If You Don’t Want EU Style Censorship To Take Over The Internet, Support Section 230
from the the-eu-approach-is-dangerous dept
Last summer, I mocked the EU a bit for setting up a new office in Silicon Valley, and sending an official here to “liaise with Silicon Valley companies affected by EU tech regulation,” noting how it felt weird to have EU internet police setting up shop in Silicon Valley. Given that, I was a bit surprised that the new office invited me to “moderate” a panel discussion last month about the Digital Services Act (DSA), a bill I have regularly criticized and which I think is going to be dangerous for free speech on the internet.
There was no recording of the actual panel, but much of it involved me, as moderator, and Berkeley’s Brandie Nonnecke (who was a panelist, but could have just as easily moderated the panel) quizzing the EU official sent to Silicon Valley, Gerard de Graaf, about how the DSA would actually work in practice, and specifically about our concerns regarding the potential censorial nature of the law. de Graaf insisted, repeatedly, that the DSA is “not a speech regulation,” but then he basically kept going back to effectively admitting that it very much is a speech regulation. That is, he said it’s not a speech regulation, it’s just asking companies to have in place some practices to deal with “bad” speech. And, even as he kept insisting that it wasn’t a speech regulation, he admitted that if it didn’t lead to less misinformation online, EU officials would be disappointed.
Which… means it’s a speech regulation.
Any time either Nonnecke or I tried to pin de Graaf down on exactly what kind of speech was problematic, he did a neat little dance, where he’d pivot from “disinformation” to content that was clearly illegal: child sexual abuse material and other criminal behavior. He would say “of course, everyone agrees that this content is illegal.” But the issue is that it’s not always so clear which content is illegal, and the DSA is clearly targeting more than just “illegal” content, but rather also requires a variety of processes and plans for companies to deal with legal content that EU officials deem problematic.
My takeaway is that the EU really wants to have it both ways. It wants to have speech regulation, but they know they can’t call it speech regulation, so instead it’s all just winks and nudges, telling companies they need to effectively disappear “unwanted” speech… or something bad might happen to them. I understand the bureaucratic impulses that got the EU to this point, but I still find it extremely dangerous. While it’s certainly not the same, it’s not all that different from the original version of the Chinese Great Firewall, in which the government wouldn’t tell service providers specifically what to censor, but just let it be known that they’d be displeased if the service providers got it wrong.
I don’t think it’s exactly the same here, obviously, and I do think that the EU officials honestly believe that they’re “the friendly regulators” who are trying to work in a more cooperative manner with the companies. That is, after all, more of the EU approach to things. Sometimes. But we’ve certainly seen EU officials suddenly decide that this or that company is somehow bad. Or, sometimes, bad for Europe. And suddenly while they can tell a sensible narrative about why they’re doing what they’re doing… it still boils down to “because we don’t like you.”
So it’s great to see the EU-based Jacob Mchangama (former Techdirt podcast guest and author of a wonderful book on the history of free speech) calling out the EU’s approach to regulating the internet, and warning that America should not get too enamored with the EU’s plan to regulate.
The European law, by contrast, may sound like a godsend to those Americans concerned about social media’s weaponization against democracy, tolerance and truth after the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 insurrection. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton enthusiastically supported the European clampdown on Big Tech’s amplification of what she considers “disinformation and extremism.” One columnist in the New Yorker hailed the Digital Services Act as a “road map” for “putting the onus on social-media companies to monitor and remove harmful content, and hit them with big fines if they don’t.”
But when it comes to regulating speech, good intentions do not necessarily result in desirable outcomes. In fact, there are strong reasons to believe that the law is a cure worse than the disease, likely to result in serious collateral damage to free expression across the EU and anywhere else legislators try to emulate it.
Removing illegal content sounds innocent enough. It’s not. “Illegal content” is defined very differently across Europe. In France, protesters have been fined for depicting President Macron as Hitler, and illegal hate speech may encompass offensive humor. Austria and Finland criminalize blasphemy, and in Victor Orban’s Hungary, certain forms of “LGBT propaganda” is banned.
As Mchangama notes, the DSA goes well beyond “illegal” content as well (and even if it didn’t, the EU’s ever shifting definition of what is illegal is problematic in its own way):
The Digital Services Act will essentially oblige Big Tech to act as a privatized censor on behalf of governments — censors who will enjoy wide discretion under vague and subjective standards. Add to this the EU’s own laws banning Russian propaganda and plans to toughen EU-wide hate speech laws, and you have a wide-ranging, incoherent, multilevel censorship regime operating at scale.
The obligation to assess and mitigate risks relates not only to illegal content, though. Lawful content could also come under review if it has “any actual or foreseeable negative effect” on a number of competing interests, including “fundamental rights,” “the protection of public health and minors” or “civic discourse, the electoral processes and public security.”
What this laundry list actually means is unclear. What we do know is that the unelected European Commission, the EU’s powerful executive arm, will act as a regulator and thus have a decisive say in whether large platforms have done enough to counter both illegal and “harmful” content. You don’t have to be a psychic to predict that the commission could use such ill-defined terms to push for suppression of perfectly lawful speech that rubs it — or influential member states — the wrong way.
Mchangama notes, as we have, that Elon Musk’s public embrace of the DSA seems wholly at odds with his recent attempts to (misleadingly) call out government involvement in Twitter’s content moderation, which is way less heavy handed than anything in the DSA. Yet, Musk (falsely) claims that the US government is violating free speech, while the EU’s approach makes sense?
For instance, Thierry Breton, a powerful European commissioner responsible for implementing the Digital Services Act, has already taken aim at Twitter, now run by Elon Musk. Last month, Breton gave Musk an ultimatum: Abide by the new rules or risk getting banned from the EU.
Such moves will only lead to excessive content moderation by other social media companies. Most large platforms already remove a lot of “lawful but awful” speech. But given the legal uncertainty, and the risk of huge fines, platforms are likely to further err on the side of safety and adopt even more restrictive policies than required by the new law. In fact, Musk called the Digital Services Act “very sensible,” signaling his intent to comply in response to Breton’s warning. This flies in the face of Musk’s techno-optimistic commitment to only remove illegal content and his condemnation of Old Twitter’s untransparent dealings with politicians and government officials seeking to influence content moderation.
