Re: Re: Re: Denial=slander lawsuits to evade statute of limitati
No one’s claiming this is a particularly strong case of defamation; quite the opposite. It’s just not weak enough to have gotten it dismissed before discovery, and the DOJ has no place here.
Regarding the “equal weight” thing, look at the COVID-19 stuff, which has also been argued about. There are objective truths (COVID-19 has a higher death rate than most flus, is highly contagious, social distancing reduces its spread, and the pandemic has not ended yet) that are at issue here, and “both sides” don’t have equal weight.
With mandated transparency reports, it risks catching the big tech companies in their lies, potentially opening a new avenue to litigation.
But because a lot of bias is now entrenched in the current batch of social media monopolies, they're starting to sweat at the prospect of accountability.
Did you miss the parts of the article that mention that 1) the CEOs of both Facebook and Twitter are in favor of mandated transparency reports (and thus aren’t “starting to sweat” at the idea) and 2) all the big tech companies (including Facebook and Twitter) already release transparency reports (and thus mandating them wouldn’t exactly change anything for those companies)?
Also, given that these hypothetical mandates would be a condition for immunity from suit over moderation decisions, I fail to see how it would “open[] a new avenue to litigation” for the big companies you’re worried about.
No, but the outlet Reason is biased against so-called “Progressives”, and the article is nonsensical. In this day and age, it would be impossible to get away with something like that.
Regarding the exact number for “room temperature”, given that no one uses Kelvin every day outside of lab experiments, and given that room temperature is below 100 (average IQ) whether measured in degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit, I believe the point gets across either way. If anything, it just means that it’s even more insulting in most of the world.
Hmmm, I "MUST be either too stupid to have an opinion worth repeating" [or...?].
The OP said that (which continues, “or too dishonest to have an opinion that anyone OUGHT to care about,”) with regards to people complaining about social media sites having the right to moderate content on them. Unless you’re saying that making such a complaint about units/“room-temperature IQ” is equivalent to complaints about the right to moderate, I’m not sure why you’d (sarcastically) apply that descriptor to yourself.
C'mon Guys, get with the SI (International Units) completely! Even your own industry and manufacturing uses these in various areas!
I actually agree with that, but standards are slow to change, especially in the US (remember how long it took to ban lead in paint, plumbing, and gasoline and to regulate cigarettes), and I personally like Fahrenheit when discussing the weather simply because of how well it fits everyday temperatures (which rarely exceed 110°F or go below, like, –30°F; 75°F or higher = hot; less than 75°F but at least 65°F = warm; 50 to 65°F = cool; less than 50°F = cold) and the amount of precision you get without using decimal places. I do acknowledge that its logic makes no sense (180°F between freezing and boiling point I can understand, but why is 0°F set where it is?), but it works fine.
Oh, I forgot... the Internet is heavily USA-influenced, and also northern-hemisphere-influenced.
Well, it’s also partly because most English-speakers are in the northwestern quadrant, and the Internet was essentially invented and initially popularized in the US. Also, I think the phrase “room-temperature IQ” was created independently of the internet.
It's sad to see snow themes all over Christmas paraphernalia, when sometimes the temperature in my location exceeds 37 degrees C on the day...
That has nothing to do with the internet, really. That’s just because of how those Christmas traditions migrated from Europe to Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and South America (whichever you are from), and Europe is firmly in the Northern Hemisphere.
It's sad to see local culture being steadily eroded
I’m sorry, but what local culture is being eroded, exactly?
To end this, I’d like to ask again: what does this have to do with the article or the comment you’re replying to?
Re: And I repeat: Techdirt is so small that EVERY comment counts
You’re not being blocked or censored. Your comments are being hidden (but still viewable) by the community.
Also, this comment of yours is hard to understand because of the atrocious grammar and bad syntax. “[A]fter sees first”? “[B]esides that I'll point up why”? What do these mean? Also, what do you mean by “effective”, what are “still as effective”, and what exactly “can hardly help [their] ‘free speech’ façade”? You need to offer more clarity.
Re: How are ISPs different? Can't they exert control TOO?
Here’s a basic overview: ISPs (or IAPs) are like telephone companies or cable (or satellite TV) companies that just provide the communication lines, not the content or services that go over those lines; services like Twitter or Facebook are privately owned, publicly accessible/viewable bulletin boards/billboards.
You seem to want social media to operate like the former, but that’s not what they do (unless you’re talking about private DMs like in Facebook Messenger, but that’s another topic entirely), nor are they required to. Social media companies and such are “edge providers” that use the internet to provide a service; the internet itself is not the service provided.
