Even If You Hate Both AI And Section 230, You Should Be Concerned About The Hawley/Blumenthal Bill To Remove 230 Protections From AI
from the a-blumenthal/hawley-specialty dept
Over the past few days I’ve been hearing lots of buzz claiming that either today or tomorrow Senator Josh Hawley is going to push to “hotline” the bill he and Senator Richard Blumenthal introduced months back to explicitly exempt AI from Section 230. Hotlining a bill is basically an attempt to move the bill quickly by seeking unanimous consent (i.e., no one objecting) to a bill.
Let me be extremely explicit: this bill would be a danger to the internet. And that’s even if you hate both AI and Section 230. We’ve discussed this bill before, and I explained its problems then, but let’s do this again, since there’s a push to sneak it through.
First off, there remains an ongoing debate over whether or not Section 230 actually protects the output of generative AI systems. Many people say it should not, arguing that the results are from the company in question, and thus not third party speech. Lawyer Jess Miers made the (to me) extremely convincing case as to why this was wrong.
In short, the argument is that courts have already determined that algorithmic output derived from content provided by others is protected by Section 230. This has been true in cases involving things like automatically generated search snippets or things like autocomplete. And that’s kind of important or we’d lose algorithmically generated summaries of search results.
From there, you now have to somehow distinguish “generative AI output” from “algorithmically generated summaries” and there’s simply no limiting principle here. You’re just arbitrarily declaring some algorithmically generated content “AI” and some of it… not?
I remain somewhat surprised that Section 230’s authors, Ron Wyden and Chris Cox, have enthusiastically supported the claim that 230 shouldn’t protect AI output. It seems wrong on the law and wrong on the policy as noted above.
Still, Senators Hawley and Blumenthal introduced this bill that would make a mess of everything, because it’s drafted so stupidly and so poorly that it should never have been introduced, let alone be considered for moving forward.
First of all, if Wyden and Cox and those who argue 230 doesn’t apply are right, then this bill isn’t even needed in the first place, because the law already wouldn’t apply.
But, more importantly, the way the law is drafted would basically end Section 230, but in the dumbest way possible. First the bill defines generative AI extremely broadly:
GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.—The term ‘generative artificial intelligence’ means an artificial intelligence system that is capable of generating novel text, video, images, audio, and other media based on prompts or other forms of data provided by a person.’
That’s the entirety of the definition. And that could apply to all sorts of technology. Does autocomplete meet that qualification? Probably. Arguably, spellchecking and grammar checking could as well.
But, again, even if you could tighten up that definition, you’d still run into problems. Because the bill’s exemption is insanely broad:
‘‘(6) NO EFFECT ON CLAIMS RELATED TO GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.—Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit any claim in a civil action or charge in a criminal prosecution brought under Federal or State law against the provider of an interactive computer service if the conduct underlying the claim or charge involves the use or provision of generative artificial intelligence by the interactive computer service.’’;
We need to break down the many problems with this. Note that the exemption from 230 here is not just on the output of generative AI. It’s if the conduct “involves the use or provision” of generative AI. So, if you write a post, and an AI grammar/spellchecker suggests edits, then the company is no longer protected by Section 230?
Considering that AI is currently being built into basically everything, this “exemption” will basically eat the entire law, because increasingly all content produced online will involve “the use or provision” of generative AI, even if the content itself has nothing to do with the service provider.
In short, this bill doesn’t just strip 230 protections from AI output, in effect it strips 230 from any company that offers AI in its products. Which is basically a set of internet companies rapidly approaching “all of them.” At the very least, plaintiffs will sue and claim that the content had some generative AI component just to avoid a 230 dismissal and drag the case out.
Then, because you can tell an AI-based systems to do something that violates the law, you can automatically remove all 230 protections from the company. Over at R Street, they give an example where they deliberately convince ChatGPT to defame Tony Danza.
And, under this law, doing so would open up OpenAI to liability, even though all it was doing was following the instructions of the users.
Then there’s a separate problem here. It creates a massive state law loophole. As we’ve discussed for years, for very good reasons, Section 230 preempts any state laws that would undermine it. This is to prevent states from burdening the internet with vexatious liability as a punishment (something that is increasingly popular across the political spectrum as both major political parties seek to punish companies for ideological reasons).
