Nope. That’s not it at all. The only thing Zuckerberg is supporting is an addition of transparency requirements, which Facebook already does. Also, the writers of §230 think that it’s already working as intended.
Case law has effectively removed the “good faith” requirement by treating moderation under §230c(1) rather than §230c(2). It also doesn’t take much to satisfy “good faith”.
That is not what this article says. It says that the NDAA is not the place to amend or remove §230, and that §230 is not a threat to national security or our electoral process.
So basically, even among those who are in favor of removing or amending §230, Trump is pretty much alone in wanting to do so in the must-pass NDAA. The NDAA is about military spending. Anything unrelated to the military has no place in the NDAA. Period. Even anti-§230 people agree this is not the place to repeal or amend §230. Trump may not be the only one who dislikes §230, but he’s the only one who wants to deal with it in a bill about military spending.
Now, that said, social media companies only control speech on platforms they own, and that power is not a gov't-conferred authority but one based on the FA and property rights. As such, their removal of speech or banning users, even if arbitrary, is not censorship. Censorship means you can’t say it anywhere under penalty of law or violence. If Facebook removes you or your speech from Facebook, you can still go to Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, 4chan, 8kun, Parler, Gab, or your own site and say the exact same thing(s), and Facebook will be unable to do anything about it.
Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STAR
The First Amendment only protects persons (including corporations) from the government, not corporations. And “§230 sites” are not necessarily meant to be “Free Speech” outlets. But yeah, since those sites are also acting as publishers when they display speech from the public, that means they also get to control what speech they publish. You don’t hold a newspaper legally responsible for the content of letters to the editor, but the publisher has every right to control which letters get published. They are hosts, but the host still controls the show in the end.
And even if they were inverting the purpose of the FA (which they aren’t), that wouldn’t mean they were contradicting themselves.
Setting aside how biased Breitbart is, how is stopping climate change a bad thing?
Also, there are a bunch of studies into these COVID-19 vaccines, and there will have been more before the vaccines are actually approved for use in the US. That’s how the system works. So no, these vaccines are far from unproven.
I don’t think you understand what 5G is. There is no “100G”. Also, we simply don’t know enough about the brain to be able to read minds like you say. Neurology is very complex.
Re: Somehow, 5G promoters are only overlooking facts.
Note what else is in there:
some 5G signals are not capable of traveling large distances (over a few hundred meters), unlike 4G or lower frequency
In other words, they’re placed closely together in order to ensure full coverage, but that won’t mean that you’ll experience higher intensities from these towers being close together simply because 5G doesn’t go very far to begin with.
Also, these higher frequency 5G signals cannot penetrate solid objects easily, such as cars, trees, and walls, because of the nature of these higher frequency electromagnetic waves.
Basically, 5G signals can be easily blocked by any solid object. This also means that they won’t penetrate far through your body.
Also, unless you have any evidence that 5G does have any safety effects, the burden of proof is on you. Considering that similar intensities of infrared or 4G wavelengths don’t have any harmful effects on health, I don’t know why you’d expect 5G to be any different.
Seriously? Faraday cages for your wireless router? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard all day. You can’t design a Faraday cage that only blocks 5G. The entire principle behind Faraday cages is that they block radio waves of all kinds. If anything, I’d imagine 5G gets through more effectively than other WiFi signals. And they’re charging $90 for these? They’re just metal cages.
Re: Clearly, you hate people protecting their own work.
WIthout the DMCA, a strong argument could be made that locking down products to only work with your replacement parts or something like that would be an anti-trust violation or something similar.
Also, what is or isn’t “abuse” of the law is fairly subjective, but using a law meant specifically to stop online piracy and piracy of software (and only that) to prevent unauthorized repair of a physical product that happens to have some software built-in is abuse of the DMCA for purposes it wasn’t meant for. Copyright protection is only supposed to protect infringement of copyright, not unauthorized repair of a physical product.
Copyright also isn’t supposed to protect goods once they’ve been sold to a consumer (right of first-sale), nor to prevent unauthorized modifications, nor to stop copying for purely personal, private use. Copyright is a limited monopoly.
