For the most part, the US does not allow for fee shifting, so it's likely that everyone pays their own. There are some provisions for free shifting for objectively unreasonable copyright claims, so perhaps Cloudflare will move to have its fees covered, but who knows if the judge will go for it.
Count me among those at Techdirt who think this ruling is wrong
Tim, I think both you and the judges are misreading/misunderstanding both defamation law and California's anti-SLAPP law. The cited interpretation of actual malice is misleading and I'm shocked that the court thought that a prima facie case of actual malice was made.
Under this kind of ruling, California's anti-SLAPP law (considered more or less the gold standard) is a dead letter. Under this kind of ruling, anyone can get around an anti-SLAPP claim by simply insisting that what the defendant said was untrue and that not enough investigation was done. Yet, that's not the actual malice standard at all.
And discovery tends not to be where things get more interesting. It's where things get stupidly expensive, leading most cases to try to settle. That's part of the reason why anti-SLAPP laws like California's are so damn important. Because if you can route around them, as was done in this case, it enables the ridiculous expenses of SLAPP suits to move forward -- especially in cases like this where even the judges find the actual evidence of defamation underwhelming.
But the platforms have every right to do that, moderation discretion, freedom of association and all that. Isn't it right, Mr. Masnick?
Of course they have every right to. Just as I have every right to criticize them for that decision.
And now for the serious part: This is the logical conclusion of allowing too muvh moderation freedom.
No, it's not. Don't be foolish.
Removing content by platforms should be illegal
That's ridiculous and shows a total lack of understanding of anything.
very few narrowly defined situations such as illegal content such as CSAM, copyrighted works, SPAM in the most narrow definition (unsolicited advertisements of products), etc
So a website for kids must allow hate speech and nazis? Yeah, sure, that'll make sense.
Your "solution" is to make sure that the internet is garbage and no one can ever curate a better more focused kind of community. There are knitting communities that say "no politics" but under your idiotic idea that would no longer be allowed.
This shows a stunning ignorance of reality. Educate yourself.
That's just silly. It wasn't crafted by Facebook, but it was crafted by those with an agenda. The whistleblower had a PR team ready to go, one that was attached the misleading "Social Dilemma" documentary. And the WSJ articles -> 60 Minutes -> Congress was lined up a few weeks ago, not in 2 days.
I would disagree (strongly) with the idea that Konstantinos doesn't know what he's talking about. He's making the point that there are a lot more nuances here than simplistic analyses take into account.
No, those companies (Cloudflare et al.) are not moderating content (speech), they are simply choosing with whom they may wish to associate
Do you think phone companies should be able to deny service to people they dislike? ISPs? Imagine Comcast said they won't provide me with service any more because they don't like what I write. Is that okay? It's not as simple as you make it out to be. That's what Konstantinos is noting here.
They have not actually thought through all of the ramifications of what they're allegedly pondering before they make their proposals.
I'm going to argue, at least in the case of Konstantinos that line applies much more to what you have said than to what he said. He has spent more time than most working on this very issue. Day in, day out.
And now we see the biggest snafu yet, the conflation I mention in the first paragraph
It's not a conflation. He's accurately noting the impact here. It's on speech. That matters.
Meanwhile, I'll just point out to the people who keep saying "well he defined it correctly an hour earlier," I don't see how that's the winning argument you think it is. The statement he made here clearly shows that he did not understand the definition that he read an hour earlier. To me, that alone is damning.
Hey, sorry about that -- but the event is designed to be interactive/workshop/discussion based, so it really does require being able to see/talk with others.
My interpertation of the unfortunately worded question is he was asking whether Instagram would do more to try to prevent under 13s from setting up accounts, lying about their age, and perhaps better enforcing their real name policy. We can debate the merits of real name policies but it is an actual policy that Facebook created themselves so it's fair to ask about it.
And I did discuss that in the article. And I discussed how clueless it is to think that you can "end" such accounts. Completely and totally ignorant and out of touch.