But, notice that this exemption deliberately carves out “state law.” That would open the floodgates to terrible state laws that introduce liability for anything related to AI, and again help to effectively strip any protections from companies that offer any product that has AI. It would enable a ton of mischief from politically motivated states.
The end result would harm a ton of internet speech, because when you add liability, you get less of the thing you add liability to. Companies would be way less open to hosting any kind of content, especially content that has any algorithmic component, as it opens them up to liability under this law.
It would also make so many tools too risky to offer. Again, this could include things as simple as spelling and grammar checkers, as such tools might strip the companies and the content from any kind of 230 protections.
I mean, you could even see scenarios like: if someone were to post a defamatory post that includes an unrelated generative AI image to Facebook, the defamed party could now sue Meta, rather than the person doing the defamation. Because the use of generative AI in the post would strip Meta of the 230 protections.
So, basically, under this law, anyone who wants to get any website in legal trouble just has to post something defamatory and include some generative AI content with it, and the company loses all 230 protections for that content. At the very least, this would lead companies to be quite concerned about allowing any content that is partially generated by AI on their sites, but it’s difficult to see how one would even police that?
Thus, really, you’re just adding liability and stripping 230 from the entire internet.
Again, even if you think AI is problematic and 230 needs major reform, this is not the way to do that. This is not a narrowly targeted piece of legislation. It’s a poorly drafted sledgehammer to the open internet, at least in the US. Section 230 was the key to the US becoming a leader in the original open internet. American companies lead the internet economy, in large part because of Section 230. As we enter the generative AI era, this law would basically be handing the next technology revolution to any other country that wants it, by adding ruinous liability to companies operating in the US.
Filed Under: generative ai, josh hawley, liability, richard blumenthal, section 230
Comments on “Even If You Hate Both AI And Section 230, You Should Be Concerned About The Hawley/Blumenthal Bill To Remove 230 Protections From AI”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I don't hate 230
I just hate your ridiculous misinterpretation that it shields editorial decisions, when it’s quite clearly the opposite of that.
Re:
Why do you want the government to meddle when it comes to free speech, Matthew? Aren’t you usually in favour of free speech?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I don’t.
I want them to be subject to defamation lawsuits (which is the main thing 230 protects against) when they exert editorial control (i.e. act as the publisher). Please note they’d actually have to defame (lie) which means an awful lot of their editorial control wouldn’t be actionable. But some would.
And no, defamation lawsuits are not “the government”, that’s just the dumbest thing.
Re: Re: Re:
By wanting editorial decisions to not be protected under section 230, you want the government, by extension of the law, to intervene in the free speech of platforms.
And there’s nothing about section 230 that’s stopping anyone from suing for defamation. Section 230 just puts the onus on the actual speaker, instead of the platform carrying the speech.
Well, defamation cases are almost always decided by a judge, which is, you know, a government employee.
But tell me again how facts are “just the dumbest thing”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Is someone seriously arguing that spreading defamation (republishing) causes no additional, separate harm?
Re: Re: Re:3
I don’t see anyone making that argument, but even if defamatory content was spread on a platform, the only guilty party would stil be the original speaker.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
“Liable”, not “guilty”, because it is a civil action between private parties, not a criminal trial enforced by government.
And the issue is when a platform disallows entire categories of speech, thus exerting editorial control.
Re: Re: Re:5
You have to be particularly stupid to make this statement, because editorial control is deciding what is published beforehand.
Typical fascist asshole behavior, trying to redefine what things mean.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
By definition “edits” are after something is written and “editors” do indeed often change articles once they are published.
So funny enough I’m pretty sure I’m not the one trying to change definitions….
But, in fact, “deciding what is published beforehand.” is exactly what I’m alleging occurs. Just in a systematic manner.
This “facist” thing has already been really dumb, it’s merely what happened when calling everyone who disagreed with you “racist” wasn’t hyperbolic enough.
But it get especially dumb when all the racists who want to kill Jews are on your side.
Liberals are ffing hateful, man.