With trademark and patent law, the issue is completely different. With both, the issue is certain marks receiving protection or ideas being patented that shouldn’t under the current law. Generic, descriptive marks can’t be trademarked, and unoriginal, obvious, and/or broad inventions can’t be patented. And yet they get through the PTO. There’s also using trademarks to go after companies with completely different marks or in a different market, which is again umder the current law. There are also a few cases where people try to use trademarks or patents to go after other issues (see Lexmark). Basically, it’s criticism of those abusing the legal process to get results they aren’t legally entitled to to begin with.
[W]hat if the drugs were recovered incident to arrest[,] and the search warrant is simply to gather corroborating evidence?
Sounds superfluous to me. What “corroborating evidence” would be needed? You already have drugs, and a charge of possession with intent to distribute can be sustained just based on the amount in their possession.
On the post: Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him
Re: So where do I find a forum for "Free Speech"?
Make your own.
On the post: Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him
Re: IF mere hosts have total arbitrary control as you and Maz...
Does the government control it? If silenced one place, are you unable to say it somewhere else? No. Therefore, we have free speech on the internet.
On the post: Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him
Re: ALL access to The Internet is through some "host" corporatio
Nope. You can create your own website if you want and put your speech there.
On the post: Trump Doubles Down On Threat To Defund Military Because People Are Mean To Him Online; Republicans Threaten To Override His Veto
Re: Here's Zuckerberg agreeing with Trump:
Nope. That’s not it at all. The only thing Zuckerberg is supporting is an addition of transparency requirements, which Facebook already does. Also, the writers of §230 think that it’s already working as intended.
On the post: Trump Doubles Down On Threat To Defund Military Because People Are Mean To Him Online; Republicans Threaten To Override His Veto
Re: Here again is your real view on Section 230.
Case law has effectively removed the “good faith” requirement by treating moderation under §230c(1) rather than §230c(2). It also doesn’t take much to satisfy “good faith”.
On the post: Trump Doubles Down On Threat To Defund Military Because People Are Mean To Him Online; Republicans Threaten To Override His Veto
Re: Analysis level: Full-blown Trump Derangement Syndrome.
That is not what this article says. It says that the NDAA is not the place to amend or remove §230, and that §230 is not a threat to national security or our electoral process.
So basically, even among those who are in favor of removing or amending §230, Trump is pretty much alone in wanting to do so in the must-pass NDAA. The NDAA is about military spending. Anything unrelated to the military has no place in the NDAA. Period. Even anti-§230 people agree this is not the place to repeal or amend §230. Trump may not be the only one who dislikes §230, but he’s the only one who wants to deal with it in a bill about military spending.
Now, that said, social media companies only control speech on platforms they own, and that power is not a gov't-conferred authority but one based on the FA and property rights. As such, their removal of speech or banning users, even if arbitrary, is not censorship. Censorship means you can’t say it anywhere under penalty of law or violence. If Facebook removes you or your speech from Facebook, you can still go to Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, 4chan, 8kun, Parler, Gab, or your own site and say the exact same thing(s), and Facebook will be unable to do anything about it.
On the post: Nancy Pelosi Sells Out The Public: Agrees To Put Massive Copyright Reform In 'Must Pass' Spending Bill
Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STAR
Legally, corporations are persons. That means they also get FA protections. Don’t like it? Take it up with the Supreme Court.
On the post: Nancy Pelosi Sells Out The Public: Agrees To Put Massive Copyright Reform In 'Must Pass' Spending Bill
Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STAR
The First Amendment only protects persons (including corporations) from the government, not corporations. And “§230 sites” are not necessarily meant to be “Free Speech” outlets. But yeah, since those sites are also acting as publishers when they display speech from the public, that means they also get to control what speech they publish. You don’t hold a newspaper legally responsible for the content of letters to the editor, but the publisher has every right to control which letters get published. They are hosts, but the host still controls the show in the end.
And even if they were inverting the purpose of the FA (which they aren’t), that wouldn’t mean they were contradicting themselves.
On the post: Nancy Pelosi Sells Out The Public: Agrees To Put Massive Copyright Reform In 'Must Pass' Spending Bill
Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STAR
They are also permitted to have other rights, like free speech and freedom of association.
Also, Imperial Japan was not corporatist. Plus, both Maznick and Stone have been critical of corporate influence in government.
As for not being “persons”, the law explicitly says otherwise.
