I'm confident that FB didn't secretly divulge to you the metrics between the folks that did opt in, versus the folks that didn't. For a corporation that attempts to track everything, and then bases its decisions upon the data, I would find it surprising if FB didn't conduct a study on its users, or did conduct one which showed that it wasn't losing engagement yet they decided to abandon its facial recognition program out of the goodness of their hearts. And then privately messaged you with the data just in case someone doubted their sincerity. You don't have to shill for them so hard Maz, geez!
only about 1/3 of Facebook users opted in to use Facebook's facial recognition tool
I'll betcha that another 1/3 of Facebook users found the tool to be really creepy and interacted with FB less because of it. And I think we all know what happens when FB sees its metrics declining.
For section 230, (c) 1 prevents youtube from being held liable as the publisher. For 18 USC 48 (a) 3 they make it an offense to be the distributor. There may be a legal difference, so perhaps the NYT is being cautious in declaring a defense which might not work in this circumstance. If being a publisher and a distributor are legally identical terms, then I'd love to read some court rulings on the subject. But for now, I can't imagine that a newspaper stand would be considered a publisher, nor would I envision a beat reporter might be considered a distributor. This could warrant further consideration.
Anyone know how I can send the Amazon Post an invoice?
Your headline is more accurate, but clickbait headlines are written because they generate more views and more ad revenue. Without the sensationalism, you are costing them money. They are going to be tempted to bill YOU!
If engagement drops, it follows that advertising drops.
I think you're onto something. Although the study found that fb made more money because of the news feed scrolling, it could be just a short term effect. If a drug addict develops a tolerance, he might try to buy a lot more. But if the tolerance eventually results in no high whatsoever, then he might quit entirely. The social media drug dealers know that they can measure addiction through engagement, and they need it to maintain that constant advertising revenue stream. Fb must deliver the digital poison such that users never develop that tolerance and get burnt out.
These felony murder rules can be an important tool in certain situations, such as swatting. In the 2017 case of Tyler Barriss, Barriss was found liable for the death of a Kansas man despite not actually pulling the trigger, or even being in the state. Barriss was committing a crime, phoning in a fake shooting and hostage situation to authorities, and got sentenced to over 20 years for his involvement. Tyler Barriss was rightfully convicted, because presence at the scene of a crime is not a requirement for culpability. Knowingly assisting in a criminal act is the proper assessment for guilt.
Change the mandate to ensure that all collected data then gets stored in encrypted form, with only the user in possession of the decryption key, and watch all support for the measure to evaporate.
Perhaps there is a fundraising or voter turnout benefit to delaying. If a permanent commissioner is confirmed, there may be less of a motivation around election time. On the other hand, if it's a crisis, then they can send out some campaign ads along the lines of "vote for us, and donate, or else republicans will take over!" Of course, it would be a crisis of their own making, but noone is going to pay attention.
If you applied the same thinking to the NY Times or CNN or Fox News or the Wall Street Journal
That's okay because these news outlets are publishers, and not platforms. The editors get the choice about what to promote, but they are also liable for what they publish. I have to give the drafters some credit here -- it looks as if they understand at least some of the publisher/platform problem. The 1996 CDA was a compromise bill, so perhaps there is room for the two sides to come together.
Scienter is basically whether or not the defendant had knowledge that what they were doing was wrongful.
Just like how the cigarette industry knew it was selling a carcinogenic product, even though they went along begrudgingly with the warning labels, and was found liable for causing harm. Social media: the tobacco product of the internet.
They said the same thing about Big Tobacco back in the days. The biggest fatcat lawyers in the world didn't save them from liability. You're right that they don't care about the little guys. But what I'm saying is that they're primarily interested in saving themselves.
Facebook, the tobacco product of the internet, may be looking back at history for guidance. Cigarette companies generally operated with a denial strategy, which prolonged the outcome, but ultimately ended up with the nicotine producers facing crippling regulations, massive fines, and a product in declining use.
Facebook may someday experience the same fate in court. But it might end differently if they could just tell the judge that they followed all the rules, and be able to say "we did everything the government asked".
Credit card companies have been doing something similar for many years. Some will attempt to contact a delinquent customer and offer to reactivate the card if they make a payment to bring the account current. The kicker is that the consumer actually owes the bill. I can understand one sleazy company taking ideas from another. But using it as a threat to retain customers who don't owe anything is unconscionable.
But the crippling expense of having to assert one's First Amendment rights in court, and potentially at an unimaginable scale given all the user-generated content Internet platforms facilitate
Numerous other industries have had to go through this same process. The scale doesn't matter. Everyone has a vehicle in their driveway. Everyone has a credit card in their wallet. Companies faced the prospect of class action lawsuits from millions of customers. In many cases, the industries helped shape the laws that would govern their product. Others fought serial litigants in court to establish precedent. But it wasn't easy. However, it did result in a more predictable product, one with which customers are more satisfied. Section 230 could use a lemon law.
