471–480 of 652 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends - is Valve also claiming liability protection under section 230 as a information service provider?
Being an information service provider with Section 230 protection doesn't obligate that provider to allow anyone to post anything .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends - is Valve also claiming liability protection under section 230 as a information service provider?
> is Valve also claiming liability protection under section 230 as a information service provider? What part of Section 230 do you think had any bearing on the issue being discussed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Local and State governments and representation are important parts of the Republic Why? What even is a state, if not its people? What even is a local or state government, if not the people in the city or state? Can you even have a state or a state government if there are no people in the state? What's special about the state or state government specifically that it should get its representation separate from the pe…
States are sovereign entities that made a choice years ago to join together in a federal union. The parameters of that union are spelled out in the Constitution -- you remove that Constitution at peril of the continued existence of that union. Amendments, like the 17th, are one way to change that union, with the consent of those members of it -- but if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a porti…
As the lopsidedness of representation grows ever more pronounced, it increases the probability that federal law and policy will diverge significantly from the views of the majority of the nation. This will likely increase disenchantment with the federal government even further, which is just as great a danger to the union. Surely you agree that this situation isn't ideal either, even if the Constitution says it's supposed to be like that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"popular vote" has absolutely no bearing on anything in this discussion. The US is not a direct democracy, it is a representative republic. The 50 senators who represent semi-conservative states represent the same number of states as the 50 who represent more liberal states.
Yeah, the obvious thing is to split LA, and New York into 5 different states each, so that the liberals gain more power in the senate. The state level representation of the senate is very arbitrary
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They had to lose by 7 million votes to actually lose, I would say they have quite advantage. As another user said: "The Senate is split 50-50, but the 50 Democrats represent 41 million more people than the 50 Republicans"
We are a representative democracy for a reason. It was designed that way. You can't change the rules of the game because you're losing. The United States was designed as a representative democracy on purpose by the forefathers. That is fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So deplatforming by surprise is okay? Facebook and Twitter don't own their data centers. If the DCs responded to the same pressure about hosting illegal content, the social media giants would disappear too. Edit: the downvotes and rate limits are about to push me away from HN for good. This is ridiculous. My platform is anti-fascism. I'm tired of people on both sides trying to shut down the other side.
bye
Earlier quoted context omitted.
States are sovereign entities that made a choice years ago to join together in a federal union. The parameters of that union are spelled out in the Constitution -- you remove that Constitution at peril of the continued existence of that union. Amendments, like the 17th, are one way to change that union, with the consent of those members of it -- but if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a porti…
> if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a portion of those states will walk away from a union As the lopsidedness of representation grows ever more pronounced, it increases the probability that federal law and policy will diverge significantly from the views of the majority of the nation. This will likely increase disenchantment with the federal government even further, which is just as great a…
If the people don't want things to be that way, they can pass amendments to change it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being an information service provider with Section 230 protection doesn't obligate that provider to allow anyone to post anything .
No, but it should make the platform similar to a public square. Taking a government grant of liability protection should come with obligations to the public.
Why? That's a serious question.
The reason liability protections exist for information services is because information services can't exist without them. It's not possible for an information service provider to be strictly liable for what their users post while having anything like a reasonable quality of service or cost. Think 10 hour moderation queues to post on Instagram, which costs $15/month, and requires using your driver's license or other photo ID to sign up so they can forward libel suits to you.
Requiring strict liability on the part of information service providers will likely drastically reduce the amount of free speech. Because they're going to aggressively take down/reject anything that has the slightest possibility of them getting sued. They won't suddenly morph into the town square because an unmoderated Internet town square is a filthy, ugly place that repels users and advertisers and hurts the bottom line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, we should change the system. It was a compromise that is now well outdated.
The entire premise of a republic is that power is checked and balanced. The aim is not to represent the "will of the people", because the will of a majority is frequently to oppress a minority. The EC was more than a compromise, it was an integral part of a system that prevents too much power being handed to any one institution or demographic. And forcing national candidates to appeal to a multitude of states rather…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There has been no ruling by the court on the merits of the case. A TRO is simply a request for injunctive relief, asking the court to compel AWS to reinstate services pending litigation. -- > Packinghan v North Carolina (2017) - Access to social media and digital infrastructure cannot be prohibited by the state. Amazon isn't the state. - Correct. My point is that Packinghan, viewed in combination with Marsh, provides…
> My point is that Packinghan, viewed in combination with Marsh, provides an interesting lens for issues concerning potentially monopolistic behavior. IF data storage and/or social media can be viewed as critical digital infrastructure, an argument can and will likely be made that the services are tantamount to a digital company owned town. We'll see! Either way it's very interesting and highly relevant to the indust…
i) Antitrust - AWS's behavior may be viewed as an antitrust issue, acting in conjunction with a cartel. A party does not need to have majority market share to function in coordination with other dominate players in order to form a cartel that can manipulate the market. There's case law concerning market manipulation, access to industry and consumer protection issues where parties didn't need to directly coordinate to be considered a cartel.
ii) Practical dependence on service providers for access to critical digital infrastructure. To what extent do we depend on particular services for participation in society and the marketplace will influence the analysis. At what point does a data service provider begin to resemble a common carrier (i.e. cable, phone or internet provider) and in what context would common carrier laws apply?
iii) Contract issues - A few of the foreseeable issues include sufficient notice, contract breach, degree of harm (irreparable harm?), performance obligations.