Techdirt Podcast Episode 341: In Defense Of The Global, Open Internet
from the under-attack dept
There have long been attacks on the global, open nature of the internet. Traditionally these came from authoritarian regimes looking to wall off portions of the internet and exert greater control of them, but lately we’ve also been seeing growing threats from democratic countries in the form of problematic laws and regulations. Recently, we wrote about an article by Global Network Initiative executive director Jason Pielemeier and Annenberg Public Policy Center research fellow Chris Riley that made a case in defense of the global, open internet, and this week both Jason and Chris join us on the podcast to look at the past, present and future of the internet around the world.
Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.
Filed Under: chris riley, global internet, jason pielemeier, podcast, policy, regulation
Comments on “Techdirt Podcast Episode 341: In Defense Of The Global, Open Internet”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
A global, open internet where crime reigns supreme...
Is what Tech Dirt apparently wants. A global, open internet where revenge porn, cyberstalking, doxing, harassment, online abuse thrive and individuals have no legal recourse. An open internet where online crime is disguised as “Free Speech” leaving victims with ruined lives, career, and relationships. An open internet where tech entrepreneurs make millions but face no legal liability for any crime or civil tort committed on its platform.
Tech Dirt wants to get rich and everyone else to pay the price. Tech Dirt wants all the profits without the responsibility.
Tech Dirt can stop dreaming. Section 230 will be severely curbed by the Supreme Court this year and more regulations will come to make online the same as offline.
Tech Dirt’s wet dream of putting personal profits over victims and social safety is about to end.
🙂 🙂 🙂
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Read Gonzales v. Google - none of the amicus curiae briefs favour Google
Everyone wants to see Section 230 get gutted.
It would be a glorious day for Section 230 to be gutted. Finally, what applies offline will apply online.
This is close to the end of tech industry’s two decade wet dream of no regulation and no legal responsibility for cyber crimes.
🙂 🙂 🙂
Re:
[CITATION NEEDED]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Everyone knows Section 230 harms victims and the public
https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2019/03/BARTOW.pdf
Everyone knows Section 230 harms victims and the public
Re: Re: Re:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Also, your source is crap. She cites a book on the first page that claims:
That’s factually wrong. Section 230 was written by Representatives Ron Wyden and Chris Cox as a response to the verdict in Stratton Oakmont, Inc v. Prodigy Services Co., because they felt that websites wouldn’t be able to function if they couldn’t moderate as they saw fit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Her argument is morally sound. Unlike Tech Dirt's argument...
Which is just basically saying let’s sacrifice victims of online crimes to protect corporate profits.
Tech Dirt is full of greedy capitalistic corporate pigs.
Re: Re: Re:3
Except it’s not. It’s based on false information. That makes it not sound, in any capacity.
Also, I know this is going to go over your head, but if Techdirt consisted of greedy, capitalistic pigs, why did they did get completely rid of ads? Why aren’t they shilling for every possible product they can?
I’ll give you a hint: it has to do with not being greedy and capitalistic.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 The only false information is spewed by Tech Dirt
Basically, Tech Dirt is saying: let’s not regulate online harms. Tech Dirt thinks big tech companies should NOT have any liability for online harms even if victims have no available recourse (if the perpetrator is hiding abroad or using VPN). This way, tech companies can just continue making money off of harmful content while hiding behind a liability shield.
HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS MAKE SENSE IN ANY REASONABLE SOCIETY?
Re: Re: Re:5
No, they’re not.
Provide a source or quote for that, or stop lying.
It’s in the best financial interest of the companies to not be associated with rampant harassment and abuse among users. You have no clue how this shit works.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Google and Bing ignore court orders, thanks to Section 230
“No, they’re not.”
Yes, they are. The only EFFECTIVE solution for cyberstalking and online harassment is a repeal of Section 230 to make ISPs more sensitive to harmful content. Anything else is pure fantasy.
“It’s in the best financial interest of the companies to not be associated with rampant harassment and abuse among users. You have no clue how this shit works.”
Tell that to Google and Bing who refuse to take down defamatory and harassing search results no matter how many times victims have to ask.
