Every site with user content, especially social media sites, need censors. Otherwise they don't work. None of them.
If anyone needs further details from Mike, read his article on the evolution of content moderation.
Some additonal info on the Council of European. It was established after WWII and it's true that it can't pass new laws. However, the 1950 European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) is tried by the Europan Court of Human RIGHTS (ECtHR), which is a part of the Council of Europe. It's jurisdiction covers 46 countries, including until recently Russia as well, not just EU countries. The CoE court (ECtHR) is a court of last resort, individuals must have exhausted domestic legal avenues. There is no enforcement mechanism other than shaming, but that's sufficient for Russia to have withdrawn and for the Conservatives in the UK to want to withdraw.
It has a seventy year history of comparatively strong data protection and privacy enforcement jurisprudence. The main articles in the Convention regarding privacy were transferred over to the EU charter on Fundamental Rights, which is the legal basis for the GDPR. The GDPR and the EU courts are perhaps stricter than the CoE court, which has sometimes led to the US complaining about double standards. Because the GDPR and EU doesn't have jurisdiction over EU states espionage, but GDRP prevents transfer to the US due to US surveillance practoces.
What they don't consider is that even if the ECHR is not as strict as the EU, it still requires proportionality (as mentioned in the fine article) and access to independent courts, the two main aspects that the EU courts have faulted the US system with lacking. And the CoE covers 46 countries of very varying levels of democracy.
The ECtHR decisions are very readable and has established very interesting privacy jurisprudence over many many decades.
In 2006, the EU passed a directive forcing private companies to retain business records (Directive 2006/24/EC). Some countries transposed the directive and had their national laws challenged in their own constitutional courts. Sweden did not transpose the directive into national law for many years and was sued by the Europan Commission for failure to follow the treaties and was in 2013 ordered to pay a 3 million euro fine by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for the delay.
In 2014, the same court, CJEU, struck down the directive for violating fundamental rights. Lessons learned for the states - transpose directives even when they are bonkers. If you trust your own courts, transpose it in a bonkers way and have the law be stalled by your national courts until the directive is voided or replaced, like several other EU countries did.
The main idea seems to be that AI could lead to large (and comparatively larger) productivity gains for lower skilled workers.
If that is the case, why would that help the lower skilled workers? Or any worker?
That's not a question about technology or even AI. Productivity improvements have not benefitted the people performing the work for the last forty-fifty years, but rather the companies they've worked for and their highest level executives.
Which is precisely the point those job doomsayers talk about. AI will lead to massive producitivy gains - but none of those gains will go to the people working, due to how the economy works.
Agreed
"We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false."
That's no admission or contrition.
And in the end, what they learnt is that they probably made more money lying and clawing back the viewership even with the settlement, just the cost of doing business, and to stop saying things that prove malice in writing.
Conservatives suffered from social media “fact check”ing and “context” labels for quite some time. But within one week of context that NPR is partially funded by the government (which is entirely true!), they rage quit. This is why leftists were in tears when the Elon purchase was announced; they knew they couldn’t handle being subjected to the same treatment.
Apart from being factually wrong, that wasn't the point.
1. Musk/Twitter started applying a tag to the NPR twitter account which they had up until then had used NPR as an example of when the tag wasn't correct. After that was pointed out, Musk/Twitter removed that example from the definition. In subsequent exchanges, it was clarified that the change had nothing to do with new information or changed circumstances.
2. After receiving the information that contradicted what Musk/Twitter alluded to was the reason for starting to apply the tag, Musk/Twitter decided to apply a different, newly created tag, to the NPR twitter account. The newly created tag was also incorrect according to the information Musk/Twitter had just received.
3. In a broadcasted meeting with BBC, Musk/Twitter suggested creating yet another new tag and possibly apply that to both the twitter accounts of both BBC and NPR.
This is not behaviour based on information, standards or process, which makes the behaviour unpredictable. Unpredicatble behaviour is not the basis of effective collaboration.
Even if one or more of the labels could be argued to be correct/informative, there is absolutely no reason for any Twitter user, either content producer or consumer, to be able to rely on such tags, based on the behaviour and statements of Musk/Twitter.
What makes surveillance illegal? That there is no legal basis for it.
How do you know if there is a legal basis for something? Generally, the courts allow two sides to investigate and request evidence from each other, present their respective cases and then the court determines if some actions were legal or not.
In this situation, one side says "state secret" and the court said "ok, nevermind".
As mentioned below, Geographical indications are not trademarks. They are available for any business in that geographical region but not to any other. True, there could be other places with the same name prevented from then using their own name. Like a clock made in Switzerland, Florida cannot use the geographical indication Swiss made.
https://www.wipo.int/geo_indications/en/
Seriously, as a real free speech absolutist, I really am saddened by this news.
