Please point out where in Section 230, or in any jurisprudence surrounding both 230 and the First Amendment, the law makes a distinction of “platform” and “publisher” vis-á-vis interactive computer services.
I dont think that it does, and I believe court cases thus far have also failed to do so. But that is the complaint: editors can essentially publish their viewpoint, while hiding behind section 230 to claim that they are merely a provider of the service. Yet, indeed, the service providers are going beyond merely providing the service, and into the realm of publishing by using the censorship strategy. And this is why some people want to reform 230.
I've read this sentence about 10 times and I still have zero idea of what you might be trying to say.
The primary objective of politically motivated corporations is to influence others, while also being perceived as politically neutral. If social media companies were to defend against a potential government action by claiming a first amendment right to editorialize by censoring viewpoints with which they don't agree, that would be pretty honest of them. And it looks to me like it would hold up in a courtroom, if it were to come to that. But it would also dent their ability to do the influencing thing after that sort of admission. Once people are aware that you are being marketed to, the marketing doesn't work so well. TV and print news media have been suffering from this in recent years. Social media doesn't enjoy the thought of joining the rest of the club.
There is no indication that any of the moderation activity is unfairly targeting conservatives or even that there is any "bias" at all.
Generally, if a conservative voice is censored for supposedly violating terms of service, it is then readily noted that those same terms of service are violated by a number of liberal voices with no action taken. This is the bias, and the method through which social media transforms from a platform to a publisher: all viewpoints are initially presented, but only the ones that they agree with remain uncensored and published.
But, more importantly: the government can't do anything even if they were biased.
If social media companies were to claim 1st amendment, which I think they should do, then it would be to admit a bias, which runs contrary to the goal of influencing viewers. Moreover, it would stake out a legal position that they are a publisher, and not a platform.
So even if a panel is formed, it couldn't actually do anything to change things, beyond just being an annoying pest.
It would serve a valuable public interest to voters that the things you see on social media are not organic, but a deliberate attempt by company bigwigs to influence public opinion. Changing public perception to be aware of corporate meddling and shenanigans is why many of us peruse Techdirt.
Note how this is framed -- as if removing disinformation or recommendations that will likely lead to people dying due to ignoring health advice regarding COVID-19 is somehow a bad thing.
Activity that leads to death is still acceptable in most other cases. Should you drive a car? If you do, there are thousands of automobile fatalities in the U.S. every year, and you could be one of them if you get into a vehicle. Same goes with playing sports. Yet we're allowed to talk about these things. Just because an activity might lead to a small percentage of deaths is ordinarily not justification for censorship.
I'm now convinced that the article is a little deceptive. The magic is not that they built a keylogger, that's certainly old news to us. The REAL magic is that they've found an exploit whereby someone with physical access can install software. And although this installed software does not have unlimited privileges, it is enough to perform a keylogger. The article must have left out this important part.
How does law enforcement install this HideUI software onto the phone if it's locked? And if law enforcement can unlock the phone to install software, then why give it back to the owner? I've never used Apple products, so what am I missing?
would leap at the chance to stop Trump and the FBI from conducting warrantless searches of Americans' internet browsing habits.
The cynic in me says that no amount of logic is going to fix the problem, certainly not with back-room political insiders manipulating the legislative process behind the scenes. But this gives me an idea. What we REALLY need is for Congress to investigate the FBI, find some abuses that personally affect the members of Congress through warrantless spying, and then that will turn the Congressional reps into victims. Finally, they would be motivated with a combined impeach Trump + fix the U.S. domestic spying problem such that a few political cronies would be unable to stand in the way.
You would think that House Democrat leaders like Speaker Pelosi and Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, who helped lead the impeachment effort against President Trump, would leap at the chance to stop Trump and the FBI from conducting warrantless searches of Americans' internet browsing habits
A lot of people think that their side is better than the other, when the reality is that both sides of the political spectrum have career politicians who represent The Swamp, and not their constituents. We need term limits to get these cronies out of there.
I like the explanation of the financial aspect: there's a huge risk for the hosting company if it doesn't take down your content, but no risk if it does take it down. Is it any wonder why companies like Google operate the way they do?
Still, I would like to see another business decision as exemplified by IBM-- they always fight every lawsuit unless IBM realizes that they are seriously in the wrong, so they don't settle. While obviously a different situation with Google, might such a policy cut down on bogus claims and actually save it money in the long term?
You say that like if anyone can do it it should be the US
I'm not trying so say this as a putdown of other countries. Rather, I'm hard pressed to think of other nations, outside of a small handful in eastern asia, that might have access to a similar level of technical expertise and consulting.
The fed and the states had access to a number of prominent tech companies, ones who have successfully developed websites and back end systems for private companies. Having access to such resources would obviously seem to decrease the chances of the project ending in a massive blunder. Yet despite those partnerships, it still happened.
I recall the United States government wasting a lot of money on a healthcare exchange website, losing several billion dollars to get it up and running. So even the U.S. couldn't build a website on time and on budget. When there's noone in the government to be held personally responsible for wasting a lot of money, taxpayer funds almost always get flushed down the toilet.
You're right, this very well could be a deception on their part. But I have to question-- is the FBI getting angry and preachy because they want to lull us into a false sense of security? Or is it because they were denied something that they wanted very very badly? Well, in either event, the tears were delicious.
The press conference seemed to indicate that the FBI had to do a lot of work just to access the contents of one phone. Although noone should take what the FBI says as the truth, this comes as a relief that they have no reliable way to quickly examine everyone's communications. Which is as it should be. Only the targets of important investigations should be examined, and leave everyone else alone. If the FBI blows massive resources just to confirm attribution, then that's their mistake, not Apple, and not the citizens.
If I create a webpage which offers fake information about the Coronavirus, does that mean someone could report Google Chrome for violating the policy, since it can access the fake information website?
It seems to me that some of these articles are not written to explain facts or how things work, and then let readers decide if that's good or bad thing (or perhaps a little of both!). Instead, it's about pushing an agenda. Sadly, this isn't about reporting. It's about influencing, disguised as a news article.
The first I heard if this story was not that GTA5 was available, but the story that it crashed the servers. By then the problems were probably already fixed, and so Epic just got some free publicity.
With a large percentage of the cable bill going towards live sports and brand new shows, who wants to pay top dollar for no sports and reruns? If I were in charge of a cable company, customers would have been getting a refund for staying subscribed. To think that everyone else around the world must make sacrifices during the lockdown, but not cable tv, that's just delusional. Cable didn't deliver.
neither news media outlets or Internet companies can censor anyone.
You have made my point for me. I said that you would turn a blind eye to certain organizations for engaging in censorship, and now you have done so. You can attempt to explain that certain censorship activities are JUSTIFIED, but make no mistake, they most certainly can and DO engage in political censorship.
Unless you can show me a news media outlet or an Internet company (i.e., an interactive web service) owned by the government that suppresses speech based only on the political leanings of the speaker,
You may have missed the name of the url from the link -- NPR.
Please point out instances of the government censoring speech associated with Republicans/conservatives/right-wingers at the behest of Democrats/liberals/left-wingers
The IRS targeting scandal comes to mind immediately. But I think you're missing the point: you are attempting to limit your definition of censorship to government officials, while turning a blind eye towards schools, colleges, news media, and internet companies. In actuality, political censorship in public forums is still censorship, and is wrong.
On the post: If You're Reporting On Trump's Supposed Plans For 'Anti-Conservative Bias' Panel, Shouldn't You Mention The 1st Amendment?
Re:
I dont think that it does, and I believe court cases thus far have also failed to do so. But that is the complaint: editors can essentially publish their viewpoint, while hiding behind section 230 to claim that they are merely a provider of the service. Yet, indeed, the service providers are going beyond merely providing the service, and into the realm of publishing by using the censorship strategy. And this is why some people want to reform 230.
On the post: If You're Reporting On Trump's Supposed Plans For 'Anti-Conservative Bias' Panel, Shouldn't You Mention The 1st Amendment?