But all of this is why Americans — and American tech companies — really should strongly embrace Section 230. Section 230 is, in many ways, the anti-DSA. Even as a bunch of very ignorant, very foolish people insist that Section 230 was how the US government pressured internet companies to “censor,” the opposite is true.
Section 230 gives companies the freedom to moderate how they want, without fear of facing liability or regulatory pressure for their decisions and non-decisions. Take that away, and suddenly lawmakers and bureaucrats — and anyone who can file a lawsuit — gain tremendous power to suppress speech. With 230, the companies get to decide, and if there are people who disagree with them, their options are to take their business elsewhere, not to create a legal punishment for the company.
But the DSA approach is vastly different. It starts from a stance that the government needs to be hovering over companies, with the ever-present threat of punishment for making (vaguely described) “bad” decisions. And that, by its very nature, leads to much more widespread actual censorship, because the companies feel compelled to suppress speech to avoid state enforcement and punishment.
Over the past year or so, I’ve heard (somewhat tragically) that the big American internet companies (beyond Twitter and whatever it is that Musk thinks he’s doing), recognizing that they’re going to have to live with the DSA in the EU, are becoming more open to importing that model to the US.
They should not. That’s not a model that the US should want, and it’s a model that is dangerous for the American approach to free speech. Section 230 and the 1st Amendment, combined with normal business pressures, provides the exact right balance. Private companies moderate how they see best to do so, recognizing that allowing too much garbage will often drive away any business prospects. But without the extremely heavy hand of government (and its questionable motives) telling them what to take down and what to leave up.
The US doesn’t need the DSA. We already have a better, more speech-supporting approach.
Filed Under: brandi nonnecke, content moderation, dsa, eu, free speech, gerard de graaf, jacob mchangama, regulation, section 230, speech, speech regulation
Comments on “If You Don’t Want EU Style Censorship To Take Over The Internet, Support Section 230”
'I will make them an offer they can't refuse.'
That is, he said it’s not a speech regulation, it’s just asking companies to have in place some practices to deal with “bad” speech. And, even as he kept insisting that it wasn’t a speech regulation, he admitted that if it didn’t lead to less misinformation online, EU officials would be disappointed.
‘We’re not saying you have to manage the content on your platforms to suit what we want to see and not see, we’re just saying that if you don’t we’ll be terribly ‘disappointed’, and that probably won’t end well for you.’
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: TechDirt is spewing misinformation about Section 230
Bro, everyone wants Section 230 gone. SCOTUS hates it. Congress hates it. Public hates it. Only people who like it are the greedy tech pigs who put profit before user safety.
Clarence Thomas is licking his chops to destroy Section 230. Fuck Section 230 and fuck the greedy tech pigs who support this unfair and outdated law.
And the result will be that they define friendly speech as that which toes the official line, and all else is misinformation and/or illegal a speech. This approach also has the results in terrible governments, as they make decisions based on the fiction that they promote, rather than reality.
Re: friendly regulators
It is possible to be both.
Just not in the same sentence or at the same time.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Clarence Thomas hates Section 230 and the SCOTUS will destroy S230!
It is well known that everyone wants Section 230 gone. SCOTUS hates it. Congress hates it. Public hates it. Only people who like it are the greedy tech pigs who put profit before user safety.
Clarence Thomas is licking his chops to destroy Section 230. Fuck Section 230 and fuck the greedy tech pigs who support this unfair and outdated law.
Re: Re:
False, and those who do want it gone want it gone for completely opposite, contradictory reasons.
Currently, only two Justices have expressed interest in dismantling it. That’s insufficient to say that the entire court is opposed to it.
Again, no, and those who do hate it for completely contradictory reasons, meaning they can’t agree on what to do with it.
Ib id.
Also false. Those who recognize the fundamental impossibility of moderation at scale, those who believe that the government shouldn’t regulate speech outside of extreme circumstances not applicable here, and those who don’t believe in shooting the delivery man all support §230.
He’s also eager to dismantle the 1A in general, the exclusionary rule, and bans on corporal punishments in schools. Clarence Thomas is the most conservative Justice on the Supreme Court in the past decade or two by a wide margin. Using him to support your argument is a terrible plan.
There is no such thing as a “benign” dictator. As a government, you either let people speak their mind, or you are running roughshod over them. And it’s only been in the last two decades or so that we haven’t seen dictator after dictator thrown out of office, usually violently. I think the EU is playing on that fact, and hopes to remain in power, once their political opponents have been 86’d from the internet.
Hell, the very visible fact that the individual member states of the EU can’t decide universally what’s good and what’s bad, that’s damningly indicative right there that one person’s garbage is another person’s treasure. And who’s to say that either of them is wrong?
No one. Period.
sumgai
Re:
“Benign” ≠ “friendly”. “Benign” basically means “harmless”, while “friendly” is more about one’s demeanor, not the results.
To put it another way, “friendly” refers to means (or, rather, the manner in which the means are executed) or intent, while “benign” refers to consequences.
Think of it this way: A dictator can’t be benign, but they can do harm friendly-ish. One could say they may be “affably evil”, or a case of a “path paved with good intentions”.
Has anyone seen the super-disturbing January first edition of Meet the Press?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Rather a lot of paranoid drivel here about the ”unelected Commission” potentially getting too big for its boots. The Commission is not unelected nor unaccountable. It’s appointed (effectively elected) by democratically elected govts and every appointment is subject to ratification by the European Parliament, which has the power to dismiss the Commission, and has done so in the past. The Commission generally proceeds at the direction of the Council (elected heads of member states) and largely on a consensus basis. It is no more unelected than a US administration.
It doesn’t really matter what the Commission or Parliament get wrong first time or later. If legislation needs revision it can be and will be revised. The EU has been far ahead of the US in protecting the rights of citizens when it comes to privacy and the use of data. In general, Europeans prefer that hate speech is illegal and that online platforms do not amplify either hate speech or disinformation (misusing data collected using a surveillance capitalism based business model). This has happened and it has happened for both profit and for political purposes. Europeans can and will regulate, and adjust the regulations as we see fit. And if US companies want to do business in the EU they will comply with the rules whether they agree with them or not. This isn’t complicated.
As for “censorship”, Europeans find American hypocrisy and prudery when it comes to what can be shown on TV beyond risible and we need no lessons just as we prefer our own norms on such things as gun regulation. The first amendment doesn’t sanction shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre and it shouldn’t be invoked to provide carte blanche to billionaire media owners to do the digital equivalent and vindicate AJ Liebling’s aphorism that “Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.”
Re:
Oh no… now you’ve done it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
The pedantic types are sadly gonna show up in droves to try and discredit his comment based on that alone, rather than grappling with the rest of the content of his comment above it.
Re: Re: Re:
“Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” is, was, and always will be an apologia for censorship. Anyone who uses it seriously in any discussion of censorship deserves to have all their shit discredited.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
People make mistakes or fall victim to common misconceptions. This does not mean that the rest of what they say needs to be instantly thrown out.
The EU being its own sovereign organization made up of different countries who have their Commissioners elected democratically are not a draconian censorship group. And quite frankly, with stuff like the GDPR, the DSA, and the DMA, as well as decisions of the like regarding USB-C as a standard, they’re doing a much better job of caring about their citizens than our elected folk here in the U.S..
Ignoring all that because the guy mistakenly used a common misconception in his final paragraph is ludicrous.
Re: Re: Re:3
It damn well should, as it just fits with stereotypes and not facts.
The same could be said about the US. And Canada, for that matter.
The only thing the GDPR has caused in practice was eventually have those annoying “do you accept cookies?” pop-up ads in every web site. That’s a bureaucratic regulation, not a protection.
Re: Re: Re:4
Actually the one about cookies is the eprivacy directive.
Gdpr is the one with consent toggles
Re: Re: Re:5
Ah, thank you. Too bad we can’t edit posts on TechDirt (and for good reason, or we wouldn’t have evidence of Trolls’ wrongdoing).
Re: Re: Re:3
No, it does. Not shaming idiots like that is how we get things like “smoking weed is bad for you” and “male pregnancy doesn’t exist”.
Re: Re: Re:3 Better luck next time
“This does not mean that the rest of what they say needs to be instantly thrown out.”
Yeah it kinda does.
Re: Re: Re:
“The pedantic types…”
Yes damn us for wanting facts and not bullshit in our First Amendment debates.
Re:
Yes, the 1st amendment does allow you to shout fire in a crowded theatre.
Maybe you should learn more about our 1st amendment before making stupid statements like that and generally bashing America.
Re:
For a people who decry Americans as uneducated, your rant sounds uneducated.
Re:
No one said the Commission is unaccountable at all. At most, he’s saying that they cannot be held accountable directly by the people.
As for whether the Commission is unelected, well… Just look at what you say next:
You literally described it in a way that is a textbook example of an unelected government agency. “Unelected” literally means that the general voting population doesn’t directly vote for them. Seriously, this is no different from the many government agencies and federal judges; they, too, are appointed by elected officials and capable of being dismissed by elected officials, but they themselves are not elected.
What you are describing is not an “effectively elected” body. It is one of the three ways to get a government opinion that is a textbook case of being unelected (the others being succession (like a monarchy or when, say, a Vice President becomes President upon the death, impeachment and conviction, or resignation of the previous President) or by force (such as a violent takeover, by dictatorial fiat, or through rigged or fake elections)).
A case that is one where someone is effectively elected to hold a government position even though technically the people’s votes don’t directly decide who wins is the US President (and VP), since that involves people voting for electors who have pledged to elect a certain candidate. Since the people who actually do the voting for President and VP are elected democratically by the general voting populace and are elected solely based on who they have pledged to vote for should they be elected as electors (indeed, the ballots don’t even have any electors’ names at all; instead, the candidates for President and VP are named and selected on the ballot), we still say that the President and VP of the US are democratically elected by the people as that is pretty much the case in effect even if technically the law is more complicated than that. Plus, electors don’t do anything except vote for a President and VP for a single term.
This is very different from what happens with the Commission, where members are appointed by Parliament, who themselves have duties far beyond appointing people to the Commission and aren’t elected for the sole purpose of selecting who will be on the Commission but for a number of other tasks.
(Incidentally, former President Gerald Ford was never elected President; he was first appointed to be Vice President by then-President Richard Nixon to replace Spiro Agnew (who had been elected to be Vice President but left office due to a scandal) and confirmed to that position by the Senate (all according to the fairly recently ratified 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), then succeeded Nixon as President upon Nixon’s resignation, and finally lost a bid for a 2nd term to Jimmy Carter. As a result, Ford has the unique distinction of being the only person to ever become POTUS without ever being elected to federal office; the only time his name ever appeared on a general-election ballot for any federal office, he lost. Thus, he was unelected, regardless of the fact that everyone who got him into office was elected.)
Well, aside from the POTUS and VP (which I explained above), US administrations are unelected. And, again, the method for electing the President and VP are completely unlike the method in which Commissioners get appointed. This just doesn’t support your point at all. The Commission is more akin to the FTC or FDA than to the entire administration.
This is akin to saying that legislation in general doesn’t matter now because it may change it later. That isn’t even a guarantee that revision is guaranteed or that any revision that will occur will be an improvement, or at least not a change for the worse, but even setting that aside, this is still a terrible argument. If something is so obviously a bad idea beforehand, and experts are telling them why it’s a bad idea, being willing to make changes later after executing the bad idea first doesn’t mean that the bad idea doesn’t matter.
Seriously, how does that even follow?
This is completely and utterly irrelevant, but even so, its attempts at doing so have been fairly laughable.
First, this goes far beyond hate speech and actual disinformation to speech that, even under EU law, is perfectly legal. Second, that doesn’t justify imposing intermediary liability. Third, that a majority is okay with violating the rights of a few doesn’t justify violating those rights.
They certainly can do that, but that doesn’t mean we can’t criticize them for how stupid their regulations are, nor does it mean that the EU’s regulations don’t matter; quite the opposite, actually.
No one is saying that social media companies should keep doing business in the EU while completely ignoring its regulations, and no one is saying that the EU cannot establish and enforce regulations on businesses that operate or exist within its borders. This is a complete red herring and a non sequitur.
While I agree that American TV is often ridiculously prudish, there is no hypocrisy in disfavoring government-enforced prudishness while also favoring prudish social norms. Social norms and regulations established by the government are completely different. Just because social norms disfavor certain speech doesn’t mean such disfavored speech can or should be regulated against by the government. (Also, while most big American media companies, most big localizers in America, and most American broadcast TV stations are quite prudish, if you think that applies to all American-produced media or to all media readily available in America, you are quite wrong.)
Also, while I don’t disagree on gun regulations per se, that is entirely irrelevant to this discussion on speech regulations. I mean, Iran is actually surprisingly forward-thinking on trans rights, but that doesn’t make it a good example for equal rights on anything else. Similarly, that Europe may be better with gun regulations doesn’t make it better with any other regulations; it certainly is not better regarding speech regulations, nor with governing social media platforms beyond privacy (and even there, it’s fairly questionable).
This is a tired talking point. That some exceptions exist doesn’t justify a particular proposed exception, and the origin for that phrase is from an overturned ruling that banned antiwar protests written by a pro-censorship Justice who later voted to overturn that ruling.
Also, it does permit shouting “fire” in a crowded theater under certain circumstances.
That isn’t even remotely equivalent. The real-world equivalent for what platforms do that is closest to the “fire in a crowded theater” thing would be the theaters not removing a person who shouts “fire” in a crowded theater, and even that isn’t a perfect analogy.
On top of that, this isn’t restricted to forcing platforms to remove illegal content (namely, speech likely to produce immediate physical harm/danger to many people in the case of the “fire in a crowded theater” thing) but also perfectly legal content, which makes the analogy even worse than it already is. Rather than shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, this is about a much, much broader spectrum of speech. A better analogy for the actual claim here would be forcing a theater to kick out people for comparing Macron to Hitler on their premises at all. Still not perfect, but it is a heck of a lot closer to the actual claims and complaints here.
What?
First off, thanks to the internet, that aphorism no longer holds as true no matter what the likes of Facebook or Twitter do. People can create their own sites, and federated services like Mastodon instances and alternative (if smaller) platforms like Parler are also available.
Second, at best, that’s an argument to support forcing platforms to host more speech, not to remove certain speech found to be harmful or distasteful or to put liability for certain speech on intermediaries. It’s something said to support the exact opposite of everything else you’ve said thus far. Why in the world did you bring this up as if it supports your side?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Mike stoking fears of European regulations throughout the years, the way he guns after the GDPR and more, it certainly feels like he wishes that the EU would just roll over and submit to the American way of doing things.
Re: Re: Re:
Pointing out that Europe has a history of making bad regulations, particularly regarding the internet and free speech, and frequently pointing out how stupid some of their proposals and laws are is in no way saying that the EU should “just roll over and submit to the American way of doing things.” Moreover, saying you wish someone wouldn’t do X isn’t even remotely like saying that someone can’t or shouldn’t even be able to do X.
Also, the GDPR is a stupid law. It’s not even about whether the desired ends are good or not or whether or not regulations ought to be used to achieve those ends. (Again, this is specifically about the GDPR.) The GDPR is simply ineffectual at achieving those ends, even somewhat counterproductive, and is virtually impossible for interactive online services to fully comply with.
And if you think that Mike is just in favor of the American way of doing things, you are just plain wrong. A lot of his criticisms are also about copyright law, which is something he also criticizes the US for.
This is just a terrible argument. Your premise (Mike gunning for EU regulations and stuff like that), while not exactly incorrect, is flawed; your conclusion (that Mike wants the EU to “just roll over and submit to the American way of doing things“) is false and doesn’t even follow from the premise; and even if the argument was sound (it absolutely is not), that wouldn’t even remotely explain why you said:
Again, literally no one—not even the strawman of Mike you just described—disagrees with any of that or even has a problem with that. Your justification for saying this non sequitur is itself a complete non sequitur in that, even if true, it’s completely irrelevant to what you actually said.
tl;dr, This is a dumb argument in every possible way. Criticizing someone’s decisions isn’t even remotely the same as saying or wishing they were unable to make those decisions in the first place.
Reality mirrors Fiction
In the old Infocom game based on The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. One of the puzzles involved getting Marvin the Paranoid Android to assist you by proving your superior intelligence to him. This was accomplished, in the typically roundabout manner favored by Douglas Adams, by showing Marvin that you had tea and no tea at the same time.
It sounds like de Graaf would have solved the puzzle, first go. Sadly.
The E.U. has strong “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” vibes.
Beyond that, I don’t think they’re not as impartial as they seem.
With the infamous scanning proposal, the main advocates was a corrupt VP (taking bribes in the Qatar Corruption Scandal), an actor (Hollywood loves precedents to expand in court) who runs a firm producing scanning software, an extremely bad faith person who appears to read off a script, and a president who’s part of the German Christian Democratic Union (apparently, she has the nickname Censor Ursula in Germany, she tried to push censorship domestically, a decade ago).
The CDU might not be as bad as your religious right, however they’re not free from emotional or performative type lawmaking. That’s what I’ve seen over the past few years, culminating in the DSA and the scanning proposal.
Some bad domestic lawmaking supports that too.
They recently got kicked out of the German Government in the last election. Germany flipped from being pro-censorship pro-surveillance to not being as pro-censorship (they’re still too attached to NetzDG) and anti-surveillance.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Just dump global networks like its 1999. They can rot with their own kind.
Re:
Ayup, let’s dump the current Internet Infrastructure and the SWIFT network for…
More of the same infra.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Mix in a cesspool and wonder why you’re a diseased riddled crackwhore.
Networks are only getting easier to create at scale. They stopped innovating on the Internet and can only rotate fads. Its the perfect time to pull the plug on it.
Going from one network to dozens of exclusive networks in a country happens so fast. Its already happening too.
The Internet is just a case-study on why you don’t mix with cesspool cultures. The innovation happens without them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
That is funny. Obesity happens by eating inferior food made with junk science. Mental illness happens by mixing with inferior data.