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/forum/all/bing-will-not-comply-with-court-order-for-removal/881347d6-119f-46e4-93e2-19714f4479be
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/forum/all/i-have-a-narrow-court-order-asking-microsoft-to/61d50e17-e6d7-4345-8972-1907816fa9c1
https://nypost.com/2019/08/17/how-google-has-destroyed-the-lives-of-revenge-porn-victims/
Get your facts right man. Big arrogant tech companies, in particular Google, don’t give a rat’s fuck about victims of online harassment and helping them. Google deserves to be sued into oblivion, and Google executives deserve life in prison without parole.
Re: Re: Re:7
How do they do that without enabling every scanner, crook and religious zealot to remove anything that they object to.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Again, a complete red herring/straw man from Section 230 supporters
“How do they do that without enabling every scanner, crook and religious zealot to remove anything that they object to.”
Again, a complete red herring/straw man. Sure, the law could be abused, but it would help a LOT MORE people who are actually stalked or harassed or doxed and need the harm to stop. The fact that any law can be abused is not justification for not having the law.
Maybe 5% of requests will be frivolous. But 95% of requests will be real. And I’m perfectly ok with some collateral damage to “low quality” speech of that 5% if it means 95% of the requests by actual people harmed by online stalkers can be satisfied.
In addition, victims need to be able to provide evidence. But to deny them a path altogether simply due to Section 230 does FAR MORE HARM than good for society.
Re: Re: Re:9
Currently over half of DMCA claims are bogus — and many are attempts to just remove content people don’t like. So, where you get the data that only 5% of harassment claims will be false?
Furthermore, if I argue you’re harassing Mike with your spam and insults (which you are), should Techdirt be held liable?
Re: Re: Re:10 Most DMCA claims are legitimate. Where's your source for >50%? fucker
There’s nothing wrong with bogus DMCA claims as long as it adequately protects real legitimate claims. It’s ok to have some collateral damage to low quality trashy speech online as long as victims are protected, you dumb biased piece of shit.
Internet should never be a toilet where anyone can post any garbage online that can ruin other people’s lives without any type of legal recourse to get that content removed.
Re: Re: Re:11
No, what that does is incentivize bogus claims. When bogus claims are sufficiently incentivized in that nobody would ever penalize them, it encourages flooding of the system with bogus claims that then have to be handled.
So what ends up happening is the system becomes so clogged with bogus claims that have to be treated as legitimate, actually legitimate claims get buried and they don’t get the attention they need. This isn’t exaggeration either – plenty of music creators on YouTube find that other non-practicing entities have issued DMCAs on their original work, and someone else ends up making money on their content.
In any case, the DMCA doesn’t protect against online harassment. It has been used for it, which isn’t what copyright law is for, and such abuse only makes it harder for legitimate claims to survive precisely because the bogus claims outweigh the legit.
And what then would you do, if someone issues a DMCA takedown on your username and comment history, and forced Techdirt to take it down and prevent you from commenting further?
Re: Re: Re:11
Not a believer of the Constitution, are you? Seems like you are one those stupid people who burns down the house because they found a spider.
Re: Re: Re:5
Basically you are demanding that companies approve every post made, and that leads to a fascist hell that makes 1984 look like an accurate prediction.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Companies do not need to approve every post made but...
Once they have legal notice of harmful content they are on the hook for legal liability if they do not take reasonable steps to remove it.
It’s called “duty of care”, and every industry has it, except for the greedy tech industry which doesn’t give a shit if someone is killed on the platforms (aka Kiwifarms/Grindr).
Lack of duty of care makes no fucken sense but the pigs at Tech Dirt want you to think it’s a good thing.
Fucken scum.
Re: Re: Re:7
Under a “duty of care” Techdirt would not be posting your incessant harassment and insults.
But also, what underlying tort or crime do you think would suddenly be relevant should 230 go away?
You seem wholly ignorant of the law (including the schedules for amicus briefs in Gonzalez).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 I don't care about ads. I care about Tech Dirt's failure to advocate for Section 230 reform
Section 230 reform is the most obvious change that can meaningfully help protect Americans and people around the world from cyber stalker and online harassment. Yet Tech Dirt doesn’t do shit and tries to spew bull shit about how Section 230 is good, in effect basically supporting cyber harassment and cyber stalking by leaving victims harmed by these crimes without proper recourse to remove harmful content and hold perpetrators or platforms who abet the crimes accountable.