Re: Re:
The primary objective of politically motivated corporations is to influence others, while also being perceived as politically neutral. If social media companies were to defend against a potential government action by claiming a first amendment right to editorialize by censoring viewpoints with which they don't agree, that would be pretty honest of them. And it looks to me like it would hold up in a courtroom, if it were to come to that. But it would also dent their ability to do the influencing thing after that sort of admission. Once people are aware that you are being marketed to, the marketing doesn't work so well. TV and print news media have been suffering from this in recent years. Social media doesn't enjoy the thought of joining the rest of the club.
On the post: If You're Reporting On Trump's Supposed Plans For 'Anti-Conservative Bias' Panel, Shouldn't You Mention The 1st Amendment?
Generally, if a conservative voice is censored for supposedly violating terms of service, it is then readily noted that those same terms of service are violated by a number of liberal voices with no action taken. This is the bias, and the method through which social media transforms from a platform to a publisher: all viewpoints are initially presented, but only the ones that they agree with remain uncensored and published.
If social media companies were to claim 1st amendment, which I think they should do, then it would be to admit a bias, which runs contrary to the goal of influencing viewers. Moreover, it would stake out a legal position that they are a publisher, and not a platform.
It would serve a valuable public interest to voters that the things you see on social media are not organic, but a deliberate attempt by company bigwigs to influence public opinion. Changing public perception to be aware of corporate meddling and shenanigans is why many of us peruse Techdirt.
On the post: Newsweek Publishes Facts Optional, Wronger Than Wrong, Piece About Section 230
Activity that leads to death is still acceptable in most other cases. Should you drive a car? If you do, there are thousands of automobile fatalities in the U.S. every year, and you could be one of them if you get into a vehicle. Same goes with playing sports. Yet we're allowed to talk about these things. Just because an activity might lead to a small percentage of deaths is ordinarily not justification for censorship.
Our freedom is worth more.
On the post: On The Same Day The FBI Claimed No Vendor Could Crack IPhones, Another Way To Crack IPhones Made The News
Re: Re: Wait a minute...
I'm now convinced that the article is a little deceptive. The magic is not that they built a keylogger, that's certainly old news to us. The REAL magic is that they've found an exploit whereby someone with physical access can install software. And although this installed software does not have unlimited privileges, it is enough to perform a keylogger. The article must have left out this important part.
On the post: On The Same Day The FBI Claimed No Vendor Could Crack IPhones, Another Way To Crack IPhones Made The News
Wait a minute...
How does law enforcement install this HideUI software onto the phone if it's locked? And if law enforcement can unlock the phone to install software, then why give it back to the owner? I've never used Apple products, so what am I missing?
On the post: House Democrats Have The Power To Protect Our Web Surfing From Warrantless FBI Searching; Instead, They're Pointing Fingers
What It Would Take
The cynic in me says that no amount of logic is going to fix the problem, certainly not with back-room political insiders manipulating the legislative process behind the scenes. But this gives me an idea. What we REALLY need is for Congress to investigate the FBI, find some abuses that personally affect the members of Congress through warrantless spying, and then that will turn the Congressional reps into victims. Finally, they would be motivated with a combined impeach Trump + fix the U.S. domestic spying problem such that a few political cronies would be unable to stand in the way.
On the post: House Democrats Have The Power To Protect Our Web Surfing From Warrantless FBI Searching; Instead, They're Pointing Fingers
You Might Think
A lot of people think that their side is better than the other, when the reality is that both sides of the political spectrum have career politicians who represent The Swamp, and not their constituents. We need term limits to get these cronies out of there.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: WSJ Identifies Hundreds Of Bogus News Takedowns; People Blame Google Rather Than Copyright
Monetary Incentive
I like the explanation of the financial aspect: there's a huge risk for the hosting company if it doesn't take down your content, but no risk if it does take it down. Is it any wonder why companies like Google operate the way they do?
Still, I would like to see another business decision as exemplified by IBM-- they always fight every lawsuit unless IBM realizes that they are seriously in the wrong, so they don't settle. While obviously a different situation with Google, might such a policy cut down on bogus claims and actually save it money in the long term?
