931–940 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Reamde, Neal Stephenson posits a future where we pay individuals/services to filter and prioritize the unordered deluge of data from the web. It seems like this ruling pushes us along that path.
You mean like youtube making it premium not to see ads?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So can I hire someone from a low cost-of-living jurisdiction and get them to behave like a bot for me? For some definitions of low cost-of-living, sure. In this law specifically: Sec. 120.002. APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter applies only to a user who: (1) resides in this state; (2) does business in this state; or (3) shares or receives content on a social media platform in this state. There are, of cour…
> This chapter applies only to a user who: (1) resides in this state; (2) does business in this state; or (3) shares or receives content on a social media They forgot (4) can afford a lawyer. This law will only benefit those with deep pockets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A fairly simple argument for this position is: This speech (the content posted to social media) is either speech by the poster or speech by the social media company; you can't have it both ways. If the social media company isn't responsible for illegal content, then ipso facto it must be the user's speech. But then the company doesn't have first amendment rights attached to that speech itself, such as the right again…
In a world where Facebook doesn't have a freedom of speech right to remove a post without also losing section 230 protection do you think freedom of association could cover removing specific posts or only banning users outright? Would Twitter's model of banning a user until they delete their own unwanted tweet(s) be okay?
Now, would an alternate universe in which freedom of association was actually a robust right on its own be a better one overall? Would I happily trade that for this social media thing? Quite possibly, quite possibly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a world where Facebook doesn't have a freedom of speech right to remove a post without also losing section 230 protection do you think freedom of association could cover removing specific posts or only banning users outright? Would Twitter's model of banning a user until they delete their own unwanted tweet(s) be okay?
That’s not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only protects what you say only from government censorship .
Important to note that this 5th Circuit ruling conflicts with the 11th Circuit's ruling. And SCOTUS had previously reinstated an injunction against this very same law. And this 5th Circuit opinion has very idiosyncratic reasoning [0, just the first few pages will blow your hair back]. A sample: "In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of cours…
The distinction the court is drawing isn’t about corporations versus non-corporations, but speech versus moderation. You say moderation is about “editorial control” but that’s exactly the debate. Is Facebook moderation equivalent to the NYT deciding what to publish and not publish? When someone reads a Facebook post, does anyone think that Facebook is the speaker? That legal fiction is attractive for various reasons,…
I do, in a sense. By the nature of its design, Facebook has a feed of virtually every opinion in the world and can show any of them to any user. Facebook could express any opinion it wants by choosing what content gets shown.
As a sort of analogy, let's say I want to say "I like dogs." If I read from a random character generator until it says "I like dogs" and then I send that to the internet, have I published it or am I merely a pipe for the random number generator?
Technically the random character generator "created" the content, but it would be a totally different work without my involvement.
It's not really relevant, though, because Section 230 applies regardless of whether FB is a publisher or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thunderbird used to have a local spam filter. It was fine. As for phishing attacks: Education is helpful. It would help if organizations with legitimate flows that are indistinguishable from phishing attacks were made liable. (Mortgage industry: I'm looking at you.)
It still does ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even in a 20th century paradigm, opportunity cost exists. Something gets more time or budget, something else gets less.
Social media has dramatically magnified these preexisting 'material contradictions' to America's sociolegal conception of free speech. The absurdities are becoming larger and larger and cracks are showing. Stochastic terrorist there. Fascist elected here. 500k anti-vaxxer deaths over there. What will come first, will the dam finally break in the form of society collapsing into conspiracy driven dictatorship, or will…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations are people. This clearly defines bots hired by any corporation that is in, does buisness with, or communicates with a person in Texas as a "user". Edit: Skipped a step: When spent by a corporation, the courts have ruled that money is speech. Therefore, the bot's output is clearly the speech of the corporation, which is definitely a person.
> Corporations are people. No they are not. They share some specific rights as people, but are not people. A corporation can’t be murdered, can’t vote, can’t be imprisoned, can’t marry another person, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a not-Texan, almost all of what I hear about Texas is oil, conservatism, failed power systems during winter, anti-abortion-rights, and using immigrants as political theater by sending them to DC/NY. I don't know that the disdain is unexpected given the political leaning of people working in technology.
You're probably living in a filter bubble. You'd be hearing only the same kind of things about California if you were in a different bubble.
I do hear bad things about California - homelessness, drug use, lots of petty theft that doesn't get prosecuted, ridiculously expensive housing, NIMBYs - but that's unrelated.
Will this apply to bots? What if I have a big list of a complaints about a certain politician (use your imagination, there's more than one politician to complain about), but the "other party" doesn't follow me, in fact, I have very few followers overall. So I create a bot that spreads my opinions by replying to millions of other Tweets. Anyone who mentions the politician of interest will receive a reply from "me" (my…
Let each user block what they don’t want to see. With filters, ai, etc. Don’t have a centralized “overlord” decide what an individual is allowed to see. That should be obvious and not controversial.