the proof required for copyright infringement has never been too accurate or even vald. It's enough that there's some flimsy evidence pointing to the correct direction.
The law shouldn’t allow people to be punished for crimes they didn’t commit—and in a more fair world, it wouldn’t allow people to be punished on the basis of weak claims backed up with flimsy evidence. To wit: Replace “copyright infringement” with “murder”, “theft”, or “kidnapping” to see how fucked up your statement sounds. Then remember that people have been convicted of, and jailed for, crimes they didn’t commit on the basis of flimsy evidence (e.g., the Central Park Five).
Does punishing innocent people—or lowering the standards of evidence for proving guilt—provide any sort of justice, or do you not even care so long as other people get fucked over by the legal system?
Global systems already run according to highly unsustainable systems that the above points would have been achieved even if COVID-19 wasn't a thing.
The whole “labor shortage” thing is a prime example. We wouldn’t have those kinds of shortages right now if bosses and corporations didn’t see people quitting jobs over low pay for dehumanizing work conditions as a reason to make whoever’s left take on all the extra work with fewer-to-no breaks—which, ironically, only makes people want to quit faster.
Did Facebook make a knowingly false statement about Stossel with reckless disregard for the truth? If the answer is either “no” or “yes, but that can’t be proven”, Stossel has no chance of getting past a motion to dismiss.
And arguing that Facebook has actual malice towards Stossel will be a similarly steep hill to climb. Plenty of evidence proves Facebook often protects conservative/“non-liberal” users and content from moderation, but I see no evidence that shows it has a bias against Stossel.
Yelling “defamation” on social media is one thing. Yelling “defamation” in a court of law when no defamation has taken place is a whole other thing—which is to say, it’s an attempted act of blatant censorship by way of the courts.
Under Section 230, he can go after those who attributed him incorrectly. If those organizations happen to be owned by Facebook, he can sue on those grounds only.
Again: Section 230 doesn’t apply to first-party speech. But if he wants to sue over that speech, he still has to overcome the “prove it’s defamation” bar, which he likely won’t be able to do.
47 U.S.C. § 230 protects interactive web services from liability for third-party speech (i.e., speech from people like you and me). It does no such thing for first-party speech (i.e., speech from the service itself). The First Amendment protects first- and third-party speech unless it is ruled defamatory (or is already unlawful). What Section 230 does is short-circuit lawsuits designed to go after the platform instead of the speaker because the platform has a bigger bank account.
4chan is more than a “standard porn site”. Stick around on /b/ for an hour and find that out for yourself.
I used to browse /b/ back when people could actually keep up with that board. I saw shit no rational person should ever want to see—and I’m not talking only about meme-ified shit like Tubgirl or Goatse. (Don’t look those up if you value your appetite, BTW.) /b/ is where sense, taste, and sanity go to die. It’s a board that, at its most extreme, would psychologically harm anybody who browses it regularly and isn’t a sociopath.
And that’s what you think social media services should inflict upon the average user because “freedom”.
Like I said: Browse /b/ for an hour. View every image and read every word on the front page, then refresh the page and do it all over again. Don’t skip anything, but also don’t open threads and don’t browse the back pages—stick only to the front page. If you still think “social media should be like this” after completing that challenge, you’re either a sociopath or you’ve lost your goddamn mind.
I have a challenge for you that will put your belief to the test.
Go to 4chan and browse /b/ for an hour. You don't have to view individual threads or back pages; you need only view the front page. And when I say “view the front page”, I mean it: You will open every image and read every word. You must take it all in, no matter what, to get the full experience of what it means to be a /b/ user.
I doubt you will still believe that all social media should be like /b/ after you’ve experienced /b/ for yourself. Hell, I doubt you’d be able to survive the full hour without some level of psychological damage. But I wish you luck in trying.
Fact checking is not moderation; it is an attempt by the platform to engage speech with which they disagree by making their own statements.
That speech is still protected by the First Amendment.
FB's own official determination of fact was non-factual.
That doesn’t make it defamatory per se, especially when dealing with a public figure.
I predict that this lawsuit will not be seen as frivolous by FB, on the basis that they will not try to win the case on the merits. Instead, they will seek a dismissal based on grounds that their speech did not reach the level of actual malice, or perhaps 230.
And they will likely win that dismissal.
If you’re going to whine some more, may I suggest a nice cheese to go with it?
They won’t lose the rights; if anything, this would create a co-licensor situation similar to what DC likely has going on these days with the Siegel and Schuster estates in re: Superman. Marvel—well, Disney, if we’re being accurate here—could still license out and use Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, and the rest, but they would have to work with (and compensate) the Ditko estate on such matters.
I don’t think any of this is good—copyrights on those characters should’ve expired at least a couple of decades ago, no one should be allowed to inherit copyrights (and profit off them), and corporations suck in general. If I were forced to say which side I was on in this fight, though? Well, I have a six-word reply for that:
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
The law shouldn’t allow people to be punished for crimes they didn’t commit—and in a more fair world, it wouldn’t allow people to be punished on the basis of weak claims backed up with flimsy evidence. To wit: Replace “copyright infringement” with “murder”, “theft”, or “kidnapping” to see how fucked up your statement sounds. Then remember that people have been convicted of, and jailed for, crimes they didn’t commit on the basis of flimsy evidence (e.g., the Central Park Five).