Koby, this is just wrong. 230 was designed to be an ALTERNATIVE to the CDA from Senator Exon. It was only merged together late in the process as the Senate (CDA) and the House (230) versions of the bill had to be reconciled. The backers of 230 always had designed it to be there instead of Exon's bill, and the Supreme Court made that reality.
Please, stop spewing blatantly false information and educate yourself.
On the post: Own A Bit Of Plagiarism: Our Plagiarism Collection NFT Auction Close This Wednesday
Re: NFT, what?
I'd recommend listening to this to understand my view on NFTs:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20211019/12423947779/techdirt-podcast-episode-301-scarcity-a bundance-nfts.shtml
On the post: Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where did Bart go?
On the post: Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate
Re:
The vaccine does nothing to stop the "spread of the virus". We've known that since July.
I mean literally yesterday yet another study proved this to be bullshit.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2113864
Get the fuck out of here with your plague spreading nonsense.
On the post: Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites
Re:
For the most part, the US does not allow for fee shifting, so it's likely that everyone pays their own. There are some provisions for free shifting for objectively unreasonable copyright claims, so perhaps Cloudflare will move to have its fees covered, but who knows if the judge will go for it.
On the post: Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord
Re: Sign up Sign in.......
It's not a requirement -- just if you want to support the site and join the chat.
On the post: Billy Mitchell Survives Anti-SLAPP Motion From Twin Galaxies A Second Time
Count me among those at Techdirt who think this ruling is wrong
Tim, I think both you and the judges are misreading/misunderstanding both defamation law and California's anti-SLAPP law. The cited interpretation of actual malice is misleading and I'm shocked that the court thought that a prima facie case of actual malice was made.
Under this kind of ruling, California's anti-SLAPP law (considered more or less the gold standard) is a dead letter. Under this kind of ruling, anyone can get around an anti-SLAPP claim by simply insisting that what the defendant said was untrue and that not enough investigation was done. Yet, that's not the actual malice standard at all.
And discovery tends not to be where things get more interesting. It's where things get stupidly expensive, leading most cases to try to settle. That's part of the reason why anti-SLAPP laws like California's are so damn important. Because if you can route around them, as was done in this case, it enables the ridiculous expenses of SLAPP suits to move forward -- especially in cases like this where even the judges find the actual evidence of defamation underwhelming.
On the post: Facebook Banning & Threatening People For Making Facebook Better Is Everything That's Wrong With Facebook
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, there are people who think that corporate personhood shouldn't be a thing
I do know that. And I think people who hold that view tend to be fairly ignorant of what that would mean in practice.
On the post: Facebook Banning & Threatening People For Making Facebook Better Is Everything That's Wrong With Facebook
Re: Re: Re:
First amendment should not apply to businesses, only individuals. Personal freedom > corporate freedom
So, the NY Times/Fox News/CNN/Washington Post/Pro Publica/USA Today... all of those should have no 1st Amendment protections?
Really?
On the post: Facebook Banning & Threatening People For Making Facebook Better Is Everything That's Wrong With Facebook
Re:
But the platforms have every right to do that, moderation discretion, freedom of association and all that. Isn't it right, Mr. Masnick?
Of course they have every right to. Just as I have every right to criticize them for that decision.
And now for the serious part: This is the logical conclusion of allowing too muvh moderation freedom.
No, it's not. Don't be foolish.
Removing content by platforms should be illegal
That's ridiculous and shows a total lack of understanding of anything.
very few narrowly defined situations such as illegal content such as CSAM, copyrighted works, SPAM in the most narrow definition (unsolicited advertisements of products), etc
So a website for kids must allow hate speech and nazis? Yeah, sure, that'll make sense.
Your "solution" is to make sure that the internet is garbage and no one can ever curate a better more focused kind of community. There are knitting communities that say "no politics" but under your idiotic idea that would no longer be allowed.
This shows a stunning ignorance of reality. Educate yourself.
It's the only way to prevent abuse such as this.
No. It's not.
On the post: Trump Asks Court To Reinstate His Twitter Account ASAP
Re: A Travesty
So, all spam must be allowed? Child sexual abuse material? Kids exposed to porn? Copyright infringement?
