Lethal force is a justified defense for false imprisonment. This false imprisonment is state sponsored. Almost everyone in Israel is a current member of the Israeli military, a reservist, or a future member. The was didn't start on October 7, 2023. It started 78 years ago. The Arab majority in Palestine in 1947 did not exist when the Jewish people were kicked out 3000 years before that. The Jewish people's beef shouldn't have been with the Palestinians.
To be clear, corporations have no duty to help people. Corporations have a duty to make money for shareholders. Corporations also exist to shield the people running the corporation from liability for the actions they take in service of making money for shareholders.
Re "would federalize us and make us all slaves," so slavery is actually bad and not just a jobs/worker training program? This is a shocking revelation.
A forensic scientist can reject all the tough cases they want when they know that their success rate is being measured. When it comes time to put someone in jail, they are free to opine on those tough cases. Their measured success rate on easy cases has no relation to whatever success rate they have when pressed to provide an opinion on tough cases. Because there is no standard for "inconclusive" and the analyst is free to include them when providing an opinion, they should be included as errors so that the success rate cannot be artificially inflated.
I expected the article to go through the terms of service agreement for Google products to find the liability waiver. I was pleasantly surprised that the agreement was actually up front about not being able to waive gross negligence or willful misconduct. Many agreements pretend that they can waive all liability. Even so, proving gross negligence or willful misconduct will be an uphill climb.
https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en-US
"In First Amendment law, prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before the speech happens."
As I previously explained, prior restraint does not apply here because the false statement isn't challenged until after it has already published. I have wasted time out of my life repeatedly explaining this to you. Many others have done the same thing on the interwebz. It would be great if we had an actual information economy that rewarded people for making sure that statements are true.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint#
The statement here has already published before it is challenged. Prior restraint involves preventing a statement from ever being published. If you want to make critiques, it behooves you to actually have some rudimentary knowledge about the subject at hand.
Anyone who is willing to claim that it is false? There could be some nominal dollar amount paid by the challenger to discourage frivolous claims. If the person making the statement does not request review within some time limit, then the statement is taken down and the challenger gets their money back. If the person requests review, then they put up the same nominal amount. Half of the fees go to a neutral third party that reviews the statement. The other half goes to the winner or more than half if you want to incentivize true statements/challenges. There could be a system of strikes that escalate a suspension periods. There could also be a system of appeals. There are plenty of creative people that could come up with some kind of solution like this.
This isn't a complete ban on speech. This is a time, place, and manner restriction. People are still free to make false statements outside the social network. This would just restrict the manner in which they get to make their false statements. The person would be denied the amplification that the social network provides. There is no well established rule against this.
We do notice and take down for copyright violations. There is no reason that we cannot implement a similar regime for false information. Re the First Amendment, you can't test the boundaries of the Constitution without a test case. You can't get a test case without passing a law. Throwing up our hands before trying anything won't get us anywhere. The nut jobs are willing to pack the courts and pass blatantly unconstitutional laws. Meanwhile, the normies are just sitting on their hands.
Yes, the studies don't seem to be testing the correct scenarios. The other scenario is where the platform allows an alt-right group to target people with ads based on some indicator of gullibility, the people engage with that content, which causes the content to be elevated for others in organic suggestions/search results. It only takes a few thousand people in a swing state to change the outcome of a statewide election. The radicalization doesn't need to be widespread to have a serious effect.
Maybe it's more like FB doesn't have a presence in Myanmar or Gambia, so there is no entity to sue there. It seems like the law enforcement exception should apply here though.
It's not terrorism
Lethal force is a justified defense for false imprisonment. This false imprisonment is state sponsored. Almost everyone in Israel is a current member of the Israeli military, a reservist, or a future member. The was didn't start on October 7, 2023. It started 78 years ago. The Arab majority in Palestine in 1947 did not exist when the Jewish people were kicked out 3000 years before that. The Jewish people's beef shouldn't have been with the Palestinians.
Trick question...
...David Brooks is a dipshit too.