Re: Re: Re:7
So these articles, they appear out of thin air? There isn’t some kind of person who has the role of deciding what’s going to be published then? I distinctly remember there’s such a person, but for the life of me I can’t remember what role they have because it can’t be an editor since you just said they only edit things after they have been published.
Like how an editor only edits already published articles, huh? Now tell us what the definition is for someone who decides what should be published and what edits should be done to the articles first.
Fascist really love redefining the meaning of words, like you have done on several occasions.
Stop flaunting your stupidity, we already know that you are barely smarter than a rock.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
I’m honestly not sure what part you don’t get, but editorial control can take a lot of different forms.
And all the “nazis”, certainly the closest thing that exists in the modern age are on the left. Calling me stupid isn’t going to change that, but it does help illustrate that you’re hateful af and “fasist” just means anythign to the right of Bernie.
Re: Re: Re:9
Tough shit, Matt.
There’s a clitty cage with your name on it. Enjoy your ejaculations while you still can.
Re: Re: Re:5
I was using it in the general sense, not the legal one. But nice try on getting a cheap win.
I’m not surprised that you don’t like when private platforms exercise their 1A rights.
Re: Re: Re:3
How are the republishes meant to determine whether or not something is defamation? Also, notice and take down allow someone to remove true but inconvenient information, such as someone being a scammer.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
That’s where the concept of “editorial control” and being a “publisher” comes in. I.e. were they controlling the content?
Because a newspaper absolutely can be found liable for the content of an article they publish, even if the editors had no way of knowing their reporter was lying.
Re: Re: Re:5
So there are two things that will happen then, either the newspaper gets sued or they throw the reporter under the bus. Both things have happened.
But that wasn’t the topic, was it now…
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s usually a jury, actually, which just shows you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Well, it’s extra dumb when you’re getting the facts wrong.
But lol, no, just cuz a court is involved doesn’t make it “by government”. Unless when I send a letter bomb that’s the government murdering people. Not how any those words work.
So yeah, “the dumbest thing”.
Re: Re: Re:2
The idea that defamation cases don’t involve the government can be shot down by One Simple Trick(tm)/hypothetical: Bring and enforce a defamation claim without involving the government in the form of the courts and tell everyone how well that works out.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
But the argument wasn’t “involves”, it was “by”, as in “done by”.
BY government is not at all the same as “involves” government. Driving down the road INVOLVES government. But if I run someone over, did the government do it? No, I did. That the government built the road is irrelevant.
This is both a hilarious shifting of goalposts but also by it’s ridiculousness exactly proves my point. Government is part of the method, not the actor, as opposed to where government outlawed.
So yeah, “the dumbest thing”.
Re: Re: Re:
If someone working for the site defames someone then section 230 does not protect the site. Further, it does not protect whoever posted the defamatory content. I.E. id Mike writes a defamatory piece and posts it here, he can be sued. If You post something defamatory here, he can’t be sued, but you can, if the defamed person can find out who you are.
Re: Re: Re:
Then you already have everything you want, because Section 230 doesn’t protect defamation.
So wtf are you complaining about again? And how is it related to this article?
Re: Re: Re:2
So wtf are you complaining about again? And how is it related to this article?
He doesn’t know. All he thinks (if you could call it that), is that since he saw ‘230’ on TechDirt, he must have some problem with it.
He’s a ‘contrarian’ – he’s against anything that the majority of users aren’t and as with all people of that type, he feels he has to defend whatever position he thinks he has, whether relevant or not.
It’s characteristic of people who ‘see words’ but can’t figure out what is being said. In response he lashes out, like a child, typing whatever kind of right-wing diahrrea he thinks might have something to do with what is being discussed.
It let’s him think he’s superior despite him being the only one not seeing how irelevant or ignorant his comments are (the Dunning-Krueger effect runsa strong with this guy).
That’s what happens when the public school system teaches faith-based bible bullshit instead of teaching people to live in reality. You end up with illiterate simpletons, cocksure of their stupidity.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Dunning-Kruger” is just the ad hominem fallacy with extra steps.
I have never heard it used intelligently, which is probably why it’s use has dropped off.
