits
Re:
I believe the law should be changed to get social media companies that create an open platform for free discussion for all to live up to their promise. If they don't want to host certain content, that's fine, but JUST COME OUT AND SAY IT. Let them say that they hate conservatives, and that they will ban anyone who shows support for a right wing political position. Spelling out their desires in writing would be very honest of them. The Hawley legislation would allow them to do that.
No, I never said that, and I do NOT think that the law should ever favor white supremacists. Do not slander; it is very hateful of you to demonize me and pretend that I support a position that I don't. Equal rights are the ultimate counter to white supremacists
On the post: Senator Hawley's Section 230 Reform Even Dumber Than We Expected; Would Launch A Ton Of Vexatious Lawsuits
Re:
Nobody has identified a problem with my social security number. But another poster (TFG) is DEMANDING to see the moderation data. You better go talk to them first.
Then social media companies should be happy with Hawley's proposed legislation. Of course, I suspect that they will not, because either they will need to stop the anti-conservative bias, or else they will have an estoppel problem in court.
On the post: Senator Hawley's Section 230 Reform Even Dumber Than We Expected; Would Launch A Ton Of Vexatious Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Contracting
Yesterdays article briefly mentioned a "UK-based operation", but no. The operation was not named, who they are was not explained, and their shady dealings with both NBC and Google conveniently omitted. Of course, if this was a Russian group, it would be considered foreign interference against democracy and collusion.
On the post: Senator Hawley's Section 230 Reform Even Dumber Than We Expected; Would Launch A Ton Of Vexatious Lawsuits
Re: Re: Contracting
To date, no major social media company has made their moderation data available. It's as if they have something to hide
Instead, the documented events of bias against conservatives has accumulated to the point where it has become undeniable to the general public. No doubt, if left wing activists were treated unfairly, those stories would have made front page news by now.
Today's example of bias on social media is yesterday's demonetization of The Federalist and Zerohedge websites. A left wing UK based group called CCDH was behind the demonetization effort, and was not a complaint from advertisers, or a problem that Google discovered internally. Talk about bad faith! How soon until Google work closely with outside right wing groups to comb websites for undesirable comments? Don't hold your breath.
On the post: Senator Hawley's Section 230 Reform Even Dumber Than We Expected; Would Launch A Ton Of Vexatious Lawsuits
Contracting
I was shown an old real estate purchase contract from a few decades past. Yes, it was that oversized legal paper, but everything fit on one page. Over the years, that one page grew to one page front&back, to two pages front &back, to five pages, then six with really tiny print. The contract size grew because there was a problem, and so they fixed it such that the expected outcome of the sale was spelled out in the contract, and noone could complain. It's been about the same size for the past few years now.
This is standard in our society. From rental agreements, to credit cards, to cell phones... Eventually, they work out the rules. What we DON'T want is for the rules to change in the middle of the game to bias one side or the other. You're probably okay with accepting all the other agreements that are a part of daily life.
If there is a complaint that the rules might be clearly spelled out is powerful evidence that bias is currently occurring on social media.
On the post: Cars, Guns, Cider, And Snapchat Don't Cause Crime
Narcissism
For narcissists on the internet, the appeal is to get attention from other people. Numerous fools have posted pictures and videos of themselves doing dangerous things (see: planking, parkour fails, close ups with wildlife, and many more).
People just don't have a sense of personal responsibility anymore. It's sad.
On the post: Senator Hawley's Latest Dumb Anti-230 Plan Would Wipe Out The President's Advantage On Facebook
Re:
One of the problems of passing legislation that says "don't do this bad thing" then involves the consequences. What if the corporation continues behaving as it always did? What happens if some future White House administration decides to not hold the corporations accountable?
That's where section 230 could be involved. If Big Tech loses section 230 protection because they do targeted advertising, then they open themselves up to a whole world of hurt through private litigation. Government bureaucrats that want to protect the industry, either because they are under orders from a future president, or through regulatory capture, would be powerless to stop it.
On the post: Senator Hawley's Latest Dumb Anti-230 Plan Would Wipe Out The President's Advantage On Facebook
Re: Re: Re:
It is my understanding that Youtubers can have some videos on their channel monetized, while other videos on their channel are demonetized. In other words: it is not channel specific. Experimenters have concluded that the demonitization comes from any mention of certain key words, especially if they are politically incorrect.
Anyhow, the article is light on details about the proposal, likely because this is still preliminary. There is still time for legislation to be drafted such that it hurts social media companies right in the wallet, which could be one avenue of attack besides just antitrust.
On the post: Senator Hawley's Latest Dumb Anti-230 Plan Would Wipe Out The President's Advantage On Facebook
Re:
You make an interesting point. I seem to remember the politicians exempting themselves from the telephone telemarketing laws that they passed years ago.
We rightfully assume that when they say "targetted ads" that therefore they must mean political ads. But what if we're wrong? What if the politicians exempt themselves, as they always do? Then this could be at attempt to eliminate the demonetization techniques of platforms such as Youtube. Youtubers affected by the adpocalypse would then love Trump.
On the post: Senator Hawley's Latest Dumb Anti-230 Plan Would Wipe Out The President's Advantage On Facebook
Never Fight The Last War
Back in 2012, it was Barrack Obama who was praised for having an online presence, and outreach through Facebook. Obviously, Trump had it by 2016. Except that Trump took it to the next level with targeted advertising. No doubt, Biden will attempt it in 2020. The finest political consultants that money can buy have been hard at work over the past four years. I'm skeptical that taking this weapon away from both sides would somehow only hurt Trump.
On the post: Tradeoffs: Facebook Helping The FBI Hack Tails To Track Down A Truly Awful Child Predator Raises Many Questions
Outsourcing Responsibility
A fascinating case where a government agency outsources at least a portion of a hacking operation. The FBI didn't write the exploit. It didn't even buy it itself. If you have concerns about what happened, well, now the line has blurred between corporate action and law enforcement.
