Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reason doesn't stop YOU from misrepresenting
Finally, people who repeat the lies they find on the internet are taking great risks, because they may not realize that the source (usually a search engine) is immune, but they are NOT immune if they use their own words without attribution (which many people omit because they don't want it known they found it on 4Chan, etc.).
None of that matters if no actual harm has been done. The troll who targeted me contacted my employers directly and tried to get me fired. He failed because he could produce no evidence to back up his assertions.
When the police confirmed that I wasn't being investigated for committing any crimes, that was the end of the matter. As I've explained over and over again, if your conduct doesn't tally with the allegations made about you, no one will believe them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reason doesn't stop YOU from misrepresenting
ROR accepts troll posts, AC. It is not a reliable source of information on service providers, per my personal experience.
The other review sites accepted the evidence I provided that the posts about me were from a troll but ROR just wanted me to pay to have their posts downgraded in the search results. However, to be fair, they allowed me to post a rebuttal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reason doesn't stop YOU from misrepresenting
Sites like Ripoff Report could not exist without Section 230. If you support 230, you are supporting sites like Ripoff Report.
Supporting Section 230 means supporting all sites. I've yet to see your response to my posts about my personal experience with ROR, to wit, no actual harm done to me or to my reputation.
-Lies posted online don't affect your reputation, your own conduct does, as demonstrated by my personal experience.-
True. Also, mean or untrue comments aren't defamatory until actual harm is caused, per my own personal experience; no real harm was done to myself or to my reputation.
And nobody contested my assertion that my reputation is that of a feisty, curious, but generally friendly person. Not even our AC who constantly whines about Section 230. Funny, that.
If that's true, Cdaragorn, your father did a good thing. Unfortunately that's not always the case. We've got Western powers and the Russians fighting dirty proxy wars in Syria, Ukraine, and South American countries and that is where the refugees are coming from now.
In Afghanistan, the US was actually supporting child abusers.
Imagine being told to shut up and ignore this because we don't want to upset the warlords we like in case they stop fighting against the warlords we don't like. Don't get me started on the Opium.
The Iraqi conflict was based on lies (the 9/11 attackers were predominantly Saudi Arabs) and claimed more than a million lives.
When military action is based more around ideology than solid facts, we're going to make a bigger mess than the problem we're hoping to solve in the first place.
The many factors and data points you choose to ignore because you found a scary-sounding raw number.
Including the fact that American foreign policy created the conditions that drove them from their homes. Mad idea: stop interfering in other countries' internal affairs and see the immigration numbers drop.
If you see no extra harm in a search engine archiving defamation from any corner of the internet, and refusing to remove it, while retaining immunity, you've pretty much supported a status quo which makes it impossible for people to protect their reputations if attacked in that manner.
That ROR post about me is still up, along with my rebuttal. I protected my reputation by posting the rebuttal and by continuing to behave as I always do: I'm feisty, curious, and generally friendly. That's my reputation. Would anyone care to disagree in the light of all the negative crap trolls sometimes post about me?
People should have the means to protect their reputation.
Don't behave badly on or offline. Then, if someone says something horrible about you, when people check you out they will see it's not true. This happened to me.
Middle ground would be eliminating the single-publication rule, or allowing ex-parte actions against anonymous posters who cannot be traced.
Do you really want a reputation for being thin-skinned?
Section 230, used properly, is a good law, but it has rough edges which need to be smoothed out. Distributor liability has the element of 230 that foreknowledge is required or the intermediary is immune.
So? It's the poster who's to blame, and even the most egregiously defamatory speech isn't considered defamatory until it causes harm in real life. The only harm I suffered when it happened to me is being called into the office to explain myself. I was promoted some time after that. what harm? Meanwhile, the troll has zero credibility.
Why would people want search engines weaponized?
How can a search engine be weaponised? It simply returns search results.
Anonymous defamation is actually a harassment crime in many states.
Yes, but that's what mute and block buttons are for. I use them all the time when people annoy me. We don't have to put up with trolls, etc., at all.
Honestly, it seems to me that refusing to engage with them is the better way. Too many people see a need to interact with them and have the last word. It's a stupid way to behave. Ignore, mute or block, and move on.
Which would reduce our ability to interact with each other just because some people can't behave themselves. Individuals are personally responsible for their own behaviour. It's ridiculous to hold a platform responsible for user behaviour.
^This. Any moderation on a site with a large readership won't work well at scale as the admins would have to automate moderation via keywords as the cost of hiring people to manually go through each reported post (assuming that's when the moderation kicks in) to see what is or isn't acceptable.
So you don't think Ripoff Report exploits Section 230 or relies on sites like Google to spread their words?
As one who was defamed on ROR, no. It has the option to moderate or not. If they get sued, they will only remove the words deemed defamatory in a court of law; the rest of the negativity (the parts that are purely opinion) remain up. Section 23 isn't responsible for this, they are. Search engines don't spread anything, they simply index content. I blame no one but the troll who posted that content for what was posted there.
In ROR's defense, they allowed me to post a rebuttal, so every time someone reads the troll post, they can read the rebuttal too.
tl:dr; if anyone attempts a violent revolution against a stable, established government, they will soon find themselves arraigned on charges of terrorism... unless the authorities have them shot first to save the bother of a trial.
Re: morrison is in a very dangerous place right now
Anyone who thinks Rupert Murdoch is a force for good needs their head read. While he has described himself as libertarian he's not interested in the public good and as a one percenter he's all about the rich, and rule thereby.
On the post: Court Says Section 230 Shields Twitter From Revenge Porn Bro's Stupid Lawsuit
Re: Re: A real shame I tell ya
Just for fun, I'd be interested to learn who he'd blame for "spreading it."
On the post: Historical Documentation Of Key Section 230 Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reason doesn't stop YOU from misrepresenting
Finally, people who repeat the lies they find on the internet are taking great risks, because they may not realize that the source (usually a search engine) is immune, but they are NOT immune if they use their own words without attribution (which many people omit because they don't want it known they found it on 4Chan, etc.).
None of that matters if no actual harm has been done. The troll who targeted me contacted my employers directly and tried to get me fired. He failed because he could produce no evidence to back up his assertions.
When the police confirmed that I wasn't being investigated for committing any crimes, that was the end of the matter. As I've explained over and over again, if your conduct doesn't tally with the allegations made about you, no one will believe them.
On the post: Historical Documentation Of Key Section 230 Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reason doesn't stop YOU from misrepresenting
ROR accepts troll posts, AC. It is not a reliable source of information on service providers, per my personal experience.
The other review sites accepted the evidence I provided that the posts about me were from a troll but ROR just wanted me to pay to have their posts downgraded in the search results. However, to be fair, they allowed me to post a rebuttal.
On the post: Historical Documentation Of Key Section 230 Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reason doesn't stop YOU from misrepresenting
Sites like Ripoff Report could not exist without Section 230. If you support 230, you are supporting sites like Ripoff Report.
Supporting Section 230 means supporting all sites. I've yet to see your response to my posts about my personal experience with ROR, to wit, no actual harm done to me or to my reputation.
-Lies posted online don't affect your reputation, your own conduct does, as demonstrated by my personal experience.-
On the post: Historical Documentation Of Key Section 230 Cases
Re:
True. Also, mean or untrue comments aren't defamatory until actual harm is caused, per my own personal experience; no real harm was done to myself or to my reputation.
And nobody contested my assertion that my reputation is that of a feisty, curious, but generally friendly person. Not even our AC who constantly whines about Section 230. Funny, that.
On the post: Historical Documentation Of Key Section 230 Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reason doesn't stop YOU from misrepresenting
He's also never responded to my posts about my personal experiences. Not surprising when fantasy trumps reality.
On the post: ICE Is Cramming Immigrants Into Filthy, Overcrowded Facilities
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like a situation ripe for a lawsuit
False assertion. No, they can't since the only result of fighting their situation would be said death/rape/starvation.
^This.
On the post: ICE Is Cramming Immigrants Into Filthy, Overcrowded Facilities
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like
If that's true, Cdaragorn, your father did a good thing. Unfortunately that's not always the case. We've got Western powers and the Russians fighting dirty proxy wars in Syria, Ukraine, and South American countries and that is where the refugees are coming from now.
In Afghanistan, the US was actually supporting child abusers.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-enduring-bacha-bazi-problem-afghanistan-23557
Imagine being told to shut up and ignore this because we don't want to upset the warlords we like in case they stop fighting against the warlords we don't like. Don't get me started on the Opium.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47861444
The Iraqi conflict was based on lies (the 9/11 attackers were predominantly Saudi Arabs) and claimed more than a million lives.
When military action is based more around ideology than solid facts, we're going to make a bigger mess than the problem we're hoping to solve in the first place.
On the post: ICE Is Cramming Immigrants Into Filthy, Overcrowded Facilities
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like
The many factors and data points you choose to ignore because you found a scary-sounding raw number.
Including the fact that American foreign policy created the conditions that drove them from their homes. Mad idea: stop interfering in other countries' internal affairs and see the immigration numbers drop.
On the post: Mathew Higbee Cuts And Runs When Finally Challenged On A Questionable Shakedown
Re: Re: Re:
If you see no extra harm in a search engine archiving defamation from any corner of the internet, and refusing to remove it, while retaining immunity, you've pretty much supported a status quo which makes it impossible for people to protect their reputations if attacked in that manner.
