But like others have said court challenges are likely to happen against this bill and if they find it unconstitutional meaning CDA 230 is put back to how it was before SESTA.
Hopefully. Not definitely. In the meantime, why not try to improve the bill?
someone at TechDirt is doing exactly that... trying to sweep a fatality under the rug as if it means "nothing".
Nothing in this post does that. What it does is put it into context -- and notes that if you really do care about lives, we should be pushing for making the technology better, faster, so that it can save more lives of all the people killed by cars in other instances.
But, of course, you'd have to read the post, and not just be looking for some bullshit fake way to attack us to understand that... and I guess that's too hard for some people.
I hear even if SESTA passes it, this won't be over. The language in that and #FOSTA have to be merged in a joint committee, and then the Final SESTA/FOSTA bill has to be voted on again by both bodies of Congress.
I don't think so. Pretty sure what they're voting on is the bill that passed in the House. So no conference committee needed. It just goes to the President.
Daphne Keller definitely needs to be invited for another Techdirt Podcast, it's been a long time since 2015.
She was on in late 2016 also! And we had invited her on to our most recent SESTA podcast, but she was unavailable that week. She'll be back soon, I'm sure...
We've updated the post after ProPublica retracted an earlier story claiming Haspel's tenure overlapped the torture of Zubaydah. It now appears she started soon after (though allegedly still oversaw the torture of others and was involved in the tap destruction).
Yes, it will almost certainly be challenged. I would say that there are decent arguments for why a constitutional challenge could win, but it's not a slam dunk by any means.
Curious if you could point to examples of where we play partisan politics? We tend not to call out the party of anyone unless it's a key part of the story. We have equally complained about Republicans and Democrats depending on whose doing the stupid (and both parties do an awful lot of stupid things) and we've praised both Republicans and Democrats when they do smart things (rare, but it happens).
I'm guessing that you would absolutely guess wrong if you tried to state the political views of anyone associated with Techdirt.
Unfortunately, we don't currently do transcripts of our podcasts. It's currently too costly/time consuming so we've been unable to. We hope to in the future, though.
Surely a platform with access to all of it, including real-time access, and with essentially unlimited computing resources should be able to do much better.
Re: Spotify is NO "innovator", it just uses the work of artists.
At basis, is NO different from any radio station since the 1930s. Sheerly mechanical. Spotify has NOTHING without artists. Period.
A few thoughts on this. (1) If this is true, then why did it take nearly 20 years after the web was invented for it to come about. If it was such an obvious "radio on the web" then why didn't it happen sooner? (3) There were earlier attempts at doing something similar and they all failed to catch on. If it was just mechanical, that wouldn't be true. Spotify won by actually providing a much better experience. That you don't realize that suggests you have no idea what you're talking about. (3) Radio's business model works exactly the opposite of Spotify's. The more people who listen to radio, the more money the can make through higher ad rates. The more people who listen to Spotify, the more Spotify has to pay the copyright holders, which is part of what's holding them back. Their business model doesn't scale properly.
Re: Say: ever thought of down side to Californication's "laws"
Cause if you residents EVER use a wrong gender pronoun, can be sued! (Okay, I'm not SURE that looniness is "law" yet, but the point stands: that notion will not be only to YOUR advantage.)*
Huh? What the hell does that have to do with the proper choice of law for anti-SLAPP? Nothing in that would involve enabling Californians to sue elsewhere.
Re: Re: Re: 9th Circuit notoriously "liberal"; don't rely on it. -- Then all hinges on "good faith" and "objectionable". But in NO event did Congress authorize corporations to become Censors and determine what ideas are acceptable.
I'm curious how anything in this post suggests we're against free speech? I would be 100% on board with Taylor suing the government if they tried to stop his speech. That's a violation of the 1st Amendment. But Taylor has many other places to spew his nonsense, and private platforms have every right (indeed, their own First Amendment rights) to determine who uses their platform.
Nothing we wrote here is inconsistent with our devotion to free speech.
Adding to that, it's sad that even on a site called "techdirt", the propaganda of one side of this has been so thoroughly effective that the idea of regulating the activities of $500B+ corporations is now frowned upon or considered controversial.
It's not that we frown upon it specifically. The problem is that any regulations proposed so far will do so much more damage. Every proposed regulation we've seen will do two things: (1) lock in Facebook and Google, since they can deal with the regulations and smaller companies can't and (2) make life worse for the end users.
