Just a layperson's $0.02 (IANAL). I can't help but compare this to the Kim Dotcom case. He had to know his users were uploading infringing files, just as LeadClick knew its affiliates were creating fake news sites. But knowing users are up to no good doesn't mean ALL of them are. It's not reasonable to expect a site operator to police millions of users, so section 230 protection would seem appropriate.
Kim Dotcom is off the hook in my book, and I'd be firmly in your camp on LeadClick, if awareness of the bad actors was the extent of their involvement. The minute they started "suggesting substantive edits to fake news pages, and purchasing banner space for fake news sites on legitimate news sources" I think they crossed the line. 230 protects them from the actions of their users, not their own actions.
Well hello there Ms. Feinstein! I'm so glad to see you're reading Techdirt!
Gold in this case is just a metaphor. It's really just another password, known only to the good guys. They will probably choose something like "password" for their "golden" key, because, you know, the bad guys would never think to try that.
This is pretty much the most disgusting comment I've ever read on Techdirt. What colossal ignorance! No one is advocating sex with animals. Gay marriage is a union between consenting adult HUMANS. Animals can't give consent. Humans can.
The point of this whole monkey selfie debacle is that animals don't have the same rights as people. So how about you stick to that, rather than spout your homophobic bilge?
No one should be carrying around a bunch of cash. Just leave your money in your bank. If you must have cash, your ATM card will work in any ATM. The ATM fee of $3 or so is small, plus your Canadian bank will use a standardized exchange rate--not one that's been set higher than average by the local bank to rip off tourists.
Okay, so if we take Comcast, Verizon, etc. at their word, specifically that they would never throttle anyone's data for fear of losing customers, then they should have nothing to fear in letting that rule stand. So why all the fuss?
Says you. I personally find the filter on French presses lacking. There's always a micro-fine sludge at the bottom of the cup that I personally find disgusting, but that's just my humble opinion.
Should I make French presses available to my customers in my office? I think I'll pass. As much as I love doing the dishes, imagine my pure joy at seeing some ass-hat fail horribly in his attempt to pour boiling water into a glass vessel without spilling it all over his crotch, or any number of other potential mishaps. Keurigs are more idiot-proof.
The DMCA form says "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
So, at what point does this mysterious "penalty of perjury" kick in?