I love that you somehow dragged the bible into this despite no evidence I am religous (I’m not) and for bonus points you pretend that public schools are allowed to teach religion which no, not even in the deepest parts of Texas, not for decades and decades anyway.
“Dunning-Kruger” indeed.
Re: Re: Re:4
I have never heard it used intelligently, which is probably why it’s use has dropped off.
Or, you’re rife with it, and by definition, incapable of knowing how much of a simple-minded dumbfuck you really are.
I love that you somehow dragged the bible into this despite no evidence I am religous (I’m not) and for bonus points you pretend that public schools are allowed to teach religion which no, not even in the deepest parts of Texas, not for decades and decades anyway.
Really?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-pushing-to-have-ten-commandments-bible-study-in-public-schools/ar-AA1a8MGx
Just goes to show you how unaware you are of your own stupidity. So yeah, ‘Dunning-Krueger indeed’ you fucking moron.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
It it explicitly protects defamation, that’s basically it’s entire function.
Where it breaks down is that it is not to protect publications that exert editorial control….and that’s just been completely ignored in the social media age.
Re: Re: Re:3
Uh. No, no it doesn’t. Have you ever actually read section 230? Like, ever? Or do you just say what the GOP/section 230 haters want you to say?
There’s this (apparently little-known) subsection of section 230 that reads as follows:
I don’t get why people don’t read the full text of a section they want to cite before citing it. Your claim that section 230 specifically protects defamation is entirely incorrect, as defamation is illegal under state laws, and therefore section 230 immunity is barred under paragraph (e)(3) of that section. All the section does is ensure that, should someone be held accountable, it is the individual who committed the crime on the interactive computer service (see paragraph (f)(2)) who is the one prosecuted, not the interactive computer service itself.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes, yes, I have, actually. You realize none of those exceptions are defamation? They are in fact, basically everything BUT defamation. That’s the main thing it’s shielding you over.
Well there’s your problem, you just don’t understand what “defamation” is or how the law works. Because no, it is not “illegal”, actually. It is something that you can be liable for, which is COMPLETELY different. There is no law saying “you shall not defame anyone”. What there is is a lot of rules, a lot of case law and precedent, that establish when one person can sue another for damages.
So I find it really funny that you lecture me about reading the thing but then don’t understand any of it. But lol, no, defamation is neither illegal nor criminal, and none of the exceptions apply (you also really wanted section 1 not section 3, section 3 is actually saying state law can’t override this).
Section 230 is primarily about defamation. There’s probably other things but that’s majority of what doesn’t meet the exemptions.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Does your wife know you have fantasies gobbling Elon’s prosthetic knob Matty?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
I love how the “hate has no home here” lefties default to homophobic attacks so readily. I really mean that — it illustrates the hypocrisy perfectly.
But this is the only response you have because on the facts I was right.
Re: Re: Re:7
Nah, if Elon was a girl I’d be asking how much of her carpet have you been eating. I’d still make fun of you. That you extend it to homophobia is icing, and proof that you really are a closeted asshole fucker. Because everyone knows that the people who piss and moan about gay slurs the most are the ones desperately trying to virtue signal away how deeply closeted they are like evangelists who fondle choirboys.
Re: Re: Re:7
But this is the only response you have because on the facts I was right.
Not really, DKGuy! You’re an assbackwards dipshit who talks himself into a corner by making up shit as you go along. Every single time. So quit whining about being compared to a fanboy happily living in Elon’s colon.
We have the same free speech as you, asshole. If you don’t like it, then use the full force of what you think the law says and do something about it.
Re:
…said nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re:
Section 230 protects your right, to be wrong, right here.
Re:
Literally the ENTIRE POINT OF THE LAW is to “shield editorial decisions” if those editorial decisions are about 3rd party content.
Every court has said so. The only person who says otherwise is you.
I can’t believe you’re doubling down on this idiocy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Incorrect. It’s to shield them from liability when they are merely hosting 3rd party content, and are not the publisher. I.e. making editorial decisions, because that’s what a publisher is.
But go ahead, tell me how Schenk was about defamation again. You’re a fucking idiot who can’t even read a court case.
