JSpitzen 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (97) comment rss

  • On the post: The Latest Version Of Congress's Anti-Algorithm Bill Is Based On Two Separate Debunked Myths & A Misunderstanding Of How Things Work

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2021 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Re: What about Section 3?

    My comment did not, as you rightly point out, address the point raised by Mike about mobile vs. desktop screen formatting. Some version of the ideas mentioned by Koby could address that or the initial screen could just make the user select "Mobile or Desktop?" and then "Opaque or XXX Ranking?" I haven't programmed for a long time and I'm sure someone could come up with something more elegant. I'll pass on responding this poster's final paragraph as I am a fan of civil discourse.

  • On the post: The Latest Version Of Congress's Anti-Algorithm Bill Is Based On Two Separate Debunked Myths & A Misunderstanding Of How Things Work

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2021 @ 10:33am

    What about Section 3?

    If I am reading it right, the main legal obligations would arise from Section 3 which require the platform to give the use the option to not use the "opaque algorithm." Someone explain to me why that doesn't remediate most of the problems explained in Mike's post. Let users have a one-time option to select "transparent algorithm" ranking and, if they select that, show them something simple, e.g., time-stamp ranked. As has been explained here many times, any user trying that choice will quickly be buried in garbage and any user with a functioning brain will revert to choosing a more sane algorithm even if it is "opaque."

    In fact, might one build on this concept, letting platforms offer users a choice of ranking algorithms? A user could select time-stamped, "don't show me anything from Josh Hawley," "don't show me anything from the category of _____," "PG13," etc. etc.

  • On the post: Journalists In St. Louis Discover State Agency Is Revealing Teacher Social Security Numbers; Governors Vows To Prosecute Journalists As Hackers

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2021 @ 09:50am

    Governor is also an expert on vaccination!

    From his press release last month:

    "Today, Governor Mike Parson announced that his administration will reject the Biden Administration's attempt to enforce an unconstitutional, federal vaccine mandate for Missourians and private businesses. The Office of the Governor has been in communication with leadership from the Missouri General Assembly and the Attorney General's Office to align resources for a pending legal fight.

    "This assault on individual liberty and free enterprise is a poorly executed attempt by the Biden Administration to reset after its disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan," Governor Parson said. "With our southern border in crisis and as we are experiencing out-of-control inflation, President Biden is desperate to divert attention from his failures. However, Missouri will not be a pawn in this publicity stunt that seeks to force Missourians to disclose private health care decisions and dictate private business operations.""

    https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/governor-parson-condemns-biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate-vows-legal

  • On the post: Why Section 230 'Reform' Effectively Means Section 230 Repeal

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2021 @ 05:12pm

    Re: Re: Mea Culpa

    Comment slightly missing my point. If I had some brilliant idea for an improvement, I'd say what it was. In my earlier comment, I was just wondering whether this community might come up with some alternatives to "don't try to fix it; leave it alone." Repeating myself, in an ideal world, we could all have polite debate about what that might be. But, in the real world, as convincingly explained by Cathy, the winner is "don't try to fix it; leave it alone."

  • On the post: Why Section 230 'Reform' Effectively Means Section 230 Repeal

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2021 @ 03:50pm

    Mea Culpa

    Severeal months ago, I posted a comment to a different article in which (here comes the mea culpa) I suggested that the community of people who read and post to Techdirt were extremely qualified to respond to Section 230 criticisms with possible improvements to Sec. 230. My post was more or less uniformly condemned by this community (sometimes not in the politest terms). Many of the comments on my post suggested that I must hate free speech and/or Sec. 230 and/or have a political agenda. That was not and is not the case--I may not be as much of a 1st Amendment "absolutist" as some of those who post here but I lean strongly in that direction.

    (For example, I disagree with this assertion in the very first comment on Cathy's post: "everybody who wants to change or eliminate 230 does not support free speech, but is rather seeking the means to force the Internet to reflect their political views, and only their political views." More accurate if it changed "everybody" to "most.")

    So, with that introduction, let me say that I REALLY like Cathy's explanation of the defects in a wide variety of proposals for amendments to Sec. 230. I agree 100% with the key point that Sec. 230 does not provide a new substantive right but is, rather, a critical civil procedure optimization of what the 1st Amendment would provide for defendants with deep enough pockets.

    In an ideal universe, where everyone with a view on this domain, understood Cathy's point, and was operating in good faith, maybe we could agree on an improved Sec. 230. But, regrettably, it is clear that in the current real world, any proposed amendment to Sec. 230 will really be designed to further a political agenda and degrade a key constitutional right and, therefore, worthy of condemnation.

