421–430 of 577 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have been too many cases of a popular app being bought by scammers and repurposed. They can't exempt an app from being suspended just because it's popular.
Exempting it from automatic suspension is not exempting it from suspension.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information By selectively funding the development of information they favor, YouTube or app stores could be considered in part responsible for the creation of that information, in which case that section would not protect them, because they would then be the information co…
That strikes me as a theory that began with a desired outcome first, as the law does not use the language you’re using, nor does it include any of the distinctions you’re trying to draw. There is no “unless if there’s an ad revenue sharing system” exception to 230. Aside from the details of 230, I would think long and hard about the unintended side effects of what you’re proposing. Attempts to control what Google and…
> the Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse
> to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services
The law was not intended to protect a near-monopoly throwing its weight around in the political arena, or a duopoly blocking competition with their own apps.
And if that interpretation did somehow give the government the power to decide what is and what is not protected, that would still be an improvement over the present situation, because the government at least answers to the people and the Constitution, and right now nothing is protected.
Other posters have rightfully pointed out that the internet is indeed open and free (for the most part), but good luck getting all of your friends to agree to use your new DIY whatsapp clone. Effectively, everyone who doesn't know how to standup their own website is completely at the mercy of these technology companies now.
Furthermore, the channels of communication most people use are now being forced through these tech companies because of recent events. The amount of control sitting under Google at this very moment is sickening.
Seriously think about it. If Google went completely AWOL, how much damage could they do to the world? How much control do they actually have over every Android handset and web user experience? I feel we need to start looking at Google in terms of the worst-case scenario, and then start planning policy around that. There is just too much at stake now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That strikes me as a theory that began with a desired outcome first, as the law does not use the language you’re using, nor does it include any of the distinctions you’re trying to draw. There is no “unless if there’s an ad revenue sharing system” exception to 230. Aside from the details of 230, I would think long and hard about the unintended side effects of what you’re proposing. Attempts to control what Google and…
It's just a rephrasing of the theory that Google is acting like a publisher (information content provider) not a platform (interactive computer service), showing that interpretation is consistent with the text of the law. It's also consistent with the intentions of the lawmakers, as stated[1]: > the Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse > to preserv…
You are creating a test for platform vs. publisher that is not in the law. The law as linked does not even prohibit the censorship of political opinions, and in fact states that internet service providers may block constitutionally protected speech. It may be intended to free the Internet up for political discourse, but that doesn’t mean we get to totally ignore the text of the law and make up what we think it should be doing.
> The law was not intended to protect a near monopoly throwing its weight around
It wasn’t intended to do that, but that’s what it does. You don’t get to ignore the text of the law because you think it’s not acting the way you want it to. Legal systems work off the text of the laws, not what you think they should be doing.
Also, there are damn good reasons why I advise caution in these areas; unintended consequences are the norm and not the exception here. Section 230 wasn’t designed to protect monopolies, why do you think that trying to make Google “fair” wouldn’t have other unintended consequences?
Besides, if your problem with Google is that they’re a monopoly, why not use anti-monopoly laws? You can target Google specifically with those without the risk of putting all internet speech under the jurisdiction of the courts.
> And if that interpretation did somehow give the government the power to decide what is and what is not protected, that would still be an improvement
It might feel cathartic to use the power of government to force Google to do what you feel is expedient right now, but it’s something we’ll all come to regret. Understand that the nature of democracies is that people you disagree with will one day wield power, giving them the ability to control speech on the Internet is not a wise long term strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? Pinephone is alive and well and you can get your own Linux "toy" for $150. Can't say much about Librem 5, but afaik they are also shipping.
You can also get officially supported Sailfish OS on a couple Xperia devices: https://jolla.com/sailfishx/ Perfectly suitable for daily use, typing from such a device just now. :) IIRC there is a community port for PinePhone as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just a rephrasing of the theory that Google is acting like a publisher (information content provider) not a platform (interactive computer service), showing that interpretation is consistent with the text of the law. It's also consistent with the intentions of the lawmakers, as stated[1]: > the Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse > to preserv…
> It's just a rephrasing of the theory that Google is acting like a publisher (information content provider) not a platform (interactive computer service), You are creating a test for platform vs. publisher that is not in the law. The law as linked does not even prohibit the censorship of political opinions, and in fact states that internet service providers may block constitutionally protected speech . It may be int…
There's a clear distinction between "publisher" (information content provider) and "platform" (interactive computer service) in the law. But the law provides no test for which category a particular entity falls into, so we have to provide this. No one is claiming that the proposed test is the current test, just that it's a good test, consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the law.
> That doesn’t mean you get to change what the law does on your own
Of course I don't. But the courts do, and when they do so, they consider the legislature's intent. If an interpretation is consistent with both the wording and intent, even if it isn't the original interpretation, it's possible to convince judges to adopt it.
> It might feel cathartic to use the power of government to force Google to do what you feel is expedient right now, but it’s something you’ll come to regret.
That sounds like fear mongering. If we can trust the US government to do anything, its to respect the first amendment. And if the day comes when we can no longer trust the US government to respect the first amendment, then this discussion is pointless, because at that point we'll have lost all freedoms.
But it's clear now that we cannot trust Google to respect freedom of speech. Of the two, in this narrow case, the government is more trustworthy than Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a great pity that you treat legitimate disagreement as mindless anger. I’m not talking about disagreement of these posts (there’s nothing to disagree, the comments were factually accurate), I’m talking about the comments where people say stuff like “Google's rules only apply to their competitors“, which clearly isn’t true (as I’ve proven). I also don’t agree with you exaggerating my comments to claim I was acc…
I don't think it's splitting hairs. Banning video channels and banning apps are very different things. Consistency would ban both apps and any normal web browser, or would have never gone near banning this one. The equivalent to the youtube bans is when they ban apps that are actually about covid-19 . Not apps with internet search. > I’m not talking about disagreement of these posts (there’s nothing to disagree, the…
However I still object to you twisting my words to something far more sinister then they’re clearly intended. That’s simply not good debating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're advocating moving this power from massive corporations to the government, because at least the government has some accountability, whereas Google has NONE.
I argue that the government has essentially zero accountability, while the private sector has a huge degree. Our bandwidth for holding government accountable is so limited as to be useless. Consider the federal gov't, since I think it's what you're mostly talking about anyway. We get to vote for * 1x Presidential primary every 4 years, from a field of, let's say, 8 to be generous: 3 bits * 1x President every 4 years,…
Great, that's two options. Maybe there's half of another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exempting it from automatic suspension is not exempting it from suspension.
I would rather apps be automatically suspended and the install marked as potentially dangerous than have my device goatse'd to a malicious developer for any amount of time.
But a full suspension, on a popular app, without rapid human review? That shouldn't happen.
Also, this wasn't up to the "install marked as dangerous" level. They just prevented new installs. In a situation like that, there's no need to act instantly.