For one, the agency is boxed in thanks to a recent Supreme Court Facebook ruling (Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid) that left it hamstrung
I've been receiving spam calls for years, well before this court decision. Facebook v Duguid only deals with autodialers. While the call centers on the other side of the globe are indeed using what would be considered an illegal autodialer to place calls, they are beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. authorities. The FCC needs to target the gateway providers that are funneling Illegitimate calls into the country, rather than nitpick the mostly legitimate customer service centers that are still based on this continent. The autodialer TCPA rules can't be used against a gateway because the gateway doesn't own or control an autodialer. Instead, the gateway providers should be shut down for illegal spoofing.
seem to believe that removing Section 230 will somehow make websites more likely to host their incendiary speech. We've explained before why the opposite is true
The Australian situation is that the authorities are removing intermediary liability protections, while also demanding more censorship. As discussed at length, this seems undoable. However, not everyone wants to take this same approach. The alternative is to remove intermediary liability protection FOR those that engage in censorship. And that part can be easily accomplished by content hosts, as evidenced by the Cubby v Compuserve era of a hands off style.
We've pointed out how some corporate executives have government officials, which often involves them in charge of regulating the very companies for which they were formerly employed. And then after their time in government, they magically get a cushy and well-paying job back at the corporation. Very crony. Haugen testified that she wants to see a government division in charge of regulating internet companies. Make no mistake -- the system will be rigged.
On the post: Surprising, But Important: Facebook Sorta Shuts Down Its Face Recognition System
Re: Re: Rarely Is It Not About Money
I'm confident that FB didn't secretly divulge to you the metrics between the folks that did opt in, versus the folks that didn't. For a corporation that attempts to track everything, and then bases its decisions upon the data, I would find it surprising if FB didn't conduct a study on its users, or did conduct one which showed that it wasn't losing engagement yet they decided to abandon its facial recognition program out of the goodness of their hearts. And then privately messaged you with the data just in case someone doubted their sincerity. You don't have to shill for them so hard Maz, geez!
On the post: Surprising, But Important: Facebook Sorta Shuts Down Its Face Recognition System
Rarely Is It Not About Money
I'll betcha that another 1/3 of Facebook users found the tool to be really creepy and interacted with FB less because of it. And I think we all know what happens when FB sees its metrics declining.
On the post: Latest Moral Panic: No, TikTok Probably Isn't Giving Teenage Girls Tourette Syndrome
Ticorette Gum
Social media is still a digital carcinogen. If the fear of developing Tourette's leads to some folks cutting back, then it will do them some good.
On the post: NY Times Continues Its Inability To Report Accurately On Section 230 And Content Moderation
Untested
For section 230, (c) 1 prevents youtube from being held liable as the publisher. For 18 USC 48 (a) 3 they make it an offense to be the distributor. There may be a legal difference, so perhaps the NYT is being cautious in declaring a defense which might not work in this circumstance. If being a publisher and a distributor are legally identical terms, then I'd love to read some court rulings on the subject. But for now, I can't imagine that a newspaper stand would be considered a publisher, nor would I envision a beat reporter might be considered a distributor. This could warrant further consideration.
On the post: Let Me Rewrite That For You: Washington Post Misinforms You About How Facebook Weighted Emoji Reactions
Accuracy Isn't As Profitable
Your headline is more accurate, but clickbait headlines are written because they generate more views and more ad revenue. Without the sensationalism, you are costing them money. They are going to be tempted to bill YOU!
On the post: When Facebook Turned Off Its News Feed Algorithm, It Made Everyone's Experience Worse... But Made Facebook More Money
Re:
I think you're onto something. Although the study found that fb made more money because of the news feed scrolling, it could be just a short term effect. If a drug addict develops a tolerance, he might try to buy a lot more. But if the tolerance eventually results in no high whatsoever, then he might quit entirely. The social media drug dealers know that they can measure addiction through engagement, and they need it to maintain that constant advertising revenue stream. Fb must deliver the digital poison such that users never develop that tolerance and get burnt out.
On the post: Judge Dumps Felony Manslaughter Charges Brought Against An Arrestee After A Deputy Ran Over Another Deputy
Not So Bizzare
These felony murder rules can be an important tool in certain situations, such as swatting. In the 2017 case of Tyler Barriss, Barriss was found liable for the death of a Kansas man despite not actually pulling the trigger, or even being in the state. Barriss was committing a crime, phoning in a fake shooting and hostage situation to authorities, and got sentenced to over 20 years for his involvement. Tyler Barriss was rightfully convicted, because presence at the scene of a crime is not a requirement for culpability. Knowingly assisting in a criminal act is the proper assessment for guilt.
On the post: The Surveillance And Privacy Concerns Of The Infrastructure Bill's Impaired Driving Sensors
Slight Alteration
Change the mandate to ensure that all collected data then gets stored in encrypted form, with only the user in possession of the decryption key, and watch all support for the measure to evaporate.
