False in every respect refers to all of the claims Pai makes, described in the paragraph above. But thanks for reading, and for your reading comprehension no matter how poor it is.
Here's one of the many longer pieces linked to above, in case clicking the hyperlinks was too hard, where we explain that the factual claims Pai makes are wrong, but so too are the causation he claims.
So yes, showing that speed decreases and increases during the pandemic were at best uneven is proving "plainly false" Pai's assertion that US speeds (1) uniformly went up, (2) BECAUSE of his actions.
A private website can't censor the president. The 1st Amendment protects Twitter and its users from the government; it doesn't protect the government from Twitter.
And the notion that a single social media platform tamping down on a particular piece of propaganda somehow curtails the president's ability to say it and to distribute it widely is laughable.
What do you want next, a law that says every newspaper has to carry the Russian I mean NY Post story on Hunter Biden, or else that is censorship too?
Exactly. It's not "censorship" when any private party acts, let alone when the New York Times or another publication decides not to print a particular op-ed. The difference here is that online publishers that let 3rd party content come freely onto their platforms aren't liable as publishers, thanks to 230. That means there are lower (but not no) barriers to getting your ideas out there on an online platform result. But even without 230, of course the platform ALWAYS had the right to moderate. You can't tell me that curation is the same thing as censorship unless you're prepared to argue that every publishing house's decisions and every newspaper's decisions about what to publish or curate or moderate are also "censorship."
You miss the point. Those other sites have "freedom" to moderate. Are you saying that they shouldn't, and that this site or any other one ought tp be made to moderate in a certain way?
And yeah, so much for that vaunted maxim indeed. I'd refer you to the shatteringly good piece in this series last week by Brandi Collins-Dexter, at the outset.
But also please note that the amount of hate and disinfo and just pure junk churned out online these days also exceeds our capacity as humans to "more speech" it into a corner.
I can't even tell you how much I love and appreciate your being there already in response to "wait and see" above with the "jobs positive from Day One" lying Legere quote.
Republicans did propose Net Neutrality rules, but they abdicated on the law. Noted unconstitutional communist leftist Antonin Scalia agreed and said it SHOULD BE a Title II service. But hey, fun hipster jokes.
The ISPs very deliberately conflate and abuse the "don't regulate the Internet" battle cry with a legislative agenda that serves their own ends but nobody else's. Of course we all want to make sure that content -- or as Mike puts it, the service level -- stays open and free from regulation. But that doesn't mean that the monopoly or near-monopoly ISPs should be "free" to discriminate against whomever they wish on their common carrier service. But that's the kind of freedom that Verizon was fighting for when it sued the FCC. It's right there in the brief for the court case decided in January. Verizon said: "broadband providers possess 'editorial discretion.' Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others."
You have your facts wrong. Canada didn't kick him off the team 'this time around." He bolted Canada for Australia when he was a teenager, in 2001, because the Canadian coaches didn't want him running a business whilst skiing.
Then he won a gold medal in 2006 for Australia.
Also, he seems to be sort of a tight-lipped jerk based on the "evidence" from interview snippets shown to us on TV and in the papers, AND he is definitely made fun of for his spamming. But I'll note that one could be a really jolly spammer that everyone loves, or a sourpuss that has no spamming past at all. In short, people definitely do critique him for both aspects of his personality and past, but his sour attitude is not necessarily linked to or dependent on his past endeavors.
Anyway, don't let the facts get in the way of your awesome opinion piece. It's not like you could have garnered almost all the facts you needed from wikipedia or something.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by mattfwood.
Re: (2nd comment being blocked, removed subject line...)
False in every respect refers to all of the claims Pai makes, described in the paragraph above. But thanks for reading, and for your reading comprehension no matter how poor it is.
Here's one of the many longer pieces linked to above, in case clicking the hyperlinks was too hard, where we explain that the factual claims Pai makes are wrong, but so too are the causation he claims.
https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/2020-09/free_press_2020_section_706_inquiry_co mments.pdf
So yes, showing that speed decreases and increases during the pandemic were at best uneven is proving "plainly false" Pai's assertion that US speeds (1) uniformly went up, (2) BECAUSE of his actions.
That's not hedging, that's logic.
Re: FIRST FACT about "net neutrality" is that GOOGLE and FACEBOO
In what way does Net Neutrality especially benefit any website over others, and where's your proof that Google and Facebook "bought" such benefits?
Re: Facebook and Twitter suppressing news stories doesn’t help
A private website can't censor the president. The 1st Amendment protects Twitter and its users from the government; it doesn't protect the government from Twitter.
And the notion that a single social media platform tamping down on a particular piece of propaganda somehow curtails the president's ability to say it and to distribute it widely is laughable.
What do you want next, a law that says every newspaper has to carry the Russian I mean NY Post story on Hunter Biden, or else that is censorship too?
Re: Re: Re: Re: So much for...
Exactly. It's not "censorship" when any private party acts, let alone when the New York Times or another publication decides not to print a particular op-ed. The difference here is that online publishers that let 3rd party content come freely onto their platforms aren't liable as publishers, thanks to 230. That means there are lower (but not no) barriers to getting your ideas out there on an online platform result. But even without 230, of course the platform ALWAYS had the right to moderate. You can't tell me that curation is the same thing as censorship unless you're prepared to argue that every publishing house's decisions and every newspaper's decisions about what to publish or curate or moderate are also "censorship."
Re: So much for...
You miss the point. Those other sites have "freedom" to moderate. Are you saying that they shouldn't, and that this site or any other one ought tp be made to moderate in a certain way?
And yeah, so much for that vaunted maxim indeed. I'd refer you to the shatteringly good piece in this series last week by Brandi Collins-Dexter, at the outset.
But also please note that the amount of hate and disinfo and just pure junk churned out online these days also exceeds our capacity as humans to "more speech" it into a corner.
Re: No, no it really is not
I can't even tell you how much I love and appreciate your being there already in response to "wait and see" above with the "jobs positive from Day One" lying Legere quote.
Re: If Republicans Proposed This...
Re:
Don't regulate the Internet?
Facts wrong
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by mattfwood.
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