If they want to search your office, but your office has a locked door, could they dismantle your door and then claim the room was open and unlocked? They weren't interested in your door... They gained no information from your door... But suddenly your desk was accessible.
Leigh, you are really reaching here. Zuckerberg is saying exactly what you are saying, but you are calling him out for it.
This is blatantly untrue, as that language appears nowhere in the law, and Section 230 is (as we've reiterated many times during the SESTA debate) designed to encourage moderation. But Zuckerberg's reply was, well, absurd:
"I'm not that familiar with the specific legal language of the law that you speak to, so I would need to follow up with you on that."
Cruz is saying the law says something that it doesn’t, and Zuckerberg is saying he isn’t aware of any text in the law that says that. What would you rather have him answer? (As the many other comments have said, “Cruz, you are wrong” isn’t an option...)
I was discussing the Oluo situation with friends, and it is incredibly difficult to figure out how Facebook could have handled this properly. Put yourself in the shoes of a person tasked with reviewing content, and given only a few seconds per item to review. You are spending hours Per day, deciding "racist", "sex", "offensive", "acceptable"... Then Oluo's posts come up.
You see the blatant racism. You see the death threats. You see the rape threats. Of course you'd mark it as offensive! The reviewers don't have the time to get the context that Oluo is posting to shame the original posters (exactly the same as the PopeHat situation). They just see the hateful messages and mark them bad.
> On June 18, 2017, Defendants executed a meticulously planned attempt to assassinate the character and reputation of Mr. Robert E. Murray and his companies, including Murray Energy Corporation and those in West Virginia, on a world stage.
I've now watched the video four times and I fail to see anywhere that it goes after "those in West Virginia."
This seems clear to me that "and those in West Virginia" is meaning "companies other than Murray Energy Corporation that are also in West Virginia", and isn't implying that random West Virginians were targeted.
What text needs to be added to a law so it has the "no take backsies" that this law is getting? Can't yet another vote get taken and the "permanent" bar goes away?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by DanK.
If dismantling is ok when it isn't the search, where does it stop?
If they want to search your office, but your office has a locked door, could they dismantle your door and then claim the room was open and unlocked? They weren't interested in your door... They gained no information from your door... But suddenly your desk was accessible.
Have your cake and eat it too?
Leigh, you are really reaching here. Zuckerberg is saying exactly what you are saying, but you are calling him out for it.
Cruz is saying the law says something that it doesn’t, and Zuckerberg is saying he isn’t aware of any text in the law that says that. What would you rather have him answer? (As the many other comments have said, “Cruz, you are wrong” isn’t an option...)
It's an incredibly complex problem
I was discussing the Oluo situation with friends, and it is incredibly difficult to figure out how Facebook could have handled this properly. Put yourself in the shoes of a person tasked with reviewing content, and given only a few seconds per item to review. You are spending hours Per day, deciding "racist", "sex", "offensive", "acceptable"... Then Oluo's posts come up.
You see the blatant racism. You see the death threats. You see the rape threats. Of course you'd mark it as offensive! The reviewers don't have the time to get the context that Oluo is posting to shame the original posters (exactly the same as the PopeHat situation). They just see the hateful messages and mark them bad.
This seems clear to me that "and those in West Virginia" is meaning "companies other than Murray Energy Corporation that are also in West Virginia", and isn't implying that random West Virginians were targeted.
How does a law make something permanent?
What text needs to be added to a law so it has the "no take backsies" that this law is getting? Can't yet another vote get taken and the "permanent" bar goes away?