"Free speech absolutist", what does that even mean? It doesn't mean anything, it's just words put together.
It doesn’t matter if it’s government doing the censoring or a global corporation, censorship is censorship, no matter who is doing it.
Well, it does matter because it's only a question about free if there is coercion involved. Governments have the power of the state including the use of violence. A corporation, even global, can't coerce you.
(at least previous Twitter owners didn’t target specific people, just conservatives in general, not so with Elon here).
The "Twitter files", apart from endangering their own current or former employees, have actually shown that Twitter did not target conservatives. Or engaged in First amendment violations.
You make a good point about standing up for your employer, that's a good thing. But what "the Fediverse expected" from any company was:
Before you announce your new hire, realize that a segment of your customers and supporters will take issue with your hire. Even if you think there are good reasons to be sceptical but you as a company have good reasons anyway, or that any and all concerns are wholly unreasonable, you should know enough to understand there will be a (potentially small) backlash. And have a plan for that before you announce including how you announce in different channels.
When that foreseeable backlash comes, if your response as a company is only dismissive, rude and digging in on being tone deaf and disrespectful, you should not be surprised that the conflict with your supporters and customers escalates. What you need to do is show that you respect people, which isn't the same as to agree with all their opinions. If you can't do that - don't be a brand representative.
Stand up for your new employee - by being prepared for how to announce and how to respond to questions. Otherwise you're really exposing them to a lot of awfulness. From an employer responsibility perspective, it seems their handling resulted in an awful time for the new hire, the brand manager, the co-founder executive - maybe even doxxing and death threats - partly because of a botched roll-out of the new hire.
What the Fediverse expected was respectful behavior by the moderator/brand manager of an instance. When that didn't happen, the Fediverse resorted to the remaining option, defederation of that instance.
The barrista makes a heart or a tree in my coffee without my input - the web designer designs under my editorial (and creative) control.
In the end, they are doing whatever creative activities they are doing as work for hire, not as independent authors. The typesetter might be very creative but it's the publisher that is responsible for the speech.
I'm trying to make sense of the arguments in this article, but they just don't add up for me.
Forst, to get ripeness out of the way. If this case is ripe, there is absolutely no reason law's like the Texas SB8 from last year shouldn't be ripe before abortion providers were already shutting down.
But further, it seems the idea of the argument is that web design is speech while serving coffee is not, and therefore public accommodation doesn't protect people from being discriminated. But the law isn't making the designer speak, rather that they help others to speak - regardless if they agree with the message. The example in the article is actually apt, would a typesetter working at a printing press be able to refuse to set certain articles written by journalists and edited by editors?
The webdesigner isn't expressing the views of the client in the same way that they don't own the copyright to the material if they were commissioned to do the design as work for hire. The typesetter is not exercising editorial discretion, they are doing work for hire. It can be creative work but it's not editorial discretion. The typesetter isn't speaking.
In the same way, it's not the webdesigner that is speaking, so public accommodation principles would indicate that it's perfectly reasonable for the law to prevent the designer from discriminating against certain protected viewpoints.
As everyone is mentioning, he probably won't have the problem of being the CEO of a VLOP (or ROUS) for much longer.
While he is doing his Brewsters 44 Billion, how are people working at or doing deals with Tesla and SpaceX feeling? Why would anyone want to work for him or make any investments or other deals with any of his companies?
Every site with user content, especially social media sites, need censors. Otherwise they don't work. None of them. If anyone needs further details from Mike, read his article on the evolution of content moderation.
Council of Europe
Some additonal info on the Council of European. It was established after WWII and it's true that it can't pass new laws. However, the 1950 European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) is tried by the Europan Court of Human RIGHTS (ECtHR), which is a part of the Council of Europe. It's jurisdiction covers 46 countries, including until recently Russia as well, not just EU countries. The CoE court (ECtHR) is a court of last resort, individuals must have exhausted domestic legal avenues. There is no enforcement mechanism other than shaming, but that's sufficient for Russia to have withdrawn and for the Conservatives in the UK to want to withdraw. It has a seventy year history of comparatively strong data protection and privacy enforcement jurisprudence. The main articles in the Convention regarding privacy were transferred over to the EU charter on Fundamental Rights, which is the legal basis for the GDPR. The GDPR and the EU courts are perhaps stricter than the CoE court, which has sometimes led to the US complaining about double standards. Because the GDPR and EU doesn't have jurisdiction over EU states espionage, but GDRP prevents transfer to the US due to US surveillance practoces. What they don't consider is that even if the ECHR is not as strict as the EU, it still requires proportionality (as mentioned in the fine article) and access to independent courts, the two main aspects that the EU courts have faulted the US system with lacking. And the CoE covers 46 countries of very varying levels of democracy. The ECtHR decisions are very readable and has established very interesting privacy jurisprudence over many many decades.