On the post: France Is About To Waste A Ton Of Money Trying To Build Its Own Airbnb
Re: Re: Obamacare
I'm not trying so say this as a putdown of other countries. Rather, I'm hard pressed to think of other nations, outside of a small handful in eastern asia, that might have access to a similar level of technical expertise and consulting.
The fed and the states had access to a number of prominent tech companies, ones who have successfully developed websites and back end systems for private companies. Having access to such resources would obviously seem to decrease the chances of the project ending in a massive blunder. Yet despite those partnerships, it still happened.
On the post: France Is About To Waste A Ton Of Money Trying To Build Its Own Airbnb
Obamacare
I recall the United States government wasting a lot of money on a healthcare exchange website, losing several billion dollars to get it up and running. So even the U.S. couldn't build a website on time and on budget. When there's noone in the government to be held personally responsible for wasting a lot of money, taxpayer funds almost always get flushed down the toilet.
On the post: FBI Holds Press Conference To Claim Apple Prevented It From [Checks Notes] Verifying Attribution In The Pensacola Air Base Shooting
Re: Re: Relieved
You're right, this very well could be a deception on their part. But I have to question-- is the FBI getting angry and preachy because they want to lull us into a false sense of security? Or is it because they were denied something that they wanted very very badly? Well, in either event, the tears were delicious.
On the post: FBI Holds Press Conference To Claim Apple Prevented It From [Checks Notes] Verifying Attribution In The Pensacola Air Base Shooting
Relieved
The press conference seemed to indicate that the FBI had to do a lot of work just to access the contents of one phone. Although noone should take what the FBI says as the truth, this comes as a relief that they have no reliable way to quickly examine everyone's communications. Which is as it should be. Only the targets of important investigations should be examined, and leave everyone else alone. If the FBI blows massive resources just to confirm attribution, then that's their mistake, not Apple, and not the citizens.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: Google Removes Podcast Addict From Play Store Because It Has COVID-19 Related Podcasts
Ban chrome?
If I create a webpage which offers fake information about the Coronavirus, does that mean someone could report Google Chrome for violating the policy, since it can access the fake information website?
On the post: Now The Washington Post Misleadingly Complains About Google & Apple Protecting Your Privacy Too Much
Agenda
It seems to me that some of these articles are not written to explain facts or how things work, and then let readers decide if that's good or bad thing (or perhaps a little of both!). Instead, it's about pushing an agenda. Sadly, this isn't about reporting. It's about influencing, disguised as a news article.
On the post: Hey, Epic, If you're Going To Boldly Give Away A Historically Popular Game For Free, Make Sure You Can Handle The Demand
No Such Thing As Bad Publicity
The first I heard if this story was not that GTA5 was available, but the story that it crashed the servers. By then the problems were probably already fixed, and so Epic just got some free publicity.
On the post: Covid-19 Just Triggered The Worst Quarter Ever For Cable TV 'Cord Cutting'
Where's The Beef?
With a large percentage of the cable bill going towards live sports and brand new shows, who wants to pay top dollar for no sports and reruns? If I were in charge of a cable company, customers would have been getting a refund for staying subscribed. To think that everyone else around the world must make sacrifices during the lockdown, but not cable tv, that's just delusional. Cable didn't deliver.
On the post: One Of The Few Government Officials Who Actually Can 'Police Speech' Whines Ridiculously About Facebook's Oversight Board
Re:
You have made my point for me. I said that you would turn a blind eye to certain organizations for engaging in censorship, and now you have done so. You can attempt to explain that certain censorship activities are JUSTIFIED, but make no mistake, they most certainly can and DO engage in political censorship.
On the post: One Of The Few Government Officials Who Actually Can 'Police Speech' Whines Ridiculously About Facebook's Oversight Board
Re:
You may have missed the name of the url from the link -- NPR.
On the post: One Of The Few Government Officials Who Actually Can 'Police Speech' Whines Ridiculously About Facebook's Oversight Board
Re:
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggress ive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups
The IRS targeting scandal comes to mind immediately. But I think you're missing the point: you are attempting to limit your definition of censorship to government officials, while turning a blind eye towards schools, colleges, news media, and internet companies. In actuality, political censorship in public forums is still censorship, and is wrong.
Next >>