Ai-generative tools can be very useful as initial drafts. Tools specifically for the legal profession exist, but they aren't intended to be final submissions. Nor would I call this a travesty of justice. I'd call this a travesty of the legal profession, Justice functioned as intended. This is no different than any other bad faith private actor coming in from the perspective of a travesty of justice. And we blame the bad faith actors, not justice itself.
THat Techdirt evaluates RTBF requests and chooses to reject some after evaluating their legal value and accepts the potential liability that entails has no effect on the liability Twitter incurs if a user deletes a tweet due to a RTBF request, or in response to a court order, or as part of a legal settlement or contract dispute and than Twitter restores those tweets. This raises both direct liability (twitter having restored tweets it removed in response to legal process) and indirect liability (Twitter's actions creating legal liability for users) Even if reasonable (its not), your comparison focuses on an example, one posisble avenue of liability, and ignores the wider point on liability.
I've said it before here. I've gotten noted for saying this before - I used to pay for 4 simultaneous streams. I needed 3. My only options were 2 and 4. If Netflix needs more money for me to use 4 streams instead of 3, they should be charging me more upfront. It costs them no more if that 4th stream is in my home or at my work or across the country. If I had 4 computers running Netflix 24/7 they could charge me nothing more than they already charge me, and that shouldn't change when I go into the office. They announced this change on top of a price increase last year. They lost my business then. After paying a premium for 4 streams, they want to also charge me more to use those streams? I love Glass Onion and want to share it with people, but not that much.
Or billionares that own social media want section 230 protections.
If your proposition is that Justice Thomas is beholden to the billionare class, please stop a moment and consider who owns social media sites and would be impacted by the death of 230 making social media far less profitable. This ruling is not against billionare interests. That it benefits our interests is a happy coincidence.
My only responce would be that its also notably, not a TV. You’ve introduced a whole new slew of confounding variables TVs don’t face.
Its also notably, not a TV. You've introduced a whole new slew of confounding variables TV's don't face.
Taco Johns can still have taco tuesdays. The removal of the trademark doesn’t mean taco johnson can’t have taco tuesdays. It’s a mark tgat should never have been granted, and even if it was a valid mark, Taco Johns peacefully coexisted with other Taco Tuesdays for years. If taco johns is better than other local options, i’m sure it’s taco tuesday will win out in the marketplace.
I still think market segmentation is the biggest problem streaming faces, i never wanted only netflix. I wanted competition to prevent price gouging and see invocation in pricing and format.
....Diffie-Hellman key exchange is a foundational process to modern encryption and one of the first public key protocols. Consisting of a private and public key, It allows a public key to be sent in the open and maintain the secrecy of the underlying message. It was first proposed in 1976. If you don't know about public/private key exchange schemes, you know nothing about E2E encryption.
Microsofts strategy for decades has been embrace, extend, extinguish. It doesn't always work, but it always starts with embrace. Microsofts success has been when its been willing to embrace and try to take over from within. Sometimes they do it outright. Sometimes they just influence and end up at the front. Its no different here.
Due to my nuerodivergent roommate, Disney+ or Hulu is almost always running in the background with a content selection that dwarfs my ripped digital media collection, often in better quality.
**Saved me a ton of money over a Cable package.
To be fair a Disney+ with hulu bundle saved me a ton of money, and almost isnt ever not on in my home.
Truth was always negotiable in politics. Citizens United wasnt the catalyst for that. That you think influencers replaced role models tell me you think role models were just walking bilboards and you had no idea what a role model was. Due process has always been tied to wealth. the access to justice issue isn't new. Thats a pillar of how the post civil war south kept the freed blacks in check, and it echos similar problems centuries earlier. Outside your justice is revenge bit, which i can't parse, These are deep systemic problems presenting in new ways, but they aren't new problems.
I've been noting this a lot on twitter. Elon Musk also claimed Twitter files Journalists had "full access", only for twitter to backpedal and note the journalists definitely didn't have full access, but only access through an intermediary. It is entirely consistent for Musk to ignorantly claim that the ability to request data through any process, no matter the controls or limitations, as "full access".
Twitter already existed as a subsidiary of X. X1 holdings and X2 holdings were the companies that bought twitter in a reverse triangle merger to maintain contracts for Twitter Inc. The onlyy thing I know musk to have done is legally rebrand the company from Twitter, Inc. His ownership and liability haven't changed.
Given that the language comes from a clause that exempts companies, the law explicitly doesnt ban tik tok. It exempts tik tok.
Even one tweet or post ‘flagged’ by any government officialAbsolutes can be tricky, you might want to be careful
for deletion is too much.Ah. see, I could accept your framing and discuss cases where such an absolute was invalid, but you've helpfully not understood the assignment, so I can simply point out we are thankfully discussing flagging tweets for review, not deletion. so its not even on topic.
"or face liability" being the crux of the question. Google in fact does deny dmca claims as baseless or or on the basis of fair use - not often, but we see it in youtube on occation. The answer is scale. not all claims can be reviewed, and so even baseless claims will not necessarily see human review. Admittedly, I interpret the word "ignore" to include "deny the request", since that seems to be what the op was actually suggesting.