That's our concern. If you can present a reasonable regulation for big internet companies, I'm all ears. But to do so you'd need to lay out what the problem is and what the regulatory solution is... and make sure you have answers when we raise the potential consequences.
So, yeah, we're generally against all kinds of regulation here, but that's because most regulation does more harm than good -- but we explained WHY in very specific terms, regulation of broadband made sense, even if we're skeptical in general. But we've yet to see a convincing set of regulations for internet companies. If you have some, please share.
Google made $32.3 billion last quarter. Are you suggesting that it's making up that revenue? Or did it actually get that revenue in exchange for goods and services?
The article is from "Techdirt", a Google front group that pretends to be representing the interests of "innovation " but miraculously only seems to promote the extreme viewpoints of the giant Silicon Valley corporations (imagine that).
Oh boy. I love this line of argument because it's hilarious. Must we break out our long list of articles where we loudly criticize "giant Silicon Valley corporations" or can we just save everyone's time and point out you're full of shit?
The site wants to be the go to quote for the copyleft extremist position -- and has a history of basically blaming Hollywood for Silicon Valley’s own failures to create something original worth purchasing.
Silicon Valley seems to be doing pretty damn well making products worth purchasing, last I checked. Isn't that why you keep calling them monopolies who need to be broken up?
On the post: Can SESTA Be Fixed?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But like others have said court challenges are likely to happen against this bill and if they find it unconstitutional meaning CDA 230 is put back to how it was before SESTA.
Hopefully. Not definitely. In the meantime, why not try to improve the bill?
On the post: The Future The FBI Wants: Secure Phones For Criminals, Broken Encryption For Everyone Else
Re:
On the post: Pedestrian Deaths By Car In Phoenix Area Last Week: 11. But One Was By A Self-Driving Uber
Re:
someone at TechDirt is doing exactly that... trying to sweep a fatality under the rug as if it means "nothing".
Nothing in this post does that. What it does is put it into context -- and notes that if you really do care about lives, we should be pushing for making the technology better, faster, so that it can save more lives of all the people killed by cars in other instances.
But, of course, you'd have to read the post, and not just be looking for some bullshit fake way to attack us to understand that... and I guess that's too hard for some people.
On the post: Hollywood's Behind-The-Scenes Support For SESTA Is All About Filtering The Internet
Re:
I hear even if SESTA passes it, this won't be over. The language in that and #FOSTA have to be merged in a joint committee, and then the Final SESTA/FOSTA bill has to be voted on again by both bodies of Congress.
I don't think so. Pretty sure what they're voting on is the bill that passed in the House. So no conference committee needed. It just goes to the President.
On the post: Can SESTA Be Fixed?
Re: Re:
That's where we are right now. The train wreck is coming. We probably can't stop it. So we do the best we can to minimize the casualties.
Yes. This.
On the post: Can SESTA Be Fixed?
Re:
Daphne Keller definitely needs to be invited for another Techdirt Podcast, it's been a long time since 2015.
She was on in late 2016 also! And we had invited her on to our most recent SESTA podcast, but she was unavailable that week. She'll be back soon, I'm sure...
On the post: As Trump Nominates Torture Boss To Head CIA, Congresswoman Suggests It's Sympathizing With Terrorists To Question Her Appointment
Updated
On the post: Just As Everyone's Starting To Worry About 'Deepfake' Porn Videos, SESTA Will Make The Problem Worse
Re: Re:
On the post: YouTube Shows Dennis Prager's Claim Of Discrimination Against Conservatives Is Laughable
Re:
I'm guessing that you would absolutely guess wrong if you tried to state the political views of anyone associated with Techdirt.
On the post: Trump Administration Wants To Start Sending Secret Service Agents To Polling Stations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAUY1J8KizU
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 158: How MoviePass Makes Money
Re:
Is there a transcript?
Unfortunately, we don't currently do transcripts of our podcasts. It's currently too costly/time consuming so we've been unable to. We hope to in the future, though.
On the post: If The US Government Can't Figure Out Who's A Russian Troll, Why Should It Expect Internet Companies To Do So?
Re: There's actually an answer to this
Because the Internet platforms have all the metadata.
Actually, the US government has access to more metadata, as it can look at metadata cross platform.
And as we've seen over and over and over again, that's the key to detecting trolls, spammers, frauds, etc.
That's not actually true on two levels. One, these platforms aren't that great at detecting those things, and most use more than simply metadata.
The government doesn't have all the metadata
It has cross platform metadata, though, on more targeted sets. No it doesn't have "all" the metadata, but neither do platforms.