It’s not that hard to understand. You are purposely ignoring my point because you know it’s right and Tech Dirt puts corporate profits above public safety and the law.
Re: Re: Re:5
How would removing a US law help people “around the world”, numbnuts?
What you’re suggesting is the equivalent of wanting to sue Ford for someone running you over in an F-150.
Interesting logic. Does that mean that you’re ignoring everybody else’s points against you because you know they’re right?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 A US law helps international victims because currently...
perpetrators hiding overseas just repost the harmful content on a US server and victims overseas have no legal remedy to remove it. US tech companies hide behind Section 230 on a GLOBAL basis so the content is always viewable on the US version of the website, regardless of local laws. Case in point, Right to be Forgotten in EU doesn’t mean jacksquat because one can always find the removed links on Google USA, so removing it from Google EU, Google France, Google UK, means didly squat.
So basically the US is exporting its fucken “no regulations for big tech” policy globally. Section 230 repeal would allow foreign victims to sue the US companies which would remove the harmful content on US versions of the website. It would also allow victims of harassment by a foreign perpetrator out of jurisdiction of US courts to sue the platform for expeditious content removal.
It’s the fucken retards on Tech Dirt who purposely want to turn a blind eye to this reality to support making money off of the pain they cause society.
Fucken scum.
Re: Re: Re:
Might I also add that this source has also taken money from the CCP (via one of their propaganda outlets) and IS a member of the Federalist Society?
So forgive me if I say she’s less relaible as your claims as to how Section 230 (and by extension, 1A) harms people.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 It's fucken better than Tech Dirt taking money from Big Tech
and misleading professors like Eugene Volokh and Eric Goldman writing misleading and pro-corporation articles in favour of Big Tech under the disguise of the First Amendment and completely ignoring the reality of rising online abuse and cyberharms on a global basis.
Eugene Volokh, Eric Goldman, and Reason Magazine has not written anything to address the rise of online harassment and how to protect victims. These people purposely turn a blind eye because they are likely paid behind the scenes by Big Tech to act as de facto corporate mouthpieces.
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s a CRIMINAL ISSUE.
It always has been.
All that is required is for companies in general to cooperate with the authorities in those cases. Section 230 actually incentivises cooperation in that case.
Gonzalez vs Google is about terrorist content on Google’s services. I have only seen emotive bullshit regarding that and not “how do I incentivize greater cooperation for these CLEARLY CRIMINAL THINGS”.
Now, if the argument was “should Google do more” I ‘d be willing to talk, but you seem to want to atack Big Tech.
In that case, I’ve got a question.
Should there also be a law that also forbids Koch Industries from doing business in Russia? Duty of care also covers “not working with countries actively trying to subjugate a soverign country”.
Re: Re: Re:4 America's biased and racist prosecutors don't enforce the laws
So a private right of action against cyberharassment needs to be added so victims can sue perpetrators.
It’s painfully obvious laws need to be passed to address online harms. Tech Dirt is doing everything it can to PREVENT such laws from being passed
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The lack of tech regulation is causing enormous social harm in USA and internationally
In today’s world, online stalkers can continue to ruin the lives of victims by posting harmful content, doxing content, and shaming pages online and ISPs have zero incentive to remove this. The legal system hasn’t caught up with the internet. Criminals and sociopaths find it easier to commit crimes online than offline. Section 230 needs to go. Only when Section 230 is removed, repealed, or severely curbed will Google, Facebook, and other tech companies have incentive to promptly address online harm lest otherwise they will lose profits to lawsuits. It is beyond time for a regulatory framework for the tech sector as the lack of regulation is causing too much harm to many people in the US and across the world.
The USA needs to repeal Section 230 or reform it severely, and adopt data privacy laws like Right to be Forgotten. This way, nobody can post crap about someone online and have this affect the victim’s life. Online stalking is same as offline stalking. Online crimes are illegal as are offline crimes.
First Amendment should also be amended so that it doesn’t cover doxing, online harassment, and online stalking.