That ROR post about me is still up, along with my rebuttal. I protected my reputation by posting the rebuttal and by continuing to behave as I always do: I'm feisty, curious, and generally friendly. That's my reputation. Would anyone care to disagree in the light of all the negative crap trolls sometimes post about me?
On the post: Mathew Higbee Cuts And Runs When Finally Challenged On A Questionable Shakedown
Re: Re:
People should have the means to protect their reputation.
Don't behave badly on or offline. Then, if someone says something horrible about you, when people check you out they will see it's not true. This happened to me.
Middle ground would be eliminating the single-publication rule, or allowing ex-parte actions against anonymous posters who cannot be traced.
Do you really want a reputation for being thin-skinned?
Section 230, used properly, is a good law, but it has rough edges which need to be smoothed out. Distributor liability has the element of 230 that foreknowledge is required or the intermediary is immune.
So? It's the poster who's to blame, and even the most egregiously defamatory speech isn't considered defamatory until it causes harm in real life. The only harm I suffered when it happened to me is being called into the office to explain myself. I was promoted some time after that. what harm? Meanwhile, the troll has zero credibility.
Why would people want search engines weaponized?
How can a search engine be weaponised? It simply returns search results.
Anonymous defamation is actually a harassment crime in many states.
Which ones?
On the post: Whining About Big Tech Doesn't Protect Journalism
Re: Re: Re: Anonymously incorrect coward
So what? To learn more about the crash than the headline and a snippet they have to click through to the site.
I don't like clicking on links without knowing where they're going to.
On the post: Republicans Blame CDA 230 For Letting Platforms Censor Too Much; Democrats Blame CDA 230 For Platforms Not Censoring Enough
Re: Re:
Yes, but that's what mute and block buttons are for. I use them all the time when people annoy me. We don't have to put up with trolls, etc., at all.
Honestly, it seems to me that refusing to engage with them is the better way. Too many people see a need to interact with them and have the last word. It's a stupid way to behave. Ignore, mute or block, and move on.
On the post: Republicans Blame CDA 230 For Letting Platforms Censor Too Much; Democrats Blame CDA 230 For Platforms Not Censoring Enough
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which would reduce our ability to interact with each other just because some people can't behave themselves. Individuals are personally responsible for their own behaviour. It's ridiculous to hold a platform responsible for user behaviour.
On the post: Republicans Blame CDA 230 For Letting Platforms Censor Too Much; Democrats Blame CDA 230 For Platforms Not Censoring Enough
Re: Re:
^This. Any moderation on a site with a large readership won't work well at scale as the admins would have to automate moderation via keywords as the cost of hiring people to manually go through each reported post (assuming that's when the moderation kicks in) to see what is or isn't acceptable.
On the post: Republicans Blame CDA 230 For Letting Platforms Censor Too Much; Democrats Blame CDA 230 For Platforms Not Censoring Enough
Re:
What Stephen said. When the troll came after me, I was able to prove it was a troll post. I not only kept my job, I was promoted.
On the post: Republicans Blame CDA 230 For Letting Platforms Censor Too Much; Democrats Blame CDA 230 For Platforms Not Censoring Enough
Re: Re:
So you don't think Ripoff Report exploits Section 230 or relies on sites like Google to spread their words?
As one who was defamed on ROR, no. It has the option to moderate or not. If they get sued, they will only remove the words deemed defamatory in a court of law; the rest of the negativity (the parts that are purely opinion) remain up. Section 23 isn't responsible for this, they are. Search engines don't spread anything, they simply index content. I blame no one but the troll who posted that content for what was posted there.
In ROR's defense, they allowed me to post a rebuttal, so every time someone reads the troll post, they can read the rebuttal too.
On the post: Australian Federal Police Raid Even More Journalists Over Leaked Documents
Re: Re: History repeats itself
Yet again with this...!
tl:dr; if anyone attempts a violent revolution against a stable, established government, they will soon find themselves arraigned on charges of terrorism... unless the authorities have them shot first to save the bother of a trial.
On the post: Australian Federal Police Raid Even More Journalists Over Leaked Documents
Re: morrison is in a very dangerous place right now
Anyone who thinks Rupert Murdoch is a force for good needs their head read. While he has described himself as libertarian he's not interested in the public good and as a one percenter he's all about the rich, and rule thereby.
On the post: The Impossibility Of Content Moderation Plays Out, Once Again, On YouTube
Re: Re: Re: Who Can't Get no Satisfaction?
"The working homeless" is a thing now. Where did the money trickle down to? They're not seeing much of it.
Just because something is selfish doesn't always mean it's wrong.
Selfishness usually excludes the wider community from any benefit enjoyed by the selfish individual.
Sure it would be better if they chose to act with higher moral values but that's true of all of us to some degree.
Okay, you get that one.
Next >>