The 21st century has so much opportunity for growth without the mental illness. That styrofoam data diet is not going to produce anything.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Mobidly stupid is a modern term to explain why they cry about climate change.
They were not enjoying life anyways.
The freedom of choice limits those diseases.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Mobidly stupid is a modern term to explain why they cry about climate change.”
Yeah, it’s not the stupid people concerned about the obvious nature of climate change.
“The freedom of choice limits those diseases.”
You think that freedom of choice stops people from choosing bad things?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
That is a valid reference to individuals making their own choices.
“In the early 1900’s Dr. Ano Nymous did research establishing that only 10% of people use their brains. She was immediately misquoted in the press as saying that people only use 10% of their brain. That’s where that myth came from.”
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-people-are-critical-thinkers
If you’ve met a lot of people, you know how cool intelligent people are.
Re: Re: Re:5
This is a complete non sequitur. How is that even remotely relevant to anything anyone has said here?
Re: Re: Re:6
I think they mean that because one scientist was wrong once, that means we can continue destroying the planet even though it’s obvious to anyone with a few brain cells to shuffle together that climate change is real.
Re: Re: Re:7
I’m not finding any results for a Dr. Anonymous
Re: Re: Re:
“…cesspool cultures.”
Why is my dog barking all the sudden?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Because its obvious you or your kids mixed with mental illness and have to filter that cesspool.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/seattle-public-schools-blame-tech-giants-social-media-harm-lawsuit-2023-01-08/
I don’t have any kids that mixed with stupid people and called it social.
Re: Re: Re:3
That looks like Washington is advocating for a seperate network for kids.
It sucks for those beta kids to be guinea pigs, but thats why you don’t mix with the uneducated IRL too.
Re: Re: Re:3
I guess right-wing hacks like you are now co-opting “mental illness” so you can say that instead of the N-word.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’m laughing that the mention of data new networks for the 1st world to enjoy always bring out the loons and 3rd world bots.
Its already happening, so I’m not concerned.
I never mention politics and several other topics, so that always makes me laugh at chatGPT drivel.
Did you know that the quality data still exists? I did 🙂
Re: Re: Re:5
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
See OP and flagged comments.
It was a comment that new data networks on the domestic level do not include 3rd world opinions. As it should be.
English is easy.
Re: Re: Re:7
Great, now my dog is barking like crazy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
There is no section 230 on domestic networks.
Have you called anyone a nazi today? You need your vitamin stupid to exist :p
Re: Re: Re:9
I dunno. Have you tried being funny without demeaning someone based on their skin color?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
You were already proven to be stupid. I can laugh at your hate-filled rants.
“That culture is a piece of shit”.
Do you see any racism in that?
Re: Re: Re:11
I’ve seen plenty of dogwhistle racism in your posts, yes. That you’re “polite” about your racism (read: you don’t openly use racial slurs) doesn’t change your being a racist. Now run along to your Proud Boys meeting, asshole.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
Whats funny is that you only get the trash to associate with.
It must suck to harbor all that hate that nobody wants :p
You get to keep it for yourself
Re: Re: Re:13
Bro ain’t no one buying your pseudo tech racist bullshit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
Nobody is saying you have to dumbass.
Now that its out there, it can be enjoyed 🙂
You should look into it. Its very satisfying.
Re: Re: Re:15
If being poor, stupid, and racist is enjoyable, have fun bro.
Re: Re: Re:13
Yes, yes, anyone who’s one shade darker than “paler than a full moon” white is “trash” to you, we get it. Take your racist bullshit to 4chan; at least /pol/ will praise you for it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
You’re just an alcoholic who’s opinion doesn’t matter.
Blame that on whatever you want.
Re: Re: Re:15
lmao keep projecting you racist loser
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16
You’re the one using all the fancy words alcoholic.
Lol. This is classic techdirt shit filler for inepts. Re-read all of the comments on this page and its just empty vocabulary 🙂
Just add comments for no reason, knowing the stupid people read them.
I didn’t read any of the comments. Just typed words with chatGPT lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
Sucker!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:17
Section 230 dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Odio morbi words for illiterates commodo odio. Tortor at risus viverra adipiscing at in tellus integer feugiat. Ut pharetra sit amet aliquam id diam maecenas.
Enim facilisis gravida neque convallis a cras semper auctor. Nunc pulvinar sapien et ligula ullamcorper. Sed nisi lacus sed viverra can be put in the middle. Feugiat in fermentum posuere urna nec tincidunt praesent. Nisl condimentum id venenatis a condimentum. Nisl vel pretium lectus quam id.
Maecenas pharetra convallis posuere morbi. Ut consequat semper viverra nam libero justo laoreet sit. Et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas integer. Semper eget duis at tellus at. Sed tempus urna et pharetra pharetra. Velit dignissim sodales ut eu. And its kind of funny lacus viverra vitae congue eu. Proin fermentum leo vel orci porta non pulvinar. Tristique nulla aliquet enim tortor.
Odio morbi quis commodo odio aenean sed adipiscing diam donec. Adipiscing elit ut aliquam purus sit amet. At quis risus sed vulputate. Viverra tellus in hac habitasse platea dictumst vestibulum.
Now don’t you feel enlightened?
Thats what you feel like after reading all of the comments. I’m laughing soooooooo hard.
I figured out why they only use stupid phrases and words an techdirt. Because thats all they know.
Re: Re: Re:14
Nah, he and his white supremacist ilk should get the fuck out of 4chan.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:15
Its cool that statistically, only inferior phrases are used on repeat.
Thats how you know someone is stupid. Thats all they know.
Its an easy data model to laugh at.
Re: Re: Re:7
It clarifies nothing. Well, nothing relevant, at least. It does suggest you may have a low opinion about “3rd world countries”, but that doesn’t really explain what point you were making to begin with.
Yeah, that’s not what’s confusing. What’s confusing about what you said was what the hell the point of saying that was even supposed to be. Setting aside the apparent bigotry in the comment and the stupidity of the claim in itself, how is that even relevant to anything anyone said before?
I mean, it factually isn’t, but whatever. Just because the individual sentences are grammatically correct and coherent on their own doesn’t mean they make total sense given the context of what came before.