See here: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/19/the-war-against-online-trolls/free-speech-does-not-protect-cyberharassment
Danielle Citron is completely correct in that our laws need to be updated urgently to reign in tech companies running AMOK and harming people.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
USA is currently crumpling as a country due to lack of regulation for Big Tech
Solution is to repeal Section 230 and start fining tech companies, large and small, who allow harm to persist on their platforms even when provided legal notice or court orders.
Tech companies have taken advantage of Section 230 for too long and don’t deserve the protections. They aid and abet online crimes because it makes them money.
Repeal Section 230.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Lobbying of Congress by immoral tech firms should also be curtailed
Perhaps a repeal of Citizens United would do the trick. Big Tech is a nefarious force in American society. Tech companies big and small are extremely evil and have no qualms about harming people if it makes them an extra buck.
Repeal Section 230. Curb Big Tech Lobbying. Make Congress work for Americans, not Silicon Valley.
Fuck Section 230 supporters
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Agreed. Would love to see Section 230 repealed and tech regulated
I think it is a boon for tech to be regulated properly so they are accountable for online harms and can be sued.
This would create a safer and better society.
EU, India and UK are all regulating big tech and they are all democracies.
Tech Dirt should also be regulated.
Re:
Google is literally in the middle of a lawsuit. Did you pass the time as a child by repeatedly running into walls?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Google should face EVEN MORE lawsuits
Google is perhaps one of the most vile and evil corporations on earth.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Fine, so what is Tech Dirt's solution to online harassment and cyberstalking?
What has Tech Dirt proposed to address the exploding social harm of online harassment, cyberstalking and doxing? What if the perpetrator cannot be located, is hiding abroad, or using TOR or VPN?
Re: Re: Re:
Who says they have to provide one? They’re not a thinktank.
And if the perpetrator can’t be located, for whatever reason, simply repealing section 230 will do squat to fix things.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
“Who says they have to provide one?”
So why the fuck should we trust Tech Dirt then? If Tech Dirt can’t offer ethical and unbiased analysis of online harms then it’s obvious they are on the side of corporate profits over public safety. That means the entire organization reeks of dishonestly, immorality, and is ok with perpetuating harms against society to fatten their wallets. This makes them complicit in online harassment and other crimes.
So why the fuck would any one want to associate with Tech Dirt if it is so painfully clear they are ok throwing public safety under the bus for corporate profits?
Who would want to associate with immoral greedy pigs?
Re: Re: Re:3
The fuck are you on Jesse
Have you even read TechDirt
Do you even know the bullshit Mike had to do to get Google’s tracking bullshit out of the site
Or that it accepts money regardless of the source
Re: Re: Re:4 I don't care about Google's tracking individuals
That’s not the invasion of privacy that I care about. I don’t care if Google tracks users. What I care about is there are NO laws that prevent PEOPLE from invading the privacy of and harming OTHER PEOPLE, using platforms like Google. That’s the harm I care about, not if Google tracks your cookies or some shit, which has no real life damages and is irrelevant.
What is relevant is if there are no laws preventing the posting of harmful, stalking content by ONE PERSON AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON. If no laws exist, then effectively you are saying we as a country (THE USA) allows people to randomly ruin the lives of another person online as some form of personal retribution, harassment, or stalking campaign.
I’m not OK with the fact that people can post anything they want about others online with no legal repercussions and the person being posted about has no legal remedies to get inaccurate, harassing, or plainly malicious content removed.
The “Right to be Forgotten” is absolutely necessary in the digital age to protect digital privacy FROM OTHER INDIVIDUALS.
I don’t give a shit about protecting personal privacy from CORPORATIONS. What can Google do with my cookies? Don’t give a rat’s fuck.
Re: Re: Re:5
There is no law that can prevent a crime, only discourage.
So why do you post obvious lies here then if you dislike it so much? You can’t complain about an activity if you are doing yourself.
Re: Re: Re:6 I'm telling the truth and only the truth
Try suing me. Even if you did everything I said would be protected by First Amendment as it is all the truth.
Re: Re: Re:7
That… is not how the courts works. Or how 1A works.
And I’m the outsider here.
Re: Re: Re:3
You didn’t answer my question and your logic is moronic.
Re: Re: Re:4 Only moron here is Strawb, who thinks harassment, doxing is a good thing
Section 230 absolutely needs to be fixed because it currently allows individuals to dox and post personal private information about others with no legal recourse by the victim. What society would allow this?