Does punishing innocent people—or lowering the standards of evidence for proving guilt—provide any sort of justice, or do you not even care so long as other people get fucked over by the legal system?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
The whole “labor shortage” thing is a prime example. We wouldn’t have those kinds of shortages right now if bosses and corporations didn’t see people quitting jobs over low pay for dehumanizing work conditions as a reason to make whoever’s left take on all the extra work with fewer-to-no breaks—which, ironically, only makes people want to quit faster.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Enjoy your life-long health problems, then—regardless of how long your life is after you catch COVID.
On the post: Copyright Continues To Be Abused To Censor Critics By Entities Both Big And Small
The platform isn’t the problem.
The broken copyright system that can be abused regardless of the platform it’s aimed at is the problem.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
Did Facebook make a knowingly false statement about Stossel with reckless disregard for the truth? If the answer is either “no” or “yes, but that can’t be proven”, Stossel has no chance of getting past a motion to dismiss.
And arguing that Facebook has actual malice towards Stossel will be a similarly steep hill to climb. Plenty of evidence proves Facebook often protects conservative/“non-liberal” users and content from moderation, but I see no evidence that shows it has a bias against Stossel.
Yelling “defamation” on social media is one thing. Yelling “defamation” in a court of law when no defamation has taken place is a whole other thing—which is to say, it’s an attempted act of blatant censorship by way of the courts.
On the post: Facebook's Latest Scandals: The Banality Of Hubris; The Messiness Of Humanity
That’s very progressive of Facebook, letting an actual vampire serve on the board.
On the post: Facebook's Latest Scandals: The Banality Of Hubris; The Messiness Of Humanity
Instagram isn’t helping in that regard, though.
On the post: Facebook's Latest Scandals: The Banality Of Hubris; The Messiness Of Humanity
One can criticize Facebook without resorting to bad faith tactics like always painting everything it does in a negative light.
On the post: Clearview Suffers Brief Bout Of Better Judgment, Drops Subpoena Demanding Activists' Communications With Journalists
“Oh, we shot our own feet? Shit, we better patch that up quick so we don’t look like idiots.” — Clearview’s CEO, probably
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
Again: Section 230 doesn’t apply to first-party speech. But if he wants to sue over that speech, he still has to overcome the “prove it’s defamation” bar, which he likely won’t be able to do.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
47 U.S.C. § 230 protects interactive web services from liability for third-party speech (i.e., speech from people like you and me). It does no such thing for first-party speech (i.e., speech from the service itself). The First Amendment protects first- and third-party speech unless it is ruled defamatory (or is already unlawful). What Section 230 does is short-circuit lawsuits designed to go after the platform instead of the speaker because the platform has a bigger bank account.
On the post: Court To Sheriff: Sending An Officer To Tell A Teen To Delete Instagram Posts Is So Very Obviously A Rights Violation
I expect to hear from our usual anti-“censorship” brigade about this blatant act of censorship.
Any second now, I’m sure…
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
If it’s speech from Facebook itself, it isn’t covered by 230.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
ahahahaha, no
4chan is more than a “standard porn site”. Stick around on /b/ for an hour and find that out for yourself.
I used to browse /b/ back when people could actually keep up with that board. I saw shit no rational person should ever want to see—and I’m not talking only about meme-ified shit like Tubgirl or Goatse. (Don’t look those up if you value your appetite, BTW.) /b/ is where sense, taste, and sanity go to die. It’s a board that, at its most extreme, would psychologically harm anybody who browses it regularly and isn’t a sociopath.
And that’s what you think social media services should inflict upon the average user because “freedom”.
Like I said: Browse /b/ for an hour. View every image and read every word on the front page, then refresh the page and do it all over again. Don’t skip anything, but also don’t open threads and don’t browse the back pages—stick only to the front page. If you still think “social media should be like this” after completing that challenge, you’re either a sociopath or you’ve lost your goddamn mind.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
I have a challenge for you that will put your belief to the test.
Go to 4chan and browse /b/ for an hour. You don't have to view individual threads or back pages; you need only view the front page. And when I say “view the front page”, I mean it: You will open every image and read every word. You must take it all in, no matter what, to get the full experience of what it means to be a /b/ user.
I doubt you will still believe that all social media should be like /b/ after you’ve experienced /b/ for yourself. Hell, I doubt you’d be able to survive the full hour without some level of psychological damage. But I wish you luck in trying.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
I suggest going somewhere fuckin’ else if you’re so fuckin’ upset by a little fuckin’ profanity. This isn’t a fuckin’ daycare center, son.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
That speech is still protected by the First Amendment.
That doesn’t make it defamatory per se, especially when dealing with a public figure.
And they will likely win that dismissal.
If you’re going to whine some more, may I suggest a nice cheese to go with it?
On the post: The Future Of Streaming TV Looks Increasingly Like Cable, But Free
And for in-the-actual-video promotions/sponsor segments, there’s SponsorBlock.
On the post: Marvel Hit Once Again By Estate For Some Spider-Man, Doctor Strange Copyright Terminations
They won’t lose the rights; if anything, this would create a co-licensor situation similar to what DC likely has going on these days with the Siegel and Schuster estates in re: Superman. Marvel—well, Disney, if we’re being accurate here—could still license out and use Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, and the rest, but they would have to work with (and compensate) the Ditko estate on such matters.
I don’t think any of this is good—copyrights on those characters should’ve expired at least a couple of decades ago, no one should be allowed to inherit copyrights (and profit off them), and corporations suck in general. If I were forced to say which side I was on in this fight, though? Well, I have a six-word reply for that:
Kill the Mouse; take his House.
On the post: Techdirt's 'Plagiarism Collection': A Plagiarized Set Of NFTs About Plagiarism
lolwut
Next >>