Projects like Hamilton 68 have managed to use only a small fraction of the metadata to generate reliable, solid results.
LOL. Um, no. https://www.buzzfeed.com/miriamelder/stop-blaming-russian-bots-for-everything?utm_term=.cuZneN3WL#.w aW2AeRWL
Surely a platform with access to all of it, including real-time access, and with essentially unlimited computing resources should be able to do much better.
Nerd harder!
On the post: Killing The Golden Goose (Again); How The Copyright Stranglehold Dooms Spotify
Re: Spotify is NO "innovator", it just uses the work of artists.
At basis, is NO different from any radio station since the 1930s. Sheerly mechanical. Spotify has NOTHING without artists. Period.
A few thoughts on this. (1) If this is true, then why did it take nearly 20 years after the web was invented for it to come about. If it was such an obvious "radio on the web" then why didn't it happen sooner? (3) There were earlier attempts at doing something similar and they all failed to catch on. If it was just mechanical, that wouldn't be true. Spotify won by actually providing a much better experience. That you don't realize that suggests you have no idea what you're talking about. (3) Radio's business model works exactly the opposite of Spotify's. The more people who listen to radio, the more money the can make through higher ad rates. The more people who listen to Spotify, the more Spotify has to pay the copyright holders, which is part of what's holding them back. Their business model doesn't scale properly.
On the post: Keeper Security Reminds Everyone Why You Shouldn't Use It; Doubles Down On Suing Journalist
Re: Say: ever thought of down side to Californication's "laws"
Huh? What the hell does that have to do with the proper choice of law for anti-SLAPP? Nothing in that would involve enabling Californians to sue elsewhere.
On the post: Famous Racist Sues Twitter Claiming It Violates His Civil Rights As A Racist To Be Kicked Off The Platform
Re: Re: Re: 9th Circuit notoriously "liberal"; don't rely on it. -- Then all hinges on "good faith" and "objectionable". But in NO event did Congress authorize corporations to become Censors and determine what ideas are acceptable.
Nothing we wrote here is inconsistent with our devotion to free speech.
On the post: Cable's Top Lobbyist Again Calls For Hyper Regulation Of Silicon Valley
Re: Re:
Adding to that, it's sad that even on a site called "techdirt", the propaganda of one side of this has been so thoroughly effective that the idea of regulating the activities of $500B+ corporations is now frowned upon or considered controversial.
It's not that we frown upon it specifically. The problem is that any regulations proposed so far will do so much more damage. Every proposed regulation we've seen will do two things: (1) lock in Facebook and Google, since they can deal with the regulations and smaller companies can't and (2) make life worse for the end users.
That's our concern. If you can present a reasonable regulation for big internet companies, I'm all ears. But to do so you'd need to lay out what the problem is and what the regulatory solution is... and make sure you have answers when we raise the potential consequences.
So, yeah, we're generally against all kinds of regulation here, but that's because most regulation does more harm than good -- but we explained WHY in very specific terms, regulation of broadband made sense, even if we're skeptical in general. But we've yet to see a convincing set of regulations for internet companies. If you have some, please share.
On the post: Why Is Hollywood Pushing A Totally Bogus Push Poll Trying To Undermine The Internet?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FBI Documents Show More Evidence Of Agency's Sketchy Relationship With Best Buy's Geek Squad
Re: Re: double negatives
But no one at Techdirt reads the comments, so don't expect it to be fixed anytime soon.
Yeah, fuck those guys.
On the post: Why Is Hollywood Pushing A Totally Bogus Push Poll Trying To Undermine The Internet?
Re:
The article is from "Techdirt", a Google front group that pretends to be representing the interests of "innovation " but miraculously only seems to promote the extreme viewpoints of the giant Silicon Valley corporations (imagine that).
Oh boy. I love this line of argument because it's hilarious. Must we break out our long list of articles where we loudly criticize "giant Silicon Valley corporations" or can we just save everyone's time and point out you're full of shit?
The site wants to be the go to quote for the copyleft extremist position -- and has a history of basically blaming Hollywood for Silicon Valley’s own failures to create something original worth purchasing.
Silicon Valley seems to be doing pretty damn well making products worth purchasing, last I checked. Isn't that why you keep calling them monopolies who need to be broken up?
On the post: Project Gutenberg Blocks Access In Germany To All Its Public Domain Books Because Of Local Copyright Claim On 18 Of Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not the whole story -- now includes ZOMBIES!
What? I've been busy.
Hey, welcome back! You used to be a fairly regular commenter.
Next >>