You’re fucken retarded if you think cyberlibertarianism is a good thing. You’re a dumb ass pig.
Re: Re: Re:5
You go after the individuals who do the deed.
Also, why don’t you use your real name? Afraid of getting sued for defamation or libel perhaps?
Re: Re: Re:6 What if the individuals are hiding in another country?
What if the “individuals” are hiding in another country and cannot be located, or judgment proof and don’t care about a lawsuit?
By ignoring these very common and obvious points, you’re basically showing that you purposefully gaslight the harm of the victims to protect corporate profits.
You guys are just a bunch of greedy pigs who deserve to be regulated and controlled by law.
Total freedom doesn’t exist.
Re: Re: Re:7
You’re slipping, John. This spate of throwaway accounts to say the same thing over and over again just to harass a website doesn’t prove you’re right, it proves you’re an annoying brat with an ax to grind.
Re: Re: Re:
If the perp is using TOR, well….
Have they tried ASKING the CIA to monitor the fucking perp?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Fuck cyberlibertarian shithead pigs who support Section 230
Time for Section 230 to be repealed. Supreme Court will do it this year.
Re:
[CITATION NEEDED]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Everyone knows Section 230 harms victims
Fuck Section 230 Fuck Big Tech Fuck Tech Dirt for supporting online crimes and Section 230
Re: Re: Re:
So you admit you cannnot show any non-hallucinatory evidence Section 230 has ever once caused harm. (because such a thing is impossible)
Re: Re: Re:2 Read the amicus curiae briefs for Gonzales v. Google
Everyone with a IQ above 25 understands it makes NO FUCKEN SENSE for internet companies to have TOTAL immunity because then what fucken incentive do they have to remove harmful content online?
Re: Re: Re:3
Anyone who is rational understand that no internet company has immunity, total or otherwise. Only irrational people who can’t be bothered to understand the Constitution and the law says something like that.
Re: Re: Re:4 No, the way courts have interpreted Section 230 grants
internet companies near total immunity for any and all harms that the platform ALLOWS to exist on its platform.
Section 230 needs to go.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Tech Dirt wants the internet to be so open that criminals thrive
TechDirt wants a global open internet where criminals thrive…
Re:
In the real world: Section 230 protections can only be triggered in the case of the defendant bring 100% innocent of the accusations made against them.
Only frauds like Gonzalez hate this fact.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Fuck cyber libertarianism and Section 230!
Section 230 needs to be repealed ASAP to hold tech companies and platforms ACCOUNTABLE for fostering harassment, abuse, and misinformation!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Tech Dirt, by failing to address online harms and reforming Section 230...
means that Tech Dirt is actively abetting online harassment and crimes by purposefully putting out misinformation that would prevent effective laws from being passed to hold cyberstalkers, cyber harassers, and doxers accountable for the harm they cause victims and the public safety.
Re:
Note: The sole motivation behind removing Section 230 is the desire to engage in harrassment and threats, without 230’s protection against such.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The evidence against Section 230 is fucken overwhelming...
But most pigs on this forum are straight up willfully blind because they put corporate profits over public safety.
Fuck Silicon Valley greedy corporate pigs
remove doxxing content if they can’t get sued anyway, which is the current case under Section 230.
Why the fuck is Google ignoring victim pleas to remove revenge porn then?
People in the tech community can’t stand having Section 230 removed because THEY LOSE MONEY! That’s the real reason. Well you know what? You fucken deserve to lose money!
Tech Dirt deserves to be sued into oblivion and shut down for good!
Fuck Section 230! Fuck Tech Dirt. Fuck Silicon Valley pigs.
Section 230 MUST BE REPEALED
Why is this? If you say Section 230 allows platforms to fight harassment, then WHY THE FUCK are these platforms blatantly IGNORING court orders that have been adjudicated in the legal system of illegal content?
Your logic makes no fucken sense. You know the reality of Section 230, but just don’t want to admit it cause it will impact profits for tech entrepreneurs. Well guess what? I don’t give a rat’s fuck if tech entrepreneurs lose money!
Re:
The defendents’ innocence doesn’t care about your mentally ill feelings, Jhon.
Thanks for sharing. It is very helpful for me and also informative for all those users who will come to read.