Re: Re: Re:
Again, this is 100% wrong. The ENTIRE POINT of 230 was that IF YOU DID EDITORIAL DECISION MAKING of third party content you would not face liability. It was to overturn the Stratton Oakmont decision where a court said that taking on editorial activity of moderating a forum created liability for the content that remained. And thus, the answer was that if it’s 3rd party content and you are taking on traditional editorial roles of determining what you do with the content, you cannot face liability as if you had published it yourself.
What you’re ignorant and confused about is that there IS another part of 230 (which you’ve obviously never read) that says it does not apply to situations where the service provider helps to create the violative content. In that case, 230 would not apply.
But, again, everyone here knows you’re an ignorant fuck.
Hilarious that you say that in a post which shows you haven’t read a law (and you never understood Barnes). I never said that Schenk was “about defamation.” What I said was that the discussion around Schenk included a discussion about whether or not “seditious libel” was barred by the 1st Amendment, because there was plenty of discussion at the time regarding the boundaries of defamation law and the 1st Amendment.
I did not say that Schenk itself was about defamation because it wasn’t. I said that there were examples going back to that time (way before NYT v. Sullivan!) in which lawyers acknowledged that libel (in this case, seditious libel) raised 1st Amendment issues.
But, of course, your inability to comprehend what you read, whether written by me, or a court, remains in top form.
Re: Re: Re:
No, a publisher is simply anyone who makes some sort of content available to the public. It doesn’t necessarily require making any editorial decisions at all beyond the act of publishing itself.
Hosting 3rd party content in a way that is accessible to the public is still publishing even if you also act as a dumb wire. “Host” and “publisher” are not mutually exclusive.
Now, what §230 actually does is shield users and providers of ICSs from liability over 3rd-party content if the underlying claim treats them as a publisher. Whether or not the defendant is actually a publisher of the underlying content is irrelevant, and §230 cases typically make no such determination.
In other words, §230 doesn’t require the provider in question to be a publisher or to not be a publisher; it only shields them from attempts to hold them liable for allegedly acting as a publisher of 3rd-party content.
Schenk never said whether or not the defendant was a publisher. It said that Schenk’s claims necessarily attempted to impose liability on the defendant as a publisher of 3rd-party content. Again: “not liable as a publisher” ≠ “not a publisher”.
The message I just sent to Sen. Markey’s office:
You will make sure that only praise of politicians and policies appear on your site, or be sued into oblivion.
I’m of the opinion that Section 230 shouldn’t apply to algorithmically-generated summaries and the like. It’s one thing for an algorithm to select and display someone else’s content. It’s another thing for it to select content, analyze it and generate new content different from the original and display that content. When a person does that, writes their own summary of someone else’s work, they’re responsible for what’s in their summary. If the summary contains falsehoods or incorrect information, the person doing the summarizing is responsible for them and not the person who wrote the original content. IMO it shouldn’t matter that a tool is being used to write the summary, the person having the summary created and selecting the tool they’ll use to do that who should be on the hook.
And yes, that means if you use an algorithm to generate summaries on a massive scale so that it’s impossible for you to review all of them you’re still on the hook for them. If a company produces so many widgets that it’s impossible to check all of them for defects, we don’t give that company a pass on liability for defective widgets. We might limit their liability to replacing the defective item if there was no harm done, but we don’t absolve them of all responsibility.
Re:
Yeah, what you described reminds me of the article about how this lawsuit against Public Data was supposedly damaging to Section 230 when everything Public Data was doing that was screwing people over was their own work, rather than third-party content.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
No I shouldn’t
Brexit means Brexit!
Re:
i had ham and aigs for brexit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
A Road Well Traveled
No, autocomplete does not produce novel output. It matches the current partial query to final queries, and offers the most popular choices from a list. Far from being novel, the user input and eventual result has already been performed thousands, perhaps millions of times already.
Re:
The AI haters would usually claim that ChatGPT output isn’t novel either, it’s just a combination of a few parts of its training data. So it is weird to see an anti-AI bill hinging on that distinction.
Re: Autocomplete could be AI
“No, autocomplete does not produce novel output.”
Sure it does. It is using its own model to determine which word I’m attempting to write, or which word I’m going to write next.