Re: Re: Re:3
How fucking high and/or stupid are you bro?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’m laughing. This site is entertaining. Is it where all the twitter people went after Musk bought that place?
You know they are never going to update their mastadon servers right?
Re: Re: Re:5
“I’m laughing. This site is entertaining.”
It it fun watching you idiots piss yourselves day in day out.
Re: Re: Re:
You mean like white supremacy, conservative Christianity, and conservatism in general?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Lol. The culture divide has always been clear.
If you’re raised with deformed emotions, thats all you know.
Internet 1.0 is not for innovation. Its just plastic emotions and irrelevant opinions from global sources.
The culture divide is easy to see in the news:
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/sinaloa-cartel-deploy-child-soldiers-28898467
https://digg.com/politics/link/virginia-six-year-old-shooting-teacher-a-red-flag-for-the-country-mayor-says-10TUqzYXW3
If you don’t have culture, the culture divide is still obvious. Bipolar mental illness has become a comedy.
I was raised to enjoy modern progress. There is so much to enjoy in the 21st century without that mental illness they pedal to the uneducated.
Re: Re: Re:3
This new mix of backyard psychology and racism couched in the language of technology does show some promise…
If you are trying to grift money off the rubes. Here it’s going to earn you the scorn and derision you so rightly deserve.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Using the word culture takes the racism out of it.
“That culture is a piece of shit” doesn’t have to use color.
Re: Re: Re:5
“Using the word culture takes the racism out of it.”
Then why does my dog bark every time you post your pseudo tech psych babble?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Nobody told you to read it. Individuals have their own opinions.
Did you get pumped and dumped by crypto?
Re: Re: Re:7
Nah, Not all of us are as stupid as you are bro.
Re: Re: Re:3
“the news”
“Daily Star”
I hope you realise why one thing you said is not like the other…
Also, *why^ Mexico’s cartel wars are in the state they are right now (hint: a “war” from a close nightbour)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Someone mentioned racism, but its hard to find the white noise in some cultures.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=child+soldiers&atb=v240-1&ko=-1&t=ddg_android&iax=images&ia=images#
Thats like conversations online. Some cultures make their kids slaves and immediately spew hate. Its obvious where that comes from. Its their culture.
Re: Re: Re:5
I wonder if you can find one of those cultures that didn’t involve foreign invasions and influence to create them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Sometimes, a culture kills itself, for lack of any meaningful purpose.
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-01-23/in-a-lawless-stretch-of-mexico-child-soldiers-as-young-as-6-are-being-drafted-to-fight
That was 2020. They never made it to the 21st century.
Re: Re: Re:7
OK. A gang fighting against…what… which has its roots in…what?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Does not being a foreign invasion not satisfy any question of the culture divide?
It could have been the water on this too, but its probably the way they were raised.
https://nypost.com/2022/11/18/shanquella-robinsons-death-in-mexico-probed-as-killing-after-cops-blamed-alcohol/
I think the 1st world already had it right with segregation. Nobody wants to shoot a kid.
Re: Re: Re:9
How old was Emmett Till when he was lynched? How many times has the memorial to Emmett Till been shot up?
More people want to shoot kids than you might think, son. Of course, those people tend to be racists who want to carry out a racial genocide, so maybe there’s fewer of those people than you might think, given your obvious sympathies for such murderous assholes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
How many beautiful angles do not include any of that?
All of them
Now you know…. The rest of the story 🙂
Re: Re: Re:11
Are you okay? Do you have brain damage?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
You’re the one name dropping nobodies to make a point.
The culture divide is even more obvious.
Re: Re: Re:13
Why am I not surprised that a racist like you would think one of the most well-known victims of racist violence in the U.S. (to the point where his memorial has been vandalized numerous times) is a “nobody”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
You do know that the 1st world doesn’t follow stupid people right?
You are a mighty fine hole digger :p
Re: Re: Re:15
Hey, so, “digger” is a letter off from the word you really wanted to use there. Why be that much of a coward now?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16
No. I saw how stupid you were on the KPOP article on this site. You dug a hole for yourself with the stupidest vocabulary.
Apparently, you’re a fading alcoholic too. Must suck to be you :p
Re: Re: Re:17
Great, I’ve got another troll obsessing about me. What am I, a fucking magnet for racist lunatics?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:18
I’m the OP 🙂
You can keep your trash and insecurities. The fact still stands that section 230 does not exist on all of the new data networks in the 1st world.
Quality data still exists.
Re: Re: Re:19
Seriously how fucking high are you?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:20
Did the words hurt your feelings? Its the Internet stupid. If it doesn’t sound relevant, its not.
Re: Re: Re:21
Keep cryin bro.
Re: Re: Re:21
It’s less “hurt feelings” and more “what the f*** are you talking about?”
Re: Re: Re:19
Why’s it always projection with you racist fuckwits?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:20
Nobody is commenting on your OP :p
Go spew that trash to other depraved alcoholics.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:21
Knowing stupid people read every comment (52 on this post), heres a basic link.
https://digitalthinkerhelp.com/what-is-man-metropolitan-area-network-examples/
New buzzwords like regional area network, extended lan network, longrange mesh network, etc still don’t cover all of the opportunities for flourishing networks without the chatGPT bots.
It all makes for an interesting read.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:22
Knowing they read chatGPT comments and feel rage is kind of funny.
Thats not a 1st world problem.
Do you think we can make 100 comments about nothing with chatGPT?
Here.. Read this because its words lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
Re: Re: Re:23
Pretending you are as stupid as a chatbot is a weird flex bro.
Ignoring the obvious misinformation…
So how’s trying to implement Rupert Murdoch’s link tax? Or copyright filters at the behest of old media companies?
Before you point out the hypocrisy in others, look at your own hypocrisy first.
Its not What you are saying.
Its how you are saying it.
How many people have a SAFE word for the expression they wish to make.
there are time that calling a person a Dumb F**K, is worth the meaning and intention. But calling him an idiot will do about 1/2 as well.
I presume you could show different content to different jurisdictions? Or is that prohibited?