Interesting choice, restless, to expose your near total ignorance of how all this works, but okay.
On the post: Apparently Someone Doesn't Want You To Buy Our Copymouse Shirt
Re: No Reason, No Legitimacy
That's not at all how it works. Your statement is meaningless nonsense.
On the post: If Your Takeaway From Facebook's Whistleblower Is That Section 230 Needs Reform, You Just Got Played By Facebook
Re: Re:
That's just silly. It wasn't crafted by Facebook, but it was crafted by those with an agenda. The whistleblower had a PR team ready to go, one that was attached the misleading "Social Dilemma" documentary. And the WSJ articles -> 60 Minutes -> Congress was lined up a few weeks ago, not in 2 days.
On the post: AT&T Set Up And Paid For OAN Propaganda Network; Yet Everyone Wants To Scream About Facebook
Re: Re:
Yup, saw your comment and updated the headline...
On the post: Infrastructure And Content Moderation: Challenges And Opportunities
Re:
I would disagree (strongly) with the idea that Konstantinos doesn't know what he's talking about. He's making the point that there are a lot more nuances here than simplistic analyses take into account.
No, those companies (Cloudflare et al.) are not moderating content (speech), they are simply choosing with whom they may wish to associate
Do you think phone companies should be able to deny service to people they dislike? ISPs? Imagine Comcast said they won't provide me with service any more because they don't like what I write. Is that okay? It's not as simple as you make it out to be. That's what Konstantinos is noting here.
They have not actually thought through all of the ramifications of what they're allegedly pondering before they make their proposals.
I'm going to argue, at least in the case of Konstantinos that line applies much more to what you have said than to what he said. He has spent more time than most working on this very issue. Day in, day out.
And now we see the biggest snafu yet, the conflation I mention in the first paragraph
It's not a conflation. He's accurately noting the impact here. It's on speech. That matters.
On the post: Blumenthal's Finsta Debacle: It Remains Unacceptable That Our Politicians Are So Clueless About The Internet
Re: Re:
Meanwhile, I'll just point out to the people who keep saying "well he defined it correctly an hour earlier," I don't see how that's the winning argument you think it is. The statement he made here clearly shows that he did not understand the definition that he read an hour earlier. To me, that alone is damning.
On the post: Against 'Content Moderation' And The Concentration Of Power
Re: Not Compatible!? Really?
Hey, sorry about that -- but the event is designed to be interactive/workshop/discussion based, so it really does require being able to see/talk with others.
On the post: Blumenthal's Finsta Debacle: It Remains Unacceptable That Our Politicians Are So Clueless About The Internet
Re:
My interpertation of the unfortunately worded question is he was asking whether Instagram would do more to try to prevent under 13s from setting up accounts, lying about their age, and perhaps better enforcing their real name policy. We can debate the merits of real name policies but it is an actual policy that Facebook created themselves so it's fair to ask about it.
And I did discuss that in the article. And I discussed how clueless it is to think that you can "end" such accounts. Completely and totally ignorant and out of touch.
On the post: Facebook's Latest Scandals: The Banality Of Hubris; The Messiness Of Humanity
Re:
Because I don't buy into bogus narratives not supported by the evidence. Sorry.
Also, Peter Thiel is a board member, not an executive at the company. Those are very, very different things.
On the post: Clearview Suffers Brief Bout Of Better Judgment, Drops Subpoena Demanding Activists' Communications With Journalists
Re:
Subpoena in a civil suit does not require court approval...
On the post: The Rule Of Fences, And Why Congress Needs To Temper Its Appetite To Undermine Internet Service Provider Liability Protection
Re: Remember The First Half
Koby, this is just wrong. 230 was designed to be an ALTERNATIVE to the CDA from Senator Exon. It was only merged together late in the process as the Senate (CDA) and the House (230) versions of the bill had to be reconciled. The backers of 230 always had designed it to be there instead of Exon's bill, and the Supreme Court made that reality.
Please, stop spewing blatantly false information and educate yourself.
Next >>