the problem is that there is not FEDERAL law against prostitution, hell, MOST Jurisdictions do not have a law against prostitution per se, they cloak it in laws like solicitation and such. And they cannot pass a Federal Prostitution law iirc, because it is an enumerated power reserved for the states, see: Nevada.
Now they because they cannot pass a Federal Prostitution law, they cloak it in catch phrases like "Human Trafficking." Because we all can agree that Human Trafficking, Actual Human Trafficking, is deplorable, while the consensual act among two law abiding adults is very much less deplorable.
ya i fucked up on that, I pulled a Ted Cruz, that is on me. I re-read 230 and relevant commentary (EFF and ACLU) in it's entirety 3 times to make sure I understood what I read.
okay so the original post was to draw a distinction between Comcast and Facebook. And neither should lose 230 tbh. 230 is rather specific in it's wording.
oops the other comment can be deleted, accidentally hit enter >_>
Okay so the core question is should Facebook be held liable under section 230. The answer is no. Facebook/Google is not acting as the publisher or speaker of the original article. (same goes with news wires.)
but the question is, Does linking to infringing content qualify as indirect infringement? IMO, no it does not, that would have to be taken up between the copyright holder and the infringing party.
it's kind of tricky tbh. AOL, and even sites like CNN/MSNBC, etc. at least occasionally (or in the case of more local news stations/websites, often) cite Rueters and AP as news sources. So AOL is not the primary news source. In those instances they are acting as a sort of distributor of said stories.
The other problem is with comment sections, which is why a lot of sites simply abandoned comment sections instead of interacting with them and giving context to the stories.
ALL of this stems from Congress' penchant for making overly broad and purposely vague laws in my opinion.
Immunity was upheld against claims that AOL unreasonably delayed in removing defamatory messages posted by third party, failed to post retractions, and failed to screen for similar postings.
and a year later in Blumenthal vs Drudge:
The court upheld AOL's immunity from liability for defamation. AOL's agreement with the contractor allowing AOL to modify or remove such content did not make AOL the "information content provider" because the content was created by an independent contractor. The Court noted that Congress made a policy choice by "providing immunity even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others."
Let's regulate libraries the same as the internet. It's a base $.50/page to read. Any non-fiction is another $2.00/page. Huckleberry Finn? $1.50/page. Mein Kampf or Atlas Shrugged? You get a refund for that.
this was painfully evident later on in the hearing when Senator.... I forget which one, described Facebook's beginnings and where it is now and "Only in America, right?" Zuckerberg said there were some high quality Chinese internet firms as well, and the senator was "Yes, the answer is Yes."
Your points are total bullshit. Entities that commit actual bombings aren't banned at all. While even mild deviations from the Facebook party line are subject to bans.
Citations? I am pretty sure that ISIS pages are taken down pretty regularly. Also that statement alone reinforces my argument. You don't generally hear about the far left engaging in violent protests and bombings.
Facebook operates more like a party rag than anything else.
So? A company having a political preference doesn't mean it also cannot be neutral.
Also, Democrats do advocate violence to suppress political dissent. They openly advocate labeling people Nazi style so that they then have an excuse to assault them.
You know.... If it Talks like a racist, and walks like a goose... chances are it's not a Jew. Calling something for what it is at face value is also not advocating assaulting them. It just means that they should not be in power unless you really, REALLY want a repeat of 1930-1940's and you want to be on the receiving end.
You don't hear of liberals being banned because they conform to the party line.
No I don't hear "Liberals" being banned because they aren't (Generally) Racist, Violence inducing assholes.
you are half right... You don't hear of Planned Parenthood being banned because they don't engage in bombing "Family Planning Centers" (which are run by mostly Christian Churches and organizations).
You don't hear about Democrats being banned because they don't (generally) advocate tearing immigrant children from their mother's arms, and sending their fathers back to the country of origin to be killed.
As Zuckerberg put it. "It engages in the removal of hate speech and to make the community feel safer." and there is only one side that regularly, routinely engages in hate speech. And spoilers: It's not the Democrats.
So when you say the ban hammer is used in a biased and political way. Perhaps it is your party that is making the community at large feel unsafe.
(untitled comment)
the problem is that there is not FEDERAL law against prostitution, hell, MOST Jurisdictions do not have a law against prostitution per se, they cloak it in laws like solicitation and such. And they cannot pass a Federal Prostitution law iirc, because it is an enumerated power reserved for the states, see: Nevada.
