Social media, from the very beginning, was about hosting content that you put up. It's not transient, it's perpetual. That, alone, makes a huge difference, especially with regards to the 1st Amendment's freedom of association.
This is the advancement of technology. Originally, an electric current traveled down a copper wire at nearly the speed of light. Then, a digital voice signal gets held resident on a semiconductor for a fraction of a second, prior to traveling on down the line. Now, we have data storage, where some unicode characters are stored on a hard drive until such time as the recipients want to retrieve it, perhaps minutes or hours later. The signal has always been on the network for some measurable length of time. The transmission time does not transform the signal into an association to which the network operator can object, because the message never creates an association at all.
They're literally doing the same thing other platforms are doing.
There seem to be a decent amount of folks who would like to transition away from twitter, if an alternative could reach critical mass for its user base. It's difficult to reconcile why folks want to move out, with another platform if it's just doing the same thing.
Exactly. Objective rules violations appear to be protected moderation. Subjective banning based on political difference is not good faith moderation, and is unprotected. I'm glad you can see the difference, and that it's not based on "users it doesn't like".
While it may sound odd that Cruz -- who as a politician has screamed about how evil trial lawyers are -- would be suddenly in favor of trial lawyers
It's all a matter of relativity. True, the trial lawyers are evil. But compared to social media corporations, only slightly so. Getting the trial lawyers to battle social media would be like unleashing hell upon itself. Let them destroy one-another in the ultimate battle!
One of the frustrations of the copyright system is that automated systems get blamed for filing false claims. But I can't believe that Hertz is somehow using an automated system to file stolen vehicle reports with the police. I say the person(s) who signed the affidavits needs to be charged with filing a false police report.
After the Cubby v. Compuserve decision, and before section 230 existed, there were several years where interactive computer services were just fine. The kicker was that they didn't do extensive moderation, particularly with regards to political opinion on either side. If section 230 were to suddenly cease to exist, the Cubby v. Compuserve model would be back into play. I'm sure social media would continue, just as the internet didn't break in June 2018, despite the hype.
Exactly, Dr. Malone was punished by twitter for saying something on a different platform, not for violating twitter rules. They didn't tolerate his opinion, so they banned him.
Also, it's an attack on Joe Roegan. It's a chilling effect that anyone with a controversial take who appears on the show, now risks censorship, thereby making it more difficult for Roegan to get guests.
Hehe, I knew someone would fall for it. We'll read what I said, again--
"(In b4: Dr Robert Malone, Thin Blue Line comic, Defiant Ls.)"
Go look them up on an unbiased search engine. We witness a prominent social media censorship event about every week nowadays. Those listed are just the recent ones.
Anyhow, it It looks to me like Truth is aimed more towards shutting down obscenity, as opposed to banning speech based on political difference. The original hope of the 1996 CDA was to shut down indecency, not to block political speech.
(In b4: Dr Robert Malone, Thin Blue Line comic, Defiant Ls.)
The catch-all "otherwise objectionable" part is kind of concerning. The loophole is apparently so large that lawmakers know that it needs to be eliminated. I guess option #2 is to create a parallel communications system, and use leftists objections against them. I hope this isn't the case. If run better than twitter, we could see another monopoly panic like the 2021 parker scare.
My understanding is that the federal legislators, the ones best in position to handle this issue, haven't really been loosening the definition. In fact, they have hardly touched the issue for over the past 20 years. The FTC has tried coming up with definitions to frame the issue, particularly with regards to the Consumer Telephone Protection Act, but they have failed to get their definitions to pass court muster.
Legislators have consistently lagged behind the technology curve, to where modern communication systems are poorly described in the law, leaving the executive and judicial branches to agonize over the issues. If you're disappointed, as I have been, that the FTC hasn't been able to lock onto the proper targets , I say look to congress to keep up with the times.
And while the FCC and FTC dole out a ton of fines against robocallers, the vast majority of them are simply never paid or collected. Either because the target company is a scammer that's hard to find, or they're a deep-pocketed corporation that can litigate any penalties for ignoring robocall rules into oblivion.
I contend that they're hard to find because they're overseas. The overseas call centers are precisely the ones who are doing the spoofing, because they know that they are untouchable. If the FTC cracks down on the VOIP gateway providers, then we'll finally see a drop in the call volume of Illegitimate calls. It's about time.