On the post: Nancy Pelosi Sells Out The Public: Agrees To Put Massive Copyright Reform In 'Must Pass' Spending Bill
Re: Re: Oh, pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR
Setting aside how biased Breitbart is, how is stopping climate change a bad thing?
Also, there are a bunch of studies into these COVID-19 vaccines, and there will have been more before the vaccines are actually approved for use in the US. That’s how the system works. So no, these vaccines are far from unproven.
On the post: Somehow, 5G Paranoia Is Only Getting Dumber
Re:
I don’t think you understand what 5G is. There is no “100G”. Also, we simply don’t know enough about the brain to be able to read minds like you say. Neurology is very complex.
On the post: Somehow, 5G Paranoia Is Only Getting Dumber
Re: Somehow, 5G promoters are only overlooking facts.
Note what else is in there:
In other words, they’re placed closely together in order to ensure full coverage, but that won’t mean that you’ll experience higher intensities from these towers being close together simply because 5G doesn’t go very far to begin with.
Basically, 5G signals can be easily blocked by any solid object. This also means that they won’t penetrate far through your body.
Also, unless you have any evidence that 5G does have any safety effects, the burden of proof is on you. Considering that similar intensities of infrared or 4G wavelengths don’t have any harmful effects on health, I don’t know why you’d expect 5G to be any different.
On the post: Somehow, 5G Paranoia Is Only Getting Dumber
Re: Somehow, 5G promoters are only overlooking facts.
You clearly don’t understand how EM radiation works.
On the post: Somehow, 5G Paranoia Is Only Getting Dumber
Seriously? Faraday cages for your wireless router? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard all day. You can’t design a Faraday cage that only blocks 5G. The entire principle behind Faraday cages is that they block radio waves of all kinds. If anything, I’d imagine 5G gets through more effectively than other WiFi signals. And they’re charging $90 for these? They’re just metal cages.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Good riddance
Yeah, except that right-wingers also did all of that stuff on Twitter.
On the post: Senator Tillis Plans Major Copyright Overhaul: Recognizes Legit Problems, But Current Solutions Are Lacking
Re: Clearly, you hate people protecting their own work.
WIthout the DMCA, a strong argument could be made that locking down products to only work with your replacement parts or something like that would be an anti-trust violation or something similar.
Also, what is or isn’t “abuse” of the law is fairly subjective, but using a law meant specifically to stop online piracy and piracy of software (and only that) to prevent unauthorized repair of a physical product that happens to have some software built-in is abuse of the DMCA for purposes it wasn’t meant for. Copyright protection is only supposed to protect infringement of copyright, not unauthorized repair of a physical product.
Copyright also isn’t supposed to protect goods once they’ve been sold to a consumer (right of first-sale), nor to prevent unauthorized modifications, nor to stop copying for purely personal, private use. Copyright is a limited monopoly.
With trademark and patent law, the issue is completely different. With both, the issue is certain marks receiving protection or ideas being patented that shouldn’t under the current law. Generic, descriptive marks can’t be trademarked, and unoriginal, obvious, and/or broad inventions can’t be patented. And yet they get through the PTO. There’s also using trademarks to go after companies with completely different marks or in a different market, which is again umder the current law. There are also a few cases where people try to use trademarks or patents to go after other issues (see Lexmark). Basically, it’s criticism of those abusing the legal process to get results they aren’t legally entitled to to begin with.
On the post: Despite Not Finding Drugs Nearly 95 Percent Of The Time, Judges Keep Approving Drug Warrants For Chicago Cops
Re:
Sounds superfluous to me. What “corroborating evidence” would be needed? You already have drugs, and a charge of possession with intent to distribute can be sustained just based on the amount in their possession.
On the post: FBI Asks To Perform An Intrusive Search Of A Phone For Evidence It Doesn't Need From A Device That Probably Doesn't Belong To The Suspect
Re: Re: Re: Guns
I assume you mean that this is the lie:
and not this:
On the post: FBI Asks To Perform An Intrusive Search Of A Phone For Evidence It Doesn't Need From A Device That Probably Doesn't Belong To The Suspect
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Like what?
On the post: FBI Asks To Perform An Intrusive Search Of A Phone For Evidence It Doesn't Need From A Device That Probably Doesn't Belong To The Suspect
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
How were they evasive? And again, how can one discern “real” and “fake” opposition?
Next >>