Fortunately for the FBI, the perp in this case is very well disliked by everyone. But next time, the perp will probably be a "political dissenter". This sort of blurring of responsibility is precisely why I distrust both the FBI and corporations.
On the post: More Schools Are Ending Contracts With Cops Following Protests Over The Killing Of George Floyd
About Discipline
Once upon a time, kids in school didn't dream of laying a finger upon a teacher or school administrator. Otherwise, the kid would be swiftly and permanently expelled.
About 15 years ago, I had acquaintances with school teachers who had been personally involved in altercations with students. The kids would throw punches at teachers. One teacher got pepper sprayed. The schools had gone too easy on the kids. The next progression in the cycle was to wait for the kids to become violent, and then have the school cop make the arrest.
This is a major contributor to the decline of U.S. schools. Disruptive students bring down the quality of learning for everyone in the class. Sadly, schools which begin to remove police from schools will now see their learning achievement drop even more. And these are typically not schools with high learning achievement that can afford to drop down a little. The kids from these schools will no doubt be more disrupted, undisciplined, and uneducated than ever before. A recipe for more poverty and lifelong unhappiness has seldom been seen.
On the post: Can You Build A Privacy Law That Doesn't Create Privacy Trolls?
A Cycle
In my experience that touches upon TCPA abuse, the vexatious lawsuits from the troll lawyers will try to grab money from the lowest hanging fruit. That then causes an industry response, which results in the troll lawyers having to work harder, and the lawyers will present more bizarre legal theories with more desperate court cases. Certainly, there is an up-front litigation cost.
But, if the industry dots its I's and crosses its T's, and the courts shoot down the crazy legal theories and impose court costs, the troll lawyers go away. Unfortunately, sometimes a bad court ruling opens a window for a flood of news litigious lawyers. But if after a few rounds of troll litigation, and the claimants lose so badly that they end up paying the court costs, then the troll industry goes away. The cost to industry shifts from litigation to ongoing compliance.
Possibly we could have a private enforcement mechanism IF courts and legislators are responsive enough. But how can you ensure that there is a speedy resolution when problems emerge? Can there be an ongoing legislative committee ready to get involved in disputes and update the law to clearly and properly define technical terms? Require some kind of technical competency of judges before they make a decision? I don't have a good answer, but any system is probably only as good as the people that make up the system. I'm willing to give the private enforcement system and statutory damages a shot, especially if we can somehow mandate refinement into the process. I've seen some adjacent TCPA businesses come close, even without much help from judges or lawmakers.
On the post: Philippines Spits On Free Speech, Convicts Journalist Maria Ressa For Criminal 'Cyber Libel'
Re:
Throughout much of human history, it has been the case that there is one set of laws designed to protect the establishment ruling party, and another set of laws for everyone else. That was one of the big achievements with the Magna Carta: same rules for everyone, even the king!
Without such a concept of equal rights, many rulers viewed the law as a weapon, and they think that they deserve to have the law "on their side" because they feel that they are so important and righteous to their country. For totalitarians, laws are not a set of rules for everyone to live by. Instead, laws are a way to punish people who are not on your side.
On the post: Ron Wyden Explains Why President Trump (And Many Others) Are Totally Wrong About Section 230
Re:
I guess you are unable to view anything outside of a legal liability. That a corporation is involved in publishing, but is immune from the consequences, you seem unable to grasp that both can be true at the same time.
As for your slanderous comments about my motivation regarding hosting, yours is false, and I desire to keep power and editorial control out of the hands of corporations. I could give 2 cents about white supremacists. Your desire to demonize others merely for disagreeing with you is a hateful path to take in life.
On the post: Ron Wyden Explains Why President Trump (And Many Others) Are Totally Wrong About Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's no duping involved. Section 230 gives the platforms immunity because that's the law. But the platform is nonetheless acting as a publisher. Being immune to liability does not mean they cannot behave as such. And those who want 230 reform are very much concerned about this behavior.
On the post: Trump Campaign Is So Pathetic It Claims CNN Poll Is Defamatory; Demands Retraction
Re: Defamatory Polls
Most of these polls suffer from oversampling problems, the same problem that led to the 2016 election shock. While I doubt that you can sue to force a candidate poll to discontinue use of a method which has produced questionable results in the past, and so it doesn't reach the level necessary to qualify for defamation, these polls do seem kind of shady.
On the post: Ron Wyden Explains Why President Trump (And Many Others) Are Totally Wrong About Section 230
Re: Re:
It is truth, not myth. Social media corporations create a platform, at first with the promise of free speech for everyone. Then they begin censoring viewpoints with which they disagree. By publishing only the agreement, the platforms become a defacto publisher. The corporation most certainly endorses a viewpoint.
On the post: Ron Wyden Explains Why President Trump (And Many Others) Are Totally Wrong About Section 230
I am confident that if the corporate employees of social media platforms were (ab)using their moderation abilities to actively supress meetoo and BLM, that it would be the left wing of the nation which would be calling for section 230 reform. (And rightfully so!)
I think we know the intent of section 230. However, there are unforeseen consequences of allowing interactive computer services to act as both a platform and a publisher simultaneously, and while enjoying certain legal immunities. Identifying a problem and wanting reform doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the law's intent.
On the post: Interoperability And Privacy: Squaring The Circle
Just this right here probably sends chills up the spine of Facebook execs. Sure, there's probably other ways to track a user, but this right here causes Facebook to lose control with regards to HOW users are interacting if they can't see the message. And they NEED that message to sell that ad. This hits too close to the FB bottom line that they will never willingly allow it.
Next >>