On the post: GOP Very Excited To Be Handed An FCC Voting Majority By Joe Biden
Create Urgency
Perhaps there is a fundraising or voter turnout benefit to delaying. If a permanent commissioner is confirmed, there may be less of a motivation around election time. On the other hand, if it's a crisis, then they can send out some campaign ads along the lines of "vote for us, and donate, or else republicans will take over!" Of course, it would be a crisis of their own making, but noone is going to pay attention.
On the post: House Democrats Decide To Hand Facebook The Internet By Unconstitutionally Taking Section 230 Away From Algorithms
Smarter Than I Thought
That's okay because these news outlets are publishers, and not platforms. The editors get the choice about what to promote, but they are also liable for what they publish. I have to give the drafters some credit here -- it looks as if they understand at least some of the publisher/platform problem. The 1996 CDA was a compromise bill, so perhaps there is room for the two sides to come together.
Just like how the cigarette industry knew it was selling a carcinogenic product, even though they went along begrudgingly with the warning labels, and was found liable for causing harm. Social media: the tobacco product of the internet.
On the post: Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants
Re:
Well, Facebook would hate me. I'm anti-moderation.
On the post: Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants
Re: Re: Government Ally
They said the same thing about Big Tobacco back in the days. The biggest fatcat lawyers in the world didn't save them from liability. You're right that they don't care about the little guys. But what I'm saying is that they're primarily interested in saving themselves.
On the post: Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants
Government Ally
Facebook, the tobacco product of the internet, may be looking back at history for guidance. Cigarette companies generally operated with a denial strategy, which prolonged the outcome, but ultimately ended up with the nicotine producers facing crippling regulations, massive fines, and a product in declining use.
Facebook may someday experience the same fate in court. But it might end differently if they could just tell the judge that they followed all the rules, and be able to say "we did everything the government asked".
On the post: Charter Spectrum Threatens To Ruin Potential Customers Over Debt They Don't Owe
Metastasize
Credit card companies have been doing something similar for many years. Some will attempt to contact a delinquent customer and offer to reactivate the card if they make a payment to bring the account current. The kicker is that the consumer actually owes the bill. I can understand one sleazy company taking ideas from another. But using it as a threat to retain customers who don't owe anything is unconscionable.
On the post: Facebook Banning & Threatening People For Making Facebook Better Is Everything That's Wrong With Facebook
It's No Wonder
Social media: the tobacco products of the internet.
On the post: Why Section 230 'Reform' Effectively Means Section 230 Repeal
Sign Of Growth
Numerous other industries have had to go through this same process. The scale doesn't matter. Everyone has a vehicle in their driveway. Everyone has a credit card in their wallet. Companies faced the prospect of class action lawsuits from millions of customers. In many cases, the industries helped shape the laws that would govern their product. Others fought serial litigants in court to establish precedent. But it wasn't easy. However, it did result in a more predictable product, one with which customers are more satisfied. Section 230 could use a lemon law.
On the post: FCC's 'New' Robocall Plan Isn't Particularly New, Won't Seriously Reduce Robocalls
Overseas and Untouchable
I've been receiving spam calls for years, well before this court decision. Facebook v Duguid only deals with autodialers. While the call centers on the other side of the globe are indeed using what would be considered an illegal autodialer to place calls, they are beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. authorities. The FCC needs to target the gateway providers that are funneling Illegitimate calls into the country, rather than nitpick the mostly legitimate customer service centers that are still based on this continent. The autodialer TCPA rules can't be used against a gateway because the gateway doesn't own or control an autodialer. Instead, the gateway providers should be shut down for illegal spoofing.
On the post: Apparently Someone Doesn't Want You To Buy Our Copymouse Shirt
No Reason, No Legitimacy
Remember, if they can't state the reason for the takedown, then you can rest assured that it is censorship.
On the post: CNN Shutting Down Its Facebook In Australia Shows How Removing 230 Will Silence Speech
Wrong Pairing
The Australian situation is that the authorities are removing intermediary liability protections, while also demanding more censorship. As discussed at length, this seems undoable. However, not everyone wants to take this same approach. The alternative is to remove intermediary liability protection FOR those that engage in censorship. And that part can be easily accomplished by content hosts, as evidenced by the Cubby v Compuserve era of a hands off style.
On the post: If Your Takeaway From Facebook's Whistleblower Is That Section 230 Needs Reform, You Just Got Played By Facebook
Revolving Door
We've pointed out how some corporate executives have government officials, which often involves them in charge of regulating the very companies for which they were formerly employed. And then after their time in government, they magically get a cushy and well-paying job back at the corporation. Very crony. Haugen testified that she wants to see a government division in charge of regulating internet companies. Make no mistake -- the system will be rigged.
Next >>