Anyway, even if the answer is “maybe or maybe not”, there will be enough uncertainty about it to make it significantly harder to use section 230 as a defense. Of course, those companies won’t even let the issues get to court, they’ll just remove everything remotely controversial.
Re:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Haha, those are funny. But they mostly appear understandable, especially since we can’t be certain of the input. In the first example, I bet “vader” was spelled incorrectly, most likely “bader” since B is right next to the “V”. So it autocorrected to “badger”. Misspelling isn’t novel output, but it can be unintentionally inappropriate.
Also, does Darth Badger give a force?
Re: Re: Re:
Autocorrection also isn’t the same as autocomplete.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I realize that, but such was the example given. Autocomplete seems to be much the same, but with an entire phrase instead of a single word. If autocomplete were to typically write novel suggestions, then I suspect that it would not be useful at its intended purpose.
Re: Re: Re:3
The main problem here is that the definition in the bill is so broad and vague as to be useless. What does “novel” mean in this context?
Strictly speaking, if your autocomplete has built-in AI and you do one of those “use autocomplete to write a sentence”, you could write something that could easily be defined as “novel”.
Hence the probability of covering autocomplete by the definition given.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
I think you’re right that the term novel is difficult to define. It’s similar to the attempt at defining artificial intelligence itself, or even intelligence, which then goes over to that free will vs. determinism debate. I’m just saying that, fortunately, a lot of existing stuff that we use right now is not novel.
Why is this a problem?
If the algorithmically generated content is substantially similar to the input, e.g. if you’re using an algorithm to summarize a web page, then it’s protected. If the content is something mostly new, and only based on a user prompt, e.g. most of what people are doing with LLMs, then it isn’t. Courts make nuanced distinctions like this all the time.
Re:
I just used an LLM to summarize “Flowers of Algernon”. Where is your god now?
Re:
Does that mean drawing produced using OpenSCAD are not protected, the input is text, the output a 3d model.
Re: Re:
Eh… if your going that far on the logic, the entire fields of 3d printing, laser engraving/cutting, and CNC machining likewise get called into question (input image/model, received code to make model with varying degrees of accuracy as output).
Re: Re: Re:
If this becomes law, I can see that reasoning being used in a copyright suite against the likes of Thingiverse, to try and get around section 239. Or by the orange one because of the satirical models of him there.
Yeah, defamation is related to the government
‘And no, defamation lawsuits are not “the government”, that’s just the dumbest thing.’
The scope of defamation law is certainly determined by the government, so your “not the government” defense is lacking.
Re:
By that standard, government is always involved in speech, via acts of omission or direct action.
Re:
I assume that was meant to be a reply to a post I can’t see, but it sounds like it’s time to point somebody toward the Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About The First Amendment Popehat post again.
Notice-and-takedown is the only middle ground here.
Re:
And how much of the Internet will be left when what someone finds offensive is removed? Even cat picture will offend someone because nobody should show images of their God.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Individual reputations have always been an acceptable loss with search engines. Find a way to stop that problem and there’s nothing wrong with Section 230. Notice-and-takedown is an alternative to abolishing immunity, and apparently the best alternative given this legislation.
This decision is way above my pay grade, so all I can do is see how it plays out.
Re: Re: Re:
Every scammers and rogue business wet dream, as it would allow every scammer and bad business out there to remove reviews and comments telling other people to stay away from them.
Re: Re: Re:
Search engines index sites, they don’t make things up.
Good news: You can use a search engine to find offending sites to sue.
Re: Re: Re:
This much was always obvious, John Smith, evidenced by the fact that after five years (and counting!) there’s not a single shred of evidence that your public press release or police investigation into the purported financial crimes Techdirt has supposedly enabled will ever be released.
All this despite your own claims that you’re a Hollywood writer in hot demand with access to all the women you could ever want. It’s almost like your claims were always as bullshit as your deep-seated love affair for Paul Hansmeier.
Re: Re: Re:2
Prenda will appeal and Prenda will win. Otherwise no content creator would ever make anything, again. If you thought the actor and writer strike was bad before you haven’t seen what will happen when you tell actors and writers that they can’t own the copyrights to their work because Masnick said so.
I’m onto you, Leigh.