Furthermore, people generally can only have, at most, one ISP for the home/WiFi and one for cellular service, and switching is fairly difficult and potentially expensive. If an ISP blocks something from going through, its customers become incapable of accessing what was blocked at all. By contrast, people can have as many social media or social media-like accounts as there are social media(-like) providers (or freely switch between search engines or browsers), and the sites and accounts themselves are completely free to use/create; if an edge provider blocks something, there are still many options available to users to get the data. That’s not even getting into the fact that ISPs are limited to specific areas (having Verizon won’t help me if I move to Japan), and many ISPs don’t directly compete with each other (most locations can only access one or two players), but that’s (mostly) not the case with websites like Twitter or Google (and even for the exceptions, a VPN can get around geoblocks pretty easily).
Basically, ISPs are completely different from social media companies and other edge providers (both fundamentally and as applied), and the principles behind supporting net neutrality is very different from those involved in being anti-§230.
Where exactly does Twitter claim to be unbiased specifically?
I believe that, under the current case law, claims that someone is “unbiased” is far too subjective to be taken literally or be considered “puffery” and thus nonbinding. In fact, I think there was a case mentioned on this site where YouTube or Facebook or Twitter was specifically held to not have to be unbiased just because of supposed promises to uphold free speech and such.
The McDonald’s comparison is inapt. The existence/nonexistence of meat in a burger is something that can be objectively and readily determined. Bias or lack thereof is nowhere near as straightforward and is highly subjective as to where the line is to be drawn.
Section 230 specifically exempts ISPs like Twitter from being held liable for moderating decisions for most situations, not just under defamation.
Just to clarify, the ruling could apply to other government officials’ accounts, but not Twitter itself or private accounts, and only to the people running those accounts.
On the post: Judge: Trump Denying He Raped Someone Was Not Part Of His Official President's Duties
Re: Re: Re: Denial=slander lawsuits to evade statute of limitati
No one’s claiming this is a particularly strong case of defamation; quite the opposite. It’s just not weak enough to have gotten it dismissed before discovery, and the DOJ has no place here.
On the post: Free Market Advocate Switches Sides, Calls For Direct Government Interference In Online Moderation Decisions
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The First Amendment says otherwise.
On the post: Transparency Is Important; Mandated Transparency Is Dangerous And Will Stifle Innovation And Competition
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Path to Litigation
Regarding the “equal weight” thing, look at the COVID-19 stuff, which has also been argued about. There are objective truths (COVID-19 has a higher death rate than most flus, is highly contagious, social distancing reduces its spread, and the pandemic has not ended yet) that are at issue here, and “both sides” don’t have equal weight.
On the post: Transparency Is Important; Mandated Transparency Is Dangerous And Will Stifle Innovation And Competition
Re: Path to Litigation
Did you miss the parts of the article that mention that 1) the CEOs of both Facebook and Twitter are in favor of mandated transparency reports (and thus aren’t “starting to sweat” at the idea) and 2) all the big tech companies (including Facebook and Twitter) already release transparency reports (and thus mandating them wouldn’t exactly change anything for those companies)?
Also, given that these hypothetical mandates would be a condition for immunity from suit over moderation decisions, I fail to see how it would “open[] a new avenue to litigation” for the big companies you’re worried about.
On the post: New Study Finds No Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias In Facebook Moderation (If Anything, It's The Opposite)
Re:
Excellent rebuttal
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates Injunction Blocking Federal Agents From Assaulting Portland Journalists
Re: Re: Re:
No, but the outlet Reason is biased against so-called “Progressives”, and the article is nonsensical. In this day and age, it would be impossible to get away with something like that.
On the post: Trademark Genericide And One Big Way The DOJ Admits That Its Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google Is Utter Garbage
Re: We get it!
That has nothing to do with this article at all.
On the post: Facebook & Twitter Try To Limit The Spread Of Sketchy NY Post Story; Leading To Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown
Re: Re: What the hell happened to Techdirt
NY Post, not NY Times
On the post: Facebook & Twitter Try To Limit The Spread Of Sketchy NY Post Story; Leading To Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown
Re:
Help! I’m being repressed!
On the post: Bill Barr's Google 'Antitrust Inquiry' Is A Weaponized Farce
Re: Re: Worth reading the complaint - up-front costs of BILLIONS
“No competitors”? You do realize that Bing still exists, right?
On the post: Bill Barr's Google 'Antitrust Inquiry' Is A Weaponized Farce
Re: Re: Re: Pretty Clear
I do because it’s dumb. The complaint is severely lacking in good antitrust arguments and actually is self-refuting.
On the post: Another Anti-Section 230 Bill? Sure, Why Not?
Re: Re: "room-temperature IQ"...
Regarding the exact number for “room temperature”, given that no one uses Kelvin every day outside of lab experiments, and given that room temperature is below 100 (average IQ) whether measured in degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit, I believe the point gets across either way. If anything, it just means that it’s even more insulting in most of the world.
The OP said that (which continues, “or too dishonest to have an opinion that anyone OUGHT to care about,”) with regards to people complaining about social media sites having the right to moderate content on them. Unless you’re saying that making such a complaint about units/“room-temperature IQ” is equivalent to complaints about the right to moderate, I’m not sure why you’d (sarcastically) apply that descriptor to yourself.
I actually agree with that, but standards are slow to change, especially in the US (remember how long it took to ban lead in paint, plumbing, and gasoline and to regulate cigarettes), and I personally like Fahrenheit when discussing the weather simply because of how well it fits everyday temperatures (which rarely exceed 110°F or go below, like, –30°F; 75°F or higher = hot; less than 75°F but at least 65°F = warm; 50 to 65°F = cool; less than 50°F = cold) and the amount of precision you get without using decimal places. I do acknowledge that its logic makes no sense (180°F between freezing and boiling point I can understand, but why is 0°F set where it is?), but it works fine.
Well, it’s also partly because most English-speakers are in the northwestern quadrant, and the Internet was essentially invented and initially popularized in the US. Also, I think the phrase “room-temperature IQ” was created independently of the internet.
That has nothing to do with the internet, really. That’s just because of how those Christmas traditions migrated from Europe to Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and South America (whichever you are from), and Europe is firmly in the Northern Hemisphere.
I’m sorry, but what local culture is being eroded, exactly?
To end this, I’d like to ask again: what does this have to do with the article or the comment you’re replying to?
On the post: Another Anti-Section 230 Bill? Sure, Why Not?
Re: And I repeat: Techdirt is so small that EVERY comment counts
You’re not being blocked or censored. Your comments are being hidden (but still viewable) by the community.
Also, this comment of yours is hard to understand because of the atrocious grammar and bad syntax. “[A]fter sees first”? “[B]esides that I'll point up why”? What do these mean? Also, what do you mean by “effective”, what are “still as effective”, and what exactly “can hardly help [their] ‘free speech’ façade”? You need to offer more clarity.
On the post: Another Anti-Section 230 Bill? Sure, Why Not?
Re: How are ISPs different? Can't they exert control TOO?
Here’s a basic overview: ISPs (or IAPs) are like telephone companies or cable (or satellite TV) companies that just provide the communication lines, not the content or services that go over those lines; services like Twitter or Facebook are privately owned, publicly accessible/viewable bulletin boards/billboards.
You seem to want social media to operate like the former, but that’s not what they do (unless you’re talking about private DMs like in Facebook Messenger, but that’s another topic entirely), nor are they required to. Social media companies and such are “edge providers” that use the internet to provide a service; the internet itself is not the service provided.
Furthermore, people generally can only have, at most, one ISP for the home/WiFi and one for cellular service, and switching is fairly difficult and potentially expensive. If an ISP blocks something from going through, its customers become incapable of accessing what was blocked at all. By contrast, people can have as many social media or social media-like accounts as there are social media(-like) providers (or freely switch between search engines or browsers), and the sites and accounts themselves are completely free to use/create; if an edge provider blocks something, there are still many options available to users to get the data. That’s not even getting into the fact that ISPs are limited to specific areas (having Verizon won’t help me if I move to Japan), and many ISPs don’t directly compete with each other (most locations can only access one or two players), but that’s (mostly) not the case with websites like Twitter or Google (and even for the exceptions, a VPN can get around geoblocks pretty easily).
Basically, ISPs are completely different from social media companies and other edge providers (both fundamentally and as applied), and the principles behind supporting net neutrality is very different from those involved in being anti-§230.
On the post: Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where exactly does Twitter claim to be unbiased specifically?
I believe that, under the current case law, claims that someone is “unbiased” is far too subjective to be taken literally or be considered “puffery” and thus nonbinding. In fact, I think there was a case mentioned on this site where YouTube or Facebook or Twitter was specifically held to not have to be unbiased just because of supposed promises to uphold free speech and such.
The McDonald’s comparison is inapt. The existence/nonexistence of meat in a burger is something that can be objectively and readily determined. Bias or lack thereof is nowhere near as straightforward and is highly subjective as to where the line is to be drawn.
On the post: Facebook Is So 'Biased Against Conservatives' That Mark Zuckerberg Personally Agreed To Diminish The Reach Of 'Left-Leaning' Sites
Re: Re:
“Bias” is subjective, which therefore means that no court would take it as a promise that can be enforced in court.
On the post: Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230
Re:
Just to clarify, the ruling could apply to other government officials’ accounts, but not Twitter itself or private accounts, and only to the people running those accounts.
On the post: Twitter Fixes Its Bad Policy On Blocking 'Hacked' Documents
Re: WSJ states it's CENSORSHIP, refuting anti-American PUNK MM.
TD already said they disagree with the original policy reasons behind that decision from the start.
On the post: Twitter Fixes Its Bad Policy On Blocking 'Hacked' Documents
Re: Re: Re: And now the censoring sets in to HIDE what you can't
I don’t think the admins have that data. It’s probably kept hidden from them, too, to help preserve anonymity and other reasons.
On the post: Twitter Fixes Its Bad Policy On Blocking 'Hacked' Documents
Re: Re: So Ignore "Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown" HEADLINE?
How was it incorrect?
Next >>