Previously, Republicans had a coffee mug labeled "Member of the vast right wing conspiracy" back in 1998 in reference to an infamous Hillary Clinton interview segment. The "owning the absurdity" technique on a coffee mug is at least one generation earlier than the current group of conservative commentators.
The EARN IT act allows legislators to virtue-signal and look good, without the government doing any work. This increases the politicians' chances of getting reelected.
Once the "initial study report" has been delivered, the bill then tries to force social media companies to adopt its recommendations, whether or not they'll work, or whether or not they're realistic.
We've seen this dereliction of duty before, where members of congress are unwilling to stake out a position and write it into law. Instead, they try to fob off the answer to the executive branch, and have them try to spell out the details instead. The good news is that, at least for some industries that I follow, when the rules inally get written, they're challenged in court and often overruled.
But this technique has been trendy, and at the end of the day the politician gets to shrug their shoulders and say "Well, we tried to do something."
Because the judge has been overruled before. Had the case been appealed again, and Palin won the appeal again, then they would have needed to redo the entire trial again. With being so close to the finish line, waiting for the jury decision both short circuits the retrial, and the judge doesn't need to issue a ruling that can be appealed. It was smart of the judge to do it this way.
but actually to do less to find CSAM, because the lack of knowledge would most likely protect them from liability. That is the opposite of what everyone should want.
There was the Cubby v. Compuserve model prior to section 230's existence. It did have the side effect of keeping the busybodies away. This might discourage systems such as the controversial Apple Neuralhash scans. If it's on iCloud, and they're scanning, then they might be held liable if it doesn't work.
This isn't a good reason to support the legislation. I'm just saying that we complain about companies and government collecting and scanning data to judge whether they approve. Sometimes, others' lack of knowledge is a good thing for the privacy advocate.
The legality of running searches like this is still up in the air. If there's nothing beyond suspicion a vehicle occupant might be a wanted suspect, officers would likely have to develop something a little more reasonable before engaging in searches
Sounds like a job for parallel reconstruction -- run the facial recognition first, then claim that they remember the subject from a wanted bulletin. Simply engaging in facial recognition at all seems like a way to end-run around the usual search procedure.
Loitering Signal Association
This is the advancement of technology. Originally, an electric current traveled down a copper wire at nearly the speed of light. Then, a digital voice signal gets held resident on a semiconductor for a fraction of a second, prior to traveling on down the line. Now, we have data storage, where some unicode characters are stored on a hard drive until such time as the recipients want to retrieve it, perhaps minutes or hours later. The signal has always been on the network for some measurable length of time. The transmission time does not transform the signal into an association to which the network operator can object, because the message never creates an association at all.
Re: Re: Clearly
There seem to be a decent amount of folks who would like to transition away from twitter, if an alternative could reach critical mass for its user base. It's difficult to reconcile why folks want to move out, with another platform if it's just doing the same thing.
Re: Re: Clearly
Exactly. Objective rules violations appear to be protected moderation. Subjective banning based on political difference is not good faith moderation, and is unprotected. I'm glad you can see the difference, and that it's not based on "users it doesn't like".
Clearly
Imposter accounts are disallowed on the service. Perhaps the real guy would have a claim to the name, but not an impersonator.
This looks like a violation of section 10.7. I'm sure he can have his opinion on vaccines. He just can't issue death threats.
So far, these cases are based on objective rules violations, and not political disagreement. For now, Truth has a superior moderation format.
Evil Trial Lawyers > Social Media
It's all a matter of relativity. True, the trial lawyers are evil. But compared to social media corporations, only slightly so. Getting the trial lawyers to battle social media would be like unleashing hell upon itself. Let them destroy one-another in the ultimate battle!
Manual Review
One of the frustrations of the copyright system is that automated systems get blamed for filing false claims. But I can't believe that Hertz is somehow using an automated system to file stolen vehicle reports with the police. I say the person(s) who signed the affidavits needs to be charged with filing a false police report.
Re:
After the Cubby v. Compuserve decision, and before section 230 existed, there were several years where interactive computer services were just fine. The kicker was that they didn't do extensive moderation, particularly with regards to political opinion on either side. If section 230 were to suddenly cease to exist, the Cubby v. Compuserve model would be back into play. I'm sure social media would continue, just as the internet didn't break in June 2018, despite the hype.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're clever enough to use a search engine to find these specific examples that your echo chamber "news" sources probably never mention.