Now they because they cannot pass a Federal Prostitution law, they cloak it in catch phrases like "Human Trafficking." Because we all can agree that Human Trafficking, Actual Human Trafficking, is deplorable, while the consensual act among two law abiding adults is very much less deplorable.
(untitled comment)
And therein lies why he flipped, He wants his Midwest support now that China slapped tariffs on the Midwest.
no title.
ya i fucked up on that, I pulled a Ted Cruz, that is on me. I re-read 230 and relevant commentary (EFF and ACLU) in it's entirety 3 times to make sure I understood what I read.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To many Re's (Take 2)
okay so the original post was to draw a distinction between Comcast and Facebook. And neither should lose 230 tbh. 230 is rather specific in it's wording.
Re: Re: Re: Re: To many Re's (Take 2)
so this is why I said laws are generally over-broad and vague when it comes to the internet (and computers in general).
Re: Re: To many Re's (Take 2)
okay so what I meant was
Comcast carries the information between services and the end user.
Facebook connects the end user to the content providers.
In physical goods parlance, Comcast would be Carriers like UP, Werner, Con-Way, FedEx, UPS, etc.
Facebook would be Ebay or Amazon, Walmart or Target.
Providers would be Levis or Adidas or Pepsi.
To many Re's (Take 2)
oops the other comment can be deleted, accidentally hit enter >_>
Okay so the core question is should Facebook be held liable under section 230. The answer is no. Facebook/Google is not acting as the publisher or speaker of the original article. (same goes with news wires.)
but the question is, Does linking to infringing content qualify as indirect infringement? IMO, no it does not, that would have to be taken up between the copyright holder and the infringing party.
To many Re's
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'incredibly silly'
it's kind of tricky tbh. AOL, and even sites like CNN/MSNBC, etc. at least occasionally (or in the case of more local news stations/websites, often) cite Rueters and AP as news sources. So AOL is not the primary news source. In those instances they are acting as a sort of distributor of said stories.
The other problem is with comment sections, which is why a lot of sites simply abandoned comment sections instead of interacting with them and giving context to the stories.
ALL of this stems from Congress' penchant for making overly broad and purposely vague laws in my opinion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'incredibly silly'
except in that case in particular:
and a year later in Blumenthal vs Drudge:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'incredibly silly'
think of it like this:
Re: The INTENT of Congress with CDA was NOT to empower corporations!
you know, if you don't like a platform like Facebook's policy, you don't have to use it. I don't. There is always Reddit and 4chan.
(untitled comment)
that was fast
how about this idea?
Let's regulate libraries the same as the internet. It's a base $.50/page to read. Any non-fiction is another $2.00/page. Huckleberry Finn? $1.50/page. Mein Kampf or Atlas Shrugged? You get a refund for that.
Re: Re:
worse, a man boob. the most useless piece of human anatomy.
Re:
this was painfully evident later on in the hearing when Senator.... I forget which one, described Facebook's beginnings and where it is now and "Only in America, right?" Zuckerberg said there were some high quality Chinese internet firms as well, and the senator was "Yes, the answer is Yes."
Re: Utter deluded nonsense.
Citations? I am pretty sure that ISIS pages are taken down pretty regularly. Also that statement alone reinforces my argument. You don't generally hear about the far left engaging in violent protests and bombings.
So? A company having a political preference doesn't mean it also cannot be neutral.
You know.... If it Talks like a racist, and walks like a goose... chances are it's not a Jew. Calling something for what it is at face value is also not advocating assaulting them. It just means that they should not be in power unless you really, REALLY want a repeat of 1930-1940's and you want to be on the receiving end.
No I don't hear "Liberals" being banned because they aren't (Generally) Racist, Violence inducing assholes.
Re: Re: Re: Not that implausible
actually it was quite insightful into the inner workings of Facebook, Ads, personal information, and 3rd party members.
Re:
you are half right... You don't hear of Planned Parenthood being banned because they don't engage in bombing "Family Planning Centers" (which are run by mostly Christian Churches and organizations).
You don't hear about Democrats being banned because they don't (generally) advocate tearing immigrant children from their mother's arms, and sending their fathers back to the country of origin to be killed.
As Zuckerberg put it. "It engages in the removal of hate speech and to make the community feel safer." and there is only one side that regularly, routinely engages in hate speech. And spoilers: It's not the Democrats.
So when you say the ban hammer is used in a biased and political way. Perhaps it is your party that is making the community at large feel unsafe.
(untitled comment)
so about President Trump....