EU Data retention directive
In 2006, the EU passed a directive forcing private companies to retain business records (Directive 2006/24/EC). Some countries transposed the directive and had their national laws challenged in their own constitutional courts. Sweden did not transpose the directive into national law for many years and was sued by the Europan Commission for failure to follow the treaties and was in 2013 ordered to pay a 3 million euro fine by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for the delay. In 2014, the same court, CJEU, struck down the directive for violating fundamental rights. Lessons learned for the states - transpose directives even when they are bonkers. If you trust your own courts, transpose it in a bonkers way and have the law be stalled by your national courts until the directive is voided or replaced, like several other EU countries did.
Productivity gains
The main idea seems to be that AI could lead to large (and comparatively larger) productivity gains for lower skilled workers. If that is the case, why would that help the lower skilled workers? Or any worker? That's not a question about technology or even AI. Productivity improvements have not benefitted the people performing the work for the last forty-fifty years, but rather the companies they've worked for and their highest level executives. Which is precisely the point those job doomsayers talk about. AI will lead to massive producitivy gains - but none of those gains will go to the people working, due to how the economy works.
Agreed "We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false." That's no admission or contrition. And in the end, what they learnt is that they probably made more money lying and clawing back the viewership even with the settlement, just the cost of doing business, and to stop saying things that prove malice in writing.
What makes surveillance illegal? That there is no legal basis for it. How do you know if there is a legal basis for something? Generally, the courts allow two sides to investigate and request evidence from each other, present their respective cases and then the court determines if some actions were legal or not. In this situation, one side says "state secret" and the court said "ok, nevermind".
Geographical indications
As mentioned below, Geographical indications are not trademarks. They are available for any business in that geographical region but not to any other. True, there could be other places with the same name prevented from then using their own name. Like a clock made in Switzerland, Florida cannot use the geographical indication Swiss made. https://www.wipo.int/geo_indications/en/
What the Fediverse expected
You make a good point about standing up for your employer, that's a good thing. But what "the Fediverse expected" from any company was:
- Before you announce your new hire, realize that a segment of your customers and supporters will take issue with your hire. Even if you think there are good reasons to be sceptical but you as a company have good reasons anyway, or that any and all concerns are wholly unreasonable, you should know enough to understand there will be a (potentially small) backlash. And have a plan for that before you announce including how you announce in different channels.
- When that foreseeable backlash comes, if your response as a company is only dismissive, rude and digging in on being tone deaf and disrespectful, you should not be surprised that the conflict with your supporters and customers escalates. What you need to do is show that you respect people, which isn't the same as to agree with all their opinions. If you can't do that - don't be a brand representative.
Stand up for your new employee - by being prepared for how to announce and how to respond to questions. Otherwise you're really exposing them to a lot of awfulness. From an employer responsibility perspective, it seems their handling resulted in an awful time for the new hire, the brand manager, the co-founder executive - maybe even doxxing and death threats - partly because of a botched roll-out of the new hire. What the Fediverse expected was respectful behavior by the moderator/brand manager of an instance. When that didn't happen, the Fediverse resorted to the remaining option, defederation of that instance.The barrista makes a heart or a tree in my coffee without my input - the web designer designs under my editorial (and creative) control. In the end, they are doing whatever creative activities they are doing as work for hire, not as independent authors. The typesetter might be very creative but it's the publisher that is responsible for the speech.
Doesn't make sense
I'm trying to make sense of the arguments in this article, but they just don't add up for me. Forst, to get ripeness out of the way. If this case is ripe, there is absolutely no reason law's like the Texas SB8 from last year shouldn't be ripe before abortion providers were already shutting down. But further, it seems the idea of the argument is that web design is speech while serving coffee is not, and therefore public accommodation doesn't protect people from being discriminated. But the law isn't making the designer speak, rather that they help others to speak - regardless if they agree with the message. The example in the article is actually apt, would a typesetter working at a printing press be able to refuse to set certain articles written by journalists and edited by editors? The webdesigner isn't expressing the views of the client in the same way that they don't own the copyright to the material if they were commissioned to do the design as work for hire. The typesetter is not exercising editorial discretion, they are doing work for hire. It can be creative work but it's not editorial discretion. The typesetter isn't speaking. In the same way, it's not the webdesigner that is speaking, so public accommodation principles would indicate that it's perfectly reasonable for the law to prevent the designer from discriminating against certain protected viewpoints.
Not a problem
As everyone is mentioning, he probably won't have the problem of being the CEO of a VLOP (or ROUS) for much longer. While he is doing his Brewsters 44 Billion, how are people working at or doing deals with Tesla and SpaceX feeling? Why would anyone want to work for him or make any investments or other deals with any of his companies?
That would probably depend on if they have determined if he's "deemed an agent of a foreign power or terrorist group" and therefore can be targeted.