You got caught not reading the comment, and your argument got pre-owned.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly, Dr. Malone was punished by twitter for saying something on a different platform, not for violating twitter rules. They didn't tolerate his opinion, so they banned him.
Also, it's an attack on Joe Roegan. It's a chilling effect that anyone with a controversial take who appears on the show, now risks censorship, thereby making it more difficult for Roegan to get guests.
Re: Re:
Hehe, I knew someone would fall for it. We'll read what I said, again--
Go look them up on an unbiased search engine. We witness a prominent social media censorship event about every week nowadays. Those listed are just the recent ones.
Re:
Rent free! Thanks for reserving the space.
Anyhow, it It looks to me like Truth is aimed more towards shutting down obscenity, as opposed to banning speech based on political difference. The original hope of the 1996 CDA was to shut down indecency, not to block political speech.
(In b4: Dr Robert Malone, Thin Blue Line comic, Defiant Ls.)
The catch-all "otherwise objectionable" part is kind of concerning. The loophole is apparently so large that lawmakers know that it needs to be eliminated. I guess option #2 is to create a parallel communications system, and use leftists objections against them. I hope this isn't the case. If run better than twitter, we could see another monopoly panic like the 2021 parker scare.
Re: Re: a solution, please
My understanding is that the federal legislators, the ones best in position to handle this issue, haven't really been loosening the definition. In fact, they have hardly touched the issue for over the past 20 years. The FTC has tried coming up with definitions to frame the issue, particularly with regards to the Consumer Telephone Protection Act, but they have failed to get their definitions to pass court muster.
Legislators have consistently lagged behind the technology curve, to where modern communication systems are poorly described in the law, leaving the executive and judicial branches to agonize over the issues. If you're disappointed, as I have been, that the FTC hasn't been able to lock onto the proper targets , I say look to congress to keep up with the times.
Finally
I contend that they're hard to find because they're overseas. The overseas call centers are precisely the ones who are doing the spoofing, because they know that they are untouchable. If the FTC cracks down on the VOIP gateway providers, then we'll finally see a drop in the call volume of Illegitimate calls. It's about time.
Yesteryear's GiftShop
Previously, Republicans had a coffee mug labeled "Member of the vast right wing conspiracy" back in 1998 in reference to an infamous Hillary Clinton interview segment. The "owning the absurdity" technique on a coffee mug is at least one generation earlier than the current group of conservative commentators.
GrandStand
The EARN IT act allows legislators to virtue-signal and look good, without the government doing any work. This increases the politicians' chances of getting reelected.
Re:
Right to repair is more important than ever for the folks affected.
Pass The Buck
We've seen this dereliction of duty before, where members of congress are unwilling to stake out a position and write it into law. Instead, they try to fob off the answer to the executive branch, and have them try to spell out the details instead. The good news is that, at least for some industries that I follow, when the rules inally get written, they're challenged in court and often overruled.
But this technique has been trendy, and at the end of the day the politician gets to shrug their shoulders and say "Well, we tried to do something."
Re:
Because the judge has been overruled before. Had the case been appealed again, and Palin won the appeal again, then they would have needed to redo the entire trial again. With being so close to the finish line, waiting for the jury decision both short circuits the retrial, and the judge doesn't need to issue a ruling that can be appealed. It was smart of the judge to do it this way.
Privacy Benefit
There was the Cubby v. Compuserve model prior to section 230's existence. It did have the side effect of keeping the busybodies away. This might discourage systems such as the controversial Apple Neuralhash scans. If it's on iCloud, and they're scanning, then they might be held liable if it doesn't work.
This isn't a good reason to support the legislation. I'm just saying that we complain about companies and government collecting and scanning data to judge whether they approve. Sometimes, others' lack of knowledge is a good thing for the privacy advocate.
Manufacturing Suspicion
Sounds like a job for parallel reconstruction -- run the facial recognition first, then claim that they remember the subject from a wanted bulletin. Simply engaging in facial recognition at all seems like a way to end-run around the usual search procedure.
More comments from Koby >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Koby.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt