171–180 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tobacco lawyers "Putting that cigarettes are harmful on the box would be devastating to our profits!"
It would be a better analogy if tobacco companies sold ad space on their packs and chose not to do business with a private for-profit anti-smoking solicitation group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The judge should have ordered Meta to place a banner on FB so that everyone can see it and join if they're a victim.
Not likely to survive 1st Amendment challenge - it is possible to compel somebody to certain speech as a result of losing a case, but doing this as a prerequisite when the case has just started is not likely to fly. Otherwise I could force Facebook (or any other platform) to publish anything just by suing them - and anybody could sue anybody else on virtually any grounds.
"We will allow more speech by lifting restrictions on some topics that are part of mainstream discourse and focusing our enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is really the essence of it. Section 230 is critical to a healthy internet, but there is large grey area between editorial and platform. Places like youtube, meta, X, etc. are pretending to be platforms when really they are algorithmic editors, gatekeepers, and curators. They are much more like traditional media newspapers than say your ISP, and they need to be treated as such.
What about the internet today is healthy such that anyone could point to Section 230 as the reason why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well Meta products are decaying like Cobalt 60; people are stopping https://trends.google.com/explore?q=facebook&date=all&geo=US and maybe Zuck doesn't think he can do anything about it. There are different theories but i like this one: -- originally you would put some imagination and elbow grease into using Facebook and get some intention which made it very attractive and interesting to people around 2010 -- then it…
Half-ing every 5.2-or-so-years?
I think it is more like radioactive decay than say, cheese going bad, but maybe I'm wrong. You can't smell the radioactive decay!
We can effectively trace all of the problems we have today in a global scale back to social media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the internet today is healthy such that anyone could point to Section 230 as the reason why?
The internet is unhealthy today specifically because the law elevates platform editorializing to the same level as individual freedom of speech.
We can effectively trace all of the problems we have today in a global scale back to social media.
I don’t disagree that social media has played a massive role in changing the world in a negative way. This is a very far reaching claim though and one that kinda misses the forest for the trees. The problem is that fundamentally capitalism demands that companies find more ways to siphon more money from customers every quarter or they fail. Social media is a perfect storm for the elites in this system. It’s a CIA wet…
Are people in CIA incompetent?
We can effectively trace all of the problems we have today in a global scale back to social media.
Communication is highly regulated for good reasons, and advertisement is not. This is as if telecommunication companies would disconnect calls when what is being said does not fit their agenda.
This should be illegal for advertising companies as well.