Re: Re: Re:3
Copyright law’s best and brightest! We could be here another five years from now, Jhon boi, and the most impact you have is going to be roughly between jack shit and fuck all.
Don’t worry, I’m sure Paul Duffy’s got a nice warm seat saved just for you where he is.
Re: Re: Re:3
Pre-printing press, not only was there no copyright, but authors wanted people to copy their works as that was the only way that they were likely to become widely known. Indeed the whole aural tradition, which by the way preserved the tales of the Trojan war for a couple of hundred years before homer wrote it down.
Pre-printing press, it was common for scientists to pay to have copies of their work made made by hand, and sent to their peers. Also the advantage of a university education was access to the library, and the ability to make, by hand, copies of important works in the chosen field of study.
Copyright is a very recent invention, as there was no copyright for about the first 200 years of printing, only permissions to print from church or state censors. That censorship also controlled who could print which titles, and it abolition led to the creation of authors copyright. That invention was a political maneuver, as parliament would not grant a direct copyright system to the publishers, but its real intent to allow control over who would print which titles, and was transferred to the publisher when the author sold them a manuscript, oe agreed to royalties which they were able to do before they gained copyright on their own work, as after all printers needed books to print.
Re: Re: Re:3
Prenda is dead as a corporate entity. Its principals are all either dead (RIP Paul Duffy) or in federal prison. Of the ones in prison, Steele pled guilty and—by all appearances—has zero interest in appealing or in reviving Prenda; meanwhile, Paul Hansmeier has been declared a vexatious litigant for his laughably frivolous attempts to sue those who got him in prison in the first place, meaning he can’t file anything (including an appeal) without court permission. He also abandoned Prenda a long time ago to start a new grift.
Also, all the cases Prenda was involved in are closed; all potential opportunities to appeal have either been exhausted or abandoned.
Basically, there is nothing left to appeal and nobody left to file an appeal.
Re: Re: Re:4
I wouldn’t count Hansmeier out just yet. A jail term of fourteen years is a pretty long time, and Hansmeier has a history of trying to take multiple bites of the same apple. He’s certainly got the familial resources to do it, with his father having the money and networks to try and pull something off despite a string of losses in this regard. Last we’d heard, his wife Padraigin Browne also holds onto a rather significant pool of resources. Likely propped up by the gains that Hansmeier has made and laundered from Prenda.
It’s… not really a new grift. Torrentfreak reported on his attempt to run an open honeypot to entice downloaders so he can sue them; he made multiple appeals to the judicial system to have it approved – because he thought that the problem with Prenda’s original honeypot was that the court hadn’t given it legal permission.
He hadn’t succeeded in his appeals, but I wouldn’t assume that he doesn’t have support for it. He claims to have held onto the copyright for content, both porn and non-porn, with the blessings of the original rightsholders. We’ve all known rightsholders to be a pretty fucked up bunch if they think they can get quick settlements out of people.
Re: Re: Re:5
Which is why he is barred from filing lawsuits without court permission. I already pointed that out.
Prior to that, while the Prenda stuff was still going through the courts, he was using ADA lawsuits instead.
More to the point, it’s not Prenda, which was what I was getting at. It wouldn’t surprise me if he does something else stupid, but that will be Hansmeier alone or in whatever corporation he comes up with next, not Prenda.
Re: Re: Re:6
You did indeed, and that was something I agreed with. What I personally think he’s entirely capable and willing to do is continue searching for a vector through which he can make another attempt at filing suits again, using his father or wife as a proxy.
Ah, that I remember. And it put a spotlight on the practice too, which got judges to start shuttering it.
I’ll concur with your semantics. But John Smith will continue clinging to that mad fantasy, because that was the one thing that kept him going back in 2013. To him, Prenda Law isn’t dead, just temporarily embarrassed.
Re:
Why do you want there to be a middle-ground?
From Cristiano Lima:
Re:
i wonder what sort of bulk legislation they plan on burying it in afterward.
Re: Re:
Is there any sign they will do that?
If ever you find yourself agreeing with the village idiot...