If not, that is extremely disturbing. Imagine being subject to the whims of not only the most restrictive jurisdiction, but a whole constellation of negative rules subtracting from your free expression.
Re:
Whichever way it goes will be a nightmare to deal with, the only question is who gets it worse.
If a platform goes with or is stuck with a ‘one size fits all’ option then the most restrictive laws and ideas as to ‘acceptable content’ will decide what is and is not allowed for everyone.
If a platform goes with ‘different content for different jurisdictions’ then they’ll be forced to essentially create multiple copies of the platform, splintering it into regional versions with little to no interaction with the others in case some ‘prohibited’ content leaks across.
Neither case is likely to be a better solution for the platforms or the users, but at least the politicians involved will be able to tell the tech companies to Nerd Harder in one sentence as they boast about how they themselves Did Something in the next.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
TechDirt fags and pigs providing misinformation about S230
Again, TechDirt fags and pigs providing misinformation about Section 230. Everyone knows Section 230 harms victims. There is a balance between internet being a free-speech toilet and censorship. EU gets it right. Not everyone, esp. not mentally ill psychopaths, deserve to have total free speech, especially if it invades another person’s privacy. Yet TechDirt fucks, pigs, and fags have no problem harming people for another buck. Total greedy immoral pigs at TechDirt!
Re:
… hallucinated nobody without catastrophic brain damage, ever.
Re:
You’re either a 4Chan troll or one of the brain-dead morons from Mike Judge’s idiocracy, and I don’t care which.
Re: from the Why don't people take me seriously dept.
Feel better now?
Good.
Now,sit down,take a deep breath and blow it out your ass.
Re: Re:
If I may quote a riff from one of my favorite MST3K episodes, San Francisco International,
Re:
Would you kindly leave the animals and the LGBT+ out of the equation?
1A benefits everyone!
Re:
Do you realize that without section 230, you would not be able to post on this and other sites.
Re: Re:
It’s an endless source of entertainment that the people who hate 230 the most are the ones that benefit the most from it.
Re: Come at me bro
Hey Jhon boi what ever happened to all those lawsuits you were gonna file?
Re:
[citation needed]
It demonstrably doesn’t.
Also, given your use of “fags”, a homophobic pejorative, and your ableist speech infra, I’m pretty sure that the EU would be opposed to your speech. It’s quite bigoted speech, that’s for sure.
First, this is bigotry. Psychopaths and others with mental illnesses deserve free speech just as much as everyone else, and you seem to misunderstand psychopathy entirely. Psychopaths are perfectly able and willing to be constructive participants in society and follow social norms.
Second, yes, everyone should have the exact same speech rights. We are all equal under the law.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
I have seen so many conniption fits on techdirt from illiterates that its easy to not take the site seriously.
It is funny to see them proclaim virtues from such a limited vocabulary.
Its cool to be politically neutral and see the Maga comments when the 3rd world doesn’t like an opinion. I have seen it more than once.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
TechDirt full of fags, fucks, and pigs who harm victims!
TechDirt full of fags, fucks, and pigs who harm victims by supporting the immoral, outdated, bloated law Section 230! Section 230 needs to be removed!
Re:
Translation:Jhon Smith wants to censor the truth of his scammer past so he can harass more victims.
Re:
Would you kindly tell Ron Wyden this, though?
Re: 1996 called and wants it's slur back
” Section 230 needs to be removed”
Any day now…
Any day now…
Re: Re: 'I didn't think the leopards would eat MY face!'
And should it ever happen the next day the very people that were cheering it’s revocation will be screaming about how all the platforms are suddenly kicking them off or not removing anything such that their posts are buried under an avalanche of spam and worse.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
as bad as the USA is for keeping the rich, richer, those in control frol losing that control, the EU is definitely worse but check back to where/how this started and it was to imprisen the members of The Pirate Bay by ensuring the judge on the trial, being nothing except biased in favor of the USA (mainly) entertainment industries were able to continuously get their way! since then, thw planet has turned into a copyright organisation run by the same industries and the internet will be as will and that’ll be within 5 years! all because those industries cant bear to lose control of anything and were too slow to see how the Internet was gonna shape everything and everyone. but remember, onve the Internet has been taken away from everyone, is run by a self-serving and totally restrictive set of industries who will expect to give permission to whom the ywant only, we’ll never get it back!! think of the disastrous results that will have on everything and everyone!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
EU style regulation of internet is GOOD!
EU style regulation of the internet is good! This prevents online harassment, cyber-stalking, doxxing from harming victims. The USA “hands-off” approach is simply immoral and wrong, benefitting only big corporations at the expense of public safety. Fuck the USA Section 230 and here’s to hoping it is repealed soon! Too many people want it gone!
Re:
We have tremendous evidence that this is false. We have years of evidence in Germany with NetzDG which lead to the suppression of lots of perfectly legitimate speech, and did nothing to stop “online harassment, cyber-stalking, doxxing” etc.
We know this.
You think that some magic wand fixes it, even though the evidence shows it does not.
This is also entirely false. Section 230 has protected individuals and small companies way more than large companies.
I’m sorry but you are woefully uninformed.
Re:
“The USA “hands-off” approach is simply immoral and wrong”
So… you’re saying there should be government control over basic communication?
Re: Since you didn't hear it the first time
”Section 230 needs to be removed”
Any day now…
Any day now…
Re: Re:
..and if it is ever removed, I hope that the schadenfreude of seeing these people getting what they wanted is larger than the damage done by the unintended consequences we warned them about.,..
Re: Re: Re:
It was already pointed out that one-size does not fit all several times in history.
I still like the idea of global networks and a plethora of domestic networks.
It makes a lot of sense in the 21st century. They have no future with the GPT drivel pissing contests. Thats for the other people.
Re: Re: Re:2
Sir this is an Arbys.
Re: Re: Re:
It won’t be, but it will at least provide some small source of entertainment as platform after platform engage in a mixture of culling vast swaths of content and banning huge numbers of users, with the first people likely to face the consequences of that being the very ones that were cheering for and about 230’s revocation.
Everyone will be shown the door, but at least the spoiled, hypocritical idiots will be thrown out through it first.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yeah. Those stupid hypocrits talk out of both sides of their mouth and their asses.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-11-12/ethiopia-hosts-un-internet-meeting-after-cutting-off-tigray
Only the idiots try to make sense of stupid.
Re: Re: Re:3
Ain’t no one buying what you sellin hon. Time to move on.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
The article speaks for itself.
You can read, can’t you? That was November 2022.
hypocrite
hĭp′ə-krĭt″
noun
A person given to hypocrisy.
One who assumes a false appearance; one who feigns to be what he is not, or to feel or believe what he does not actually feel or believe; especially, a false pretender to virtue or piety.
SynonymsDissembler, Hypocrite (see dissembler); Pharisee, formalist, cheat.
Is it fake news since its about the Internet?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Lol. How is that selling anything? Thats the stupidest comment.
The article says they cut-off Internet in their country in a specific region while also hosteing a UN Internet summit at the same time.
It looks like hypcrite stuff in plain English.
Re: Re: Re:5
Considering the above is not even a coherent sentence in English, you are the last person to be critiquing someone else’s comprehension of the language.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
So you agree that the article was on point.
It already happened.
Now you know what a hypocrit is. In plain English.
Re: Re: Re:7 That plain enough for ya bro
“Now you know what a hypocrit is. In plain English.”
Apparently it’s a dipshit who can”t spell.
Re: Re: Re:7
Maybe if you took a few breaths, learned how to spell “hypocrite” and spent some time reading the comments you’re replying to, you’d reach a different conclusion.
Re: Re: Re:7
The only hypocrisy I’m seeing here is from you. Your English comprehension skills leave much to be desired. How you got this:
…or this:
…from this:
…is completely beyond me.
Having lost a number of friends to the conspiracy theorists the last few years I can equivocally say that ‘something’ needs to be done – even if it does turn out to be a bit heavy handed. And I can’t help but notice that the majority of these new-found beliefs seem to be very GOP-based in origin (my first clue was when when I was told that “they’ll be coming for our guns” – we live in the UK, we don’t have guns).
Perhaps a better solution would be to address this at the source, rather than the messenger.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Tech companies should be moderating based on the law and harm to victims
Not the freedom to “moderate the fuck” they want, which means they are free to NOT remove harmful or illicit content that harms individuals just because of Section 230. This means victims of real harms like cyberstalking may not have any available recourse to stop the attacks. In addition, perpetrators may be located overseas, hiding in various countries, so “suing the perpetrator” is not always an available option.
Again, the dumb retards on Tech Dirt purposely ignore this reality and continue to put corporate profits ahead of personal and social safety.
Greedy pigs
Re:
Yeah, that you think it’s that simple shows you don’t understand technology or sociology.
Going after intermediaries still won’t change that.
Same goes for the intermediaries. The option you want doesn’t solve the problem. It’s just killing the messenger.
First, this is factually false. Techdirt has explained multiple times why removing §230 won’t solve the “problems” you speak of, only creating new ones. That you ignore what they actually say in favor of the strawman you created is not their fault.
Second, if you’re going to tone-police like that, you really should stop with the ableist slurs.
Re: Re: Repealing Section 230 would keep victims of cyberharassment safe
That’s all that matters.
Nobody gives a rat fuck about tech profits. They have enough already. I certainty don’t give a fuck if Google loses another billion of profits.
It’s well worth it – to keep victims of cyber crimes safe.
Fuck Big Tech. Fuck the scoundrels who support Section 230. They are criminals and should be jailed for life.
Re: Re: TechDirt's pro-Section 230 arguments are pure bullshit
Tech Dirt’s pro-Section 230 arguments are pure bullshit. They gaslight victims and ignore the social harms for allowing tech, or any industry, to expand unregulated.
Asking Tech Dirt for pro-Section 230 arguments is equivalent to asking pro-Hitler arguments at a Nazi party in Berlin in 1944.
Tech Dirt is so pro-tech because they make money from lack of regulations.
So I say we change it. Regulate tech and force tech companies to protect users from online harm.
It’s very simple.
Re: Re: The messenger SHOULD be killed if the message is harmful or illegal
Common sense distributor liability.
Repeal this fucken Section 230.
Tech deserves to be sued.
Re: Re: Re:
“Common sense distributor liability.”
In other industries, it’s common sense that if someone’s property is used without approval or prior knowledge to do something, then you go after the person who used the property and not the person who owned it.
Why do you think that’s different just because it’s on the internet?
Tech Dirt is spewing lies about Section 230 to fend off regulations
EU regulation is NOT censorship. It’s basic balance between Free Speech and privacy/dignity.
Concepts like Right to be Forgotten is desperately needed in the USA.
Tech Dirt, and its founder Mike Masnick, needs to stop spewing lies and misinformation to fend off regulation.
It’s time to repeal Section 230 and pay the piper for causing harm to society, tech companies!
Tech Dirt is spewing lies after lies to protection Section 230
Tech Dirt is spewing lies after lies to protect Section 230 and prevent regulation from helping victims of online abuse.
Tech needs to be regulated. Tech needs to face tort liability. Tech should pay the piper like everyone else.
Re:
The funny thing is, John Smith, all this has been explained to you before – but for the sake of not letting you have the last word, let’s clarify.
Section 230 doesn’t do shit to protect bullies or defamation. What it does is stop idiots like Milorad Truklja from suing Google because someone else, not Google, had a photograph of him that included him in the background of gangsters. What resulted after that was Milorad choosing to make it Google’s problem and not the problem of the newspaper/magazine that published it, because anything remotely anti-Google makes chumps like you jizz in your panties.
Nothing else protects tech from this “liability” you keep chasing. If someone harasses or defames you nothing is stopping you from suing that person, short of spending resources. If your concern is that people hate you purely because some anonymous rando on the other side of the planet said something stupid about you, those people around you are not nice people. Or you’re actually an asshole. Based on your history of posting I’m very inclined to believe the latter.
But mailing lists were the only gimmick you had to make money so I’m not surprised spamming shit like a two-year-old is your new shtick.
Retarded 404
How Retarded do I have to be to see this in action? Are we all retarded? And why are Retards not as scummed up as the average Politition? Are EU Policy makers all In-bread?