111–120 of 392 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same is 100% true about religion. 1A does not give you protection from religious discrimination among persons and corporations. It is the Civil Rights Act that does.
Don't be semantic, my point is why isn't speech codified at the same level? Clearly at some point someone said "freedom of religion should mean protection from persons and corporations", why can't we say the same about speech?
A salesperson should be able to be fired for shit-talking their own product. A customer service representative should be able to be fired for treating a customer inappropriately. The editor of a magazine should be allowed to edit contributors' articles. Putting speech on the same level as a protected class is ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private organizations have zero obligation to be fair and impartial. If you want a company to be run differently, start your own. It's funny how conservatives were totally on board with deregulation and perfectly fine with corporations steamrolling every one else as long as they were aligned with conservative objectives. Then the moment a powerful corporate faction with liberal-ish sensibilities emerges, they freak o…
1. Please note that ‘obligation’ is not the only standard at play. Companies exist in a social and economic context. (I have previous comments on this topic that can be easily found.) 2. The ‘if you want a company to be run differently, start your own’ argument is tiresome and weak. There are (and should be) many mechanisms to influence corporate behavior. 3. Even the pre-Trump Republican Party has long taken flack f…
this isn't really true of libertarianism even. the word "aggression" from the NAP does a lot of heavy lifting and is subject to a lot of different interpretations.
here is the DoJ's breakdown and red-line changes: 1. Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content The first category of potential reforms is aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation. a. Bad Samaritan Carve-Out. First, the Department proposes denying Section 230 immunity to truly bad actors.…
Oof. That's a good source. Section 5c is particularly problematic. It disallows shadow-bans if I'm reading correctly. Section f9 is...suspicious. Section d4 seems painful for small providers. You lose good samaritan status if there isn't a good way to contact you. Section c2A is the important one. It basically means that a site cannot remove content unless it is objectively obscene or extreme. Section g5A suggests th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if it would be applicable to end-to-end "messengers" like Telegra/Signal/WhatsApp etc. Though I don't see any language there to suggest it is just for online "platforms" but not "messengers". Then again, could be this entire proposal to begin with is intended just for so-called "platforms" not messengers.
> Such designs and operation put our society at risk by: (1) severely eroding a company’s ability to detect and respond to illegal content and activity; (2) preventing or seriously inhibiting the timely identification of offenders, as well as the identification and rescue of victims; To me, that says if a company writes something that prevents or blocks illegal content from being accessed by law enforcement, any immu…
That is, E2E encryption, because it is impossible for someone to eavesdrop usefully by design, is intended to be made illegal.
I think that’s fine to ask social medias to choose between being a publisher or a platform. It’s perfectly fine to push your point of view online as it’s protected by the first. But you should bare consequences for the cases not protected by the first.
I think that most of them should remain platforms, but that recommendation algorithms should be treated as publishers. So a reverse chronological feed would be protected by 230, while publishers would be liable for the contents in an algorithmic feed. People can subscribe to whatever sketchy content they want, but it won't be pushed to people that didn't ask for it.
here is the DoJ's breakdown and red-line changes: 1. Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content The first category of potential reforms is aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation. a. Bad Samaritan Carve-Out. First, the Department proposes denying Section 230 immunity to truly bad actors.…
Oof. That's a good source. Section 5c is particularly problematic. It disallows shadow-bans if I'm reading correctly. Section f9 is...suspicious. Section d4 seems painful for small providers. You lose good samaritan status if there isn't a good way to contact you. Section c2A is the important one. It basically means that a site cannot remove content unless it is objectively obscene or extreme. Section g5A suggests th…
Can you explain more, I'm not really seeing it...
Also how is disallowing shadowbanning problematic? I always never liked it.
Almost guaranteed to be used to selectively prosecute.
The whole premise of investigating for "bias" is clearly designed to be abused - similar to HUAC asking you to prove that you aren't a communist