That "tool" is actually an active, well-funded participant making editorial decisions to promote and enforce an agenda, NOT being mere passive tool.Not really sure what that has to do with the "whole point of CDA 230". The purpose of CDA 230 was to place liability where it belongs while simultaneously encouraging platforms to keep themselves from becoming cesspools of human interaction. If we had retained publisher liability concerning user generated content on the internet, we would have ended up with either no UGC whatsoever or completely unmoderated UGC. Neither of those options appeal to me at all, so what is your solution in lieu of CDA 230?
So the whole point was to make sure that tech companies don't have to follow the rules other companies have to follow.No. The point was to place liability on the person doing the actual speaking, not on the tool being used. Do you also think that pencil manufacturers are liable for everything written with their pencils?
You need some actual substantive argument against DMCA. This and all similar mistakes ain't.This IS a substantive argument against the DMCA, in my opinion. When there is a conflict between copyright and freedom of speech, I will choose free speech everyday and twice on Sundays. To paraphrase William Blackstone and Benjamin Franklin:
A repost of my comment from 2012 seems appropriate:
Oh, The People You Will Sue
Congratulations!
From here you'll go far.
After trials and tribulations
You've finally passed the Bar.
You spent years in Law School
Listening to every Law Scholar
You are not anyone's fool
You are now an IP Lawyer
Everything is new, it's a brand new day
Then reality hits and you start to moan
You have to figure out a way
To repay all those student loans
You fire up your 'puter and look around
You see gatekeepers who need savin'
Against the evil pirates who abound
And think to yourself. I'll be the next Righthaven!
Oh, The People You Will Sue
As the plan forms in your mind
You'll sue mothers and printers
You'll sue anyone you can find
You'll leave the net in splinters
You'll sue anyone who utters "Fair Use!"
and companies who use Safe Harbors
'cause in your mind that's all just abuse
And that's just for starters
Oh, The People You Will Sue
With patents and trademark abuses
You'll sue anyone who innovates
Or dares to produce something with uses
And every single company who creates
You'll file class action suits
For artists against labels, it's true
You'll work hard on these pursuits
Because no one gets the money, well, except you.
You've become an IP Lawyer
You knew what you were doing
There's infringers out there
So...get suing!
In both of your examples it worked for a little while but eventually went right back being huge companies controlling the majority of the markets. The small oil companies eventually merged or were bought out to become ExxonMobil and all the little phone companies eventually became AT&T.
MY BOTTOM LINE: IF WANT COMPETITION, MUST BREAK UP THE BIG ONES. NO OTHER WAY HAS EVER WORKED OR CAN.You have been ranting about this on this site for years, but still have not put forth any valid ideas on HOW this should be done, Blue. At least Mike is presenting his ideas and not just shouting "Break them up!". I know you have tossed out the idea of taxing companies that get "too big" at 90 some-odd percent, but have never clarified what is to be considered "too big". You have also never addressed the fact that such a tax rate would simply be a "success tax" that would stifle the natural growth of companies in order to remain below your arbitrary threshold. Come on Blue, you criticize others for not having substance to their comments, so lets hear your grandiose ideas on this.
The point of copyright is to protect the hard work of a content creator...Nope. The granting of additional rights via copyright is the means, not the purpose. The purpose of copyright is to promote progress and enrich society. It's funny how pro-copyright people always overlook this. The purpose of copyright has never been about making sure the creator (or his great-great grandchildren) get paid. The public agreed to give up some of their property rights for a limited time to promote a more robust public domain. The pro-copyright side has reneged on this deal with ever expanding copyright terms.
Yes
Which law school did Masnick get his JD from? In which state did he pass the bar?Since when does discussing law require a degree? Based on your silly logic, you will now have to show proof of your BS in Information Technology in order to keep posting on this tech site.
How about reports of false hate crimes (Smollett)? Should he be banned in the same manner Rosanne was banned?Smollett was also fired from his TV series - just like Rosanne was.
Is there anyone here that is worried that THEY might be fired in they say the wrong thing? Is there a “chilling effect” that took place after Rosanne was fired?Nope. Conduct clauses in employment contracts are nothing new - especially in the entertainment business.
Too funny. You can't make this shit up. On this very article where Blue criticizes a commentor because they have a sparse comment history, Blue also attempts to obscure his own long history of commenting under the moniker "out_of_the_blue". Hypocrisy is thy name, Blue.
But laws like this don't make them accountable to the President; they make them accountable to the people, by way of the courts.But THIS laws seems to make the platforms accountable to an "independent regulator" who, in actual practice, will be loyal to those who sign his paycheck. Much the same way that "independent arbitrators" in contract disputes side with the company paying the arbitrator in something like 97% of the cases.
Will they call it the Ministry of Love, or the Ministry of Truth?Ministry of Magic since they will have to pull a reasonable, workable definition of "harmful content" out of thin air that covers speech that is currently legal.
I guess the ICE apple doesn't fall far from the tree.Sometimes they're still connected to the tree: https://weather.com/news/trending/video/freak-ghost-apples-appear-in-michigan-orchard
One of my favorite books growing up. It was "required" reading in my family after my Dad did a sociology paper on it when he was advancing his education in the middle of his career. Before he died, he made sure all of his grandchildren had hard-bound copies of it.
Thanks for showing all you've got is pointless sniping.I'm not sure I would consider it "pointless". The point is usually to display your faulty logic, incorrect facts or hypocrisy and with you it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Really? You're right that I go on without noticing!Yeah, we get it. Your mind is made up and you don't want be confused with actual facts.
ODD accounts are typical on Techdirt, and the dozens such persisting for years now -- even after I've been exposing them -- conclusively show astro-turfing.Enjoy your swim through the Sea of Knowledge after that jump to Conclusions.
Re: Re: Re: