51–59 of 59 posts
Who actually wants to end Section 230? Most of the complaints I've heard about it have just been that it should be changed to only apply to platforms (which don't censor), and not to publishers (which do).
> Who actually wants to end Section 230? Both Biden and Trump, for a start: https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/09/biden_tech_reform_sec...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bullet's heading is "incitement", the purpose of the bullet is to explain the clear "incitement" standard that Twitter could rely on to block content likely to cause harm, and we've reached a point where we're using the word "inciting" to define it. Like I said, this is a hash of an argument. There is a clear legal standard for incitement. Sacks hasn't articulated it. Either he doesn't know what it is, or he does…
That's a fine objection to his proposal (though perhaps better with examples of information protected by the 1st that you want Twitter to ban). But I don't think it's a fair criticism of his article. I clearly understood from his writing that the "Incitement" exception only covers information intended to cause violence in the near future. I don't know if he's familiar with the precise legal language, but even if he i…
> Fighting Words. In the 1942 case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes “fighting words,” which are defined as speech that “tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” through the use of “personally abusive” language that “when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction.” Cer…
So, how do online advertisers respond to this? If platforms are held to 1A standards, then they can't sell advertising. Online advertisers have already made it crystal-clear that they will not tolerate their brands on a free-for-all platform. Ergo, a requirement for platforms to keep constitutionally-protected speech up is effectively starving them to death. And if you're thinking of making it illegal to withhold ad…
If all advertising media/mediums are free-for-all, then what, they just quit ads and marketing? If that's the case, I am all for that. I am all for disincentivizing hyper-marketing and advertising that happens today.
> Fighting Words. In the 1942 case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes “fighting words,” which are defined as speech that “tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” through the use of “personally abusive” language that “when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction.” Cer…
It's odd that the 'General Partner and Co-Founder of Craft Ventures. Previously: Founder/CEO of Yammer. Original COO of PayPal.' came to such a mistaken belief regarding fighting words in modern legal practice. Carelessness in fact checking seems to becoming more common even among otherwise competent people.
First Amendment Twitter runs a cottage industry of dunks on well-regarded lawyers saying stupid things about 1A jurisprudence. I'm not a lawyer, but I follow 1A Twitter, and I think this would qualify; for instance: the "incitement" section refers to "clear and present danger", which is the Schenck standard, which was famously overturned by Brandenburg. My understanding is that this, to 1A law, is about as fundamental as knowing the difference between a hash table and a tree is to a software developer.
This is the most well thought out takes on Section 230 I've read yet. David Sacks is publicly conservative and I disagree with him on a lot. But he's also a lawyer and very, very smart. Worth a read, no matter where you stand on the issue.
Lots of people are lawyers. Most of them, including some of the most extraordinarily competent, are not First Amendment specialists. First Amendment Law Twitter makes sort of a cottage industry of dunking on lawyers, including accomplished litigators, for saying dumb First Amendment things. Sacks, so far as I can tell, has never professionally practiced law: he got his JD in '98, went to McKinsey, then joined PayPal…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If all advertising media/mediums are free-for-all, then what, they just quit ads and marketing? If that's the case, I am all for that. I am all for disincentivizing hyper-marketing and advertising that happens today.
No, because even in this scenario there are large media outfits that publish their own stories and would still be able to sell advertising to brand-conscious advertisers. Ads don't go away, they just retreat to newspapers and large blogs while everyone else loses out on a means to fund their work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of people are lawyers. Most of them, including some of the most extraordinarily competent, are not First Amendment specialists. First Amendment Law Twitter makes sort of a cottage industry of dunking on lawyers, including accomplished litigators, for saying dumb First Amendment things. Sacks, so far as I can tell, has never professionally practiced law: he got his JD in '98, went to McKinsey, then joined PayPal…
I don’t necessarily agree with Sacks, but most discussion of 230 is just braying nonsense. This one is at least worth discussing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because even in this scenario there are large media outfits that publish their own stories and would still be able to sell advertising to brand-conscious advertisers. Ads don't go away, they just retreat to newspapers and large blogs while everyone else loses out on a means to fund their work.
Probably better than the hyper-amplified advertising via proxies we have today: brand placements, shills, boosters, influencers, etc.
Some platforms - notably YouTube - have a platform-run ad exchange that creators can participate in and make money from. This is critical for people getting into the online video business. Like, to the point where people are expecting creators to jump ship from TikTok to YouTube the moment that Google figures out how to sell and attribute ads on Shorts.
In a world where platforms are legally barred from providing advertisers with brand safe placements, advertisers will just jump ship from platforms and start working with individual brands directly. Which means that the platforms are now just providing free hosting they can't pay for and smaller creators aren't able to use ad networks to get paid for their work.