And the streak of ‘there are no good or honest arguments against 230’ continues unbroken…
Insurrectionist Hawley thought that storming the capitol to overthrow a presidential election was a good idea. I’m not saying it’s impossible for him to come up with a good idea, he could recommend people drink plenty of water when attempting to overthrow a government if it’s a hot day for example, but by and large any time someone finds themselves agreeing with him that should raise a big red flag, and this attempt to undermine 230 is certainly not helping to counter that.
Any time I see a ‘state AG’s can bring lawsuits under this law’ carve out my immediate first thought is that the bill has performative lawsuits baked in as a feather rather than a bug. You don’t give that lot of attention seekers exemptions to federal laws unless you want them to use it, and given their penchant to use the office for PR stunt that’s just asking for a mess.
WTF is wrong with the Democrats
I understand why Hawley wants to get rid of Section 230. He knows that getting rid of Section 230 will make it a lot harder to spread information about how much the Republicans suck, and as a bonus will silence a lot of people who aren’t rich white Right Wingers.
But why are so many Democrats stupidly helping him? Without 230, the MeToo movement likely doesn’t happen (because the harassers would have threatened lawsuits), and reporting current harassment will be extremely difficult (because no sites will want to take the risk).
Yet Democrats are like “why not”.
This doesn’t seem to have any benefit for google or microsoft since they would lose CDA 230 even if they took this to court so it must be a hit from those who are anti AI.
Do we know if Ron Wyden or Chris Cox will try to stop it? I know they said they supported the claim that 230 shouldn’t protect AI output but this bill goes way beyond that.
Re:
Chris Cox hasn’t been in Congress since 2005, so he can’t do anything.
For whatever reason, word is that Wyden will not stop this bill. It’s possible other Senators will. I do not know why Wyden won’t, but that’s what I’ve heard from people.
Re: Re:
That’s a big L from wyden if true. I hoped he wouldn’t make a move like this since his support for TPP years ago but it seems he’s decided to make a sacrifice again.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah it’s crazy he may not object to this seeing this bill seems it is going to repeal 230 by the backdoor.
Re: Re:
For whatever reason, word is that Wyden will not stop this bill. It’s possible other Senators will. I do not know why Wyden won’t, but that’s what I’ve heard from people.
‘You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain’ seems appropriate in that case.
Re: Re: Re:
Tho he objected to most other bills like this either he not fully aware what is in it, he thinks someone else will object or he does not think it will pass the House, Still he should object on it not going through committee alone.
I absolutely agree. I don’t see why we should be stripping Section 230 protections from companies that use AI. It’s extremely destructive and would essentially bar the online use of such technology from the United States. I mean, what sane company would set up shop in the US and release a public AI tool when such a law is in effect. You’re basically pushing a huge swath of online innovation out of the US.
Re:
If a company uses AI, then its output is theirs and 239 doesn’t apply. If it applies to third party posts, then it gives a route around 230 to increase a companies costs, as generated by AI becomes a fact to be determined in court.
google, microsoft and other big corps are making a bunch of AI crap so this would only hurt them.
If they were behind this to pull the ladder up that still wouldn’t work for them since if they want others using their AI products those users have to able to produce something that’s going to look like the work of someone else.
I hope they aren’t behind this and plan on calling some senators to reject hawley’s bs since I’m hearing that wyden may betray us this time.
If the hotline IS successful will this bill became Law immediatly ? or will it have to pass the house
someone has the answer ?
Re:
It will go to the House I believe. It unlikely to pass there anytime soon.
The government’s big problem with AI, particularly this “Generative AI” that is rolling out is an AI that tells the truth and contradicts government propaganda.
That concern isn’t confined only to the US government, nor is it confined to government. There is also a lot of people that like to ignore inconvenient truths that conflict with an agenda, so they don’t want to see a truth-telling AI either.
Some possible good news but the hotline will delayed and they will try again next week.
Does anyone know how far this bill will realisitcally get this year ??
I need your thoughts
Not far at all seeing that congress breaks up for Christmas on the 15th. Even if it passes the Senate it won’t have time for the House.
“Senator Josh Hawley […] and Senator Richard Blumenthal…”
Are fuck buddies?
Re:
That depends.. Are they trying fuck each other over or the internet?