Re "corporation meant to help people"
To be clear, corporations have no duty to help people. Corporations have a duty to make money for shareholders. Corporations also exist to shield the people running the corporation from liability for the actions they take in service of making money for shareholders.
"Real" violence
The "real" violence is denying prior-auth for life saving treatment. #FTFY
What?!
Re "would federalize us and make us all slaves," so slavery is actually bad and not just a jobs/worker training program? This is a shocking revelation.
It matters bc there is no objective standard for "inconclusive"
A forensic scientist can reject all the tough cases they want when they know that their success rate is being measured. When it comes time to put someone in jail, they are free to opine on those tough cases. Their measured success rate on easy cases has no relation to whatever success rate they have when pressed to provide an opinion on tough cases. Because there is no standard for "inconclusive" and the analyst is free to include them when providing an opinion, they should be included as errors so that the success rate cannot be artificially inflated.
Preventing enshittification
Corporations should be required to pay dividends.
Liability Waiver
I expected the article to go through the terms of service agreement for Google products to find the liability waiver. I was pleasantly surprised that the agreement was actually up front about not being able to waive gross negligence or willful misconduct. Many agreements pretend that they can waive all liability. Even so, proving gross negligence or willful misconduct will be an uphill climb. https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en-US
Re: Re: Re:
"In First Amendment law, prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before the speech happens." As I previously explained, prior restraint does not apply here because the false statement isn't challenged until after it has already published. I have wasted time out of my life repeatedly explaining this to you. Many others have done the same thing on the interwebz. It would be great if we had an actual information economy that rewarded people for making sure that statements are true. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint#
Re:
Your comment is a great example of why we need a notice and take down system for false information.
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't rocket science
The statement here has already published before it is challenged. Prior restraint involves preventing a statement from ever being published. If you want to make critiques, it behooves you to actually have some rudimentary knowledge about the subject at hand.
Re: Re: This isn't rocket science
Anyone who is willing to claim that it is false? There could be some nominal dollar amount paid by the challenger to discourage frivolous claims. If the person making the statement does not request review within some time limit, then the statement is taken down and the challenger gets their money back. If the person requests review, then they put up the same nominal amount. Half of the fees go to a neutral third party that reviews the statement. The other half goes to the winner or more than half if you want to incentivize true statements/challenges. There could be a system of strikes that escalate a suspension periods. There could also be a system of appeals. There are plenty of creative people that could come up with some kind of solution like this.
Re: Re: This isn't rocket science
This isn't a complete ban on speech. This is a time, place, and manner restriction. People are still free to make false statements outside the social network. This would just restrict the manner in which they get to make their false statements. The person would be denied the amplification that the social network provides. There is no well established rule against this.
This isn't rocket science
We do notice and take down for copyright violations. There is no reason that we cannot implement a similar regime for false information. Re the First Amendment, you can't test the boundaries of the Constitution without a test case. You can't get a test case without passing a law. Throwing up our hands before trying anything won't get us anywhere. The nut jobs are willing to pack the courts and pass blatantly unconstitutional laws. Meanwhile, the normies are just sitting on their hands.
Re: Re: Re: Disagree with Tim G
It looks like Pappas may have filed for their US TM after Papa's was already using the name: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:uq50ih.2.22
Re: Huh? What?
2G has weak encryption and no authentication. 3G-5G all fall back on 2G when communication fails on 3G-5G. One can take advantage of the problems with 2G by disabling communication at 3G-5G. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/your-phone-vulnerable-because-2g-it-doesnt-have-be
Re: People Get What They Seek
Yes, the studies don't seem to be testing the correct scenarios. The other scenario is where the platform allows an alt-right group to target people with ads based on some indicator of gullibility, the people engage with that content, which causes the content to be elevated for others in organic suggestions/search results. It only takes a few thousand people in a swing state to change the outcome of a statewide election. The radicalization doesn't need to be widespread to have a serious effect.
Re: Re: SCA?
Maybe it's more like FB doesn't have a presence in Myanmar or Gambia, so there is no entity to sue there. It seems like the law enforcement exception should apply here though.
SCA?
Why is the SCA being applied to a crime that happened in Myanmar and a law enforcement agency in Gambia?