  • On the post: Court To Sheriff: Sending An Officer To Tell A Teen To Delete Instagram Posts Is So Very Obviously A Rights Violation

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 29 Sep, 2021 @ 10:09am

    Remedy

    I like this text from the Court's opinion: "The First Amendment is not a game setting for the government to toggle off and on. It applies in times of tranquility and times of strife. While Defendants in this case may have believed their actions served the greater good, that belief cannot insulate them. Demanding a 16-year-old
    remove protected speech from her Instagram account is a First Amendment violation."

    In answer to the question posed by Anonymous Coward, it doesn't look like the court has awarded money damages or injunctive relief--just a declaratory judgement.

  • On the post: Backpage Founders Trial Finally Begins

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2021 @ 10:44am

    Re:

    My comment is on this excerpt from this comment: "While rational people accept that there are people out there doing consensual sex work, there are still people who refuse to believe that is true. That all sex workers are abused children kidnapped & pimped out at the superb owl." A possible implication of this assertion is that it is irrational to think that a large number of "sex workers" (maybe even a majority) do not do what they do for purely consensual reasons--that, even if not subject to abuse as children, physical coercion, etc., they are driven to their occupation by severe economic inequities in our society. I disagree. For example, read this recent essay by Catharine MacKinnon: www.nytimes.com/2021/09/06/opinion/onlyfans-sex-work-safety.html. I do not fully agree with Professor MacKinnon but she is certainly rational and her views are worthy of respect.

  • On the post: The Externalization Of Content Moderation: Facebook Explores 'Election Commission'

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2021 @ 01:45pm

    The Commish

    And who exactly would populate this commission? Cannot be anyone with a liberal/progressive/Democratic legacy as the other side will never trust them. Ditto if it's almost anyone with a conservative/Republican legacy. Is there a bunch of political science profs/law school profs who have managed to achieve "widely respected expert" status without ever advocating for one side or the other?

  • On the post: Makers Of 'Peaky Blinders' Show Fail To Get Injunction Against Distillery For 'Peaky Blinders' Whiskey

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 23 May, 2021 @ 06:28am

    Big Candy Is Angry

    I hope someone will offer their opinion about the case described in a recent NY Times article with the title "Big Candy is Angry."

  • On the post: The Oversight Board's Decision On Facebook's Trump Ban Is Just Not That Important

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 05 May, 2021 @ 03:31pm

    3 Insurrections

    Everyone is familiar with the various state "3 strikes" laws. How about a new "3 Insurrections and you're banned for life"?

  • On the post: John Oliver On Drug Raids: Why Are We Raiding Houses For Drug Quantities That Could Be Easily Flushed Down A Toilet?

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2021 @ 03:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Fair Question

    The Golden Toilet of the former Prez (https://toilet-guru.com/trump.php) may be mega-flush capable. No-knock surely justified at that address.

  • On the post: Facebook Caves To Australia: Will Restore Links After Government Gives It More Time To Negotiate Paying For News Links

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 23 Feb, 2021 @ 02:16pm

    Re: Nondiscrimination Aspect

    Doubtful. I found a draft version of the law from last year online (not the current version). It has major penalties for trying to circumvent the operation of the law. Guessing that part has not changed. If Facebook was willing to close down in-person operations in Australia, and access that market solely via the Internet, Australia might have a struggle to enforce the sanctions in the law but, if you are Facebook, that's playing with fire.

  • On the post: Facebook Caves To Australia: Will Restore Links After Government Gives It More Time To Negotiate Paying For News Links

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 23 Feb, 2021 @ 10:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Question about Australian Law

    I get that answer in the wierd corner case where the arbitrator imposes a large one-time fee (or maybe a large fee covering the next N years). At that point, Anonymous Coward's analysis seems right--they'd have to pay or they'd have to 100% exit Australia. Whether or not the fee would still be enforceable via some internation agreement is beyond my expertise. But, suppose the arbitrator imposes a pay-per-use fee, measured, somehow, based on the amount of conmtent to which they link. Unless that fee has some obnoxious minimum, even when they link to zero content, seems like the nuclear option would remain available. I guess Facebook has some significant legal talent trying to game through these scenarios.

  • On the post: Facebook Caves To Australia: Will Restore Links After Government Gives It More Time To Negotiate Paying For News Links

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 23 Feb, 2021 @ 09:57am

    Question about Australian Law

    I haven't tried to read this pending Australian law and I have a question for anyone who has. Consider the scenario where Facebook tried to n egotiate a fee, the negotiation fails, and an arbitrator then determines the fee. Maybe the ultimate number is one that, as a business matter, Facebook decides it can live with. But suppose the number is one that Facebook finds intolerable. Wny cannot it, at that later point, return to the Nuclear option, e.g., refusing to post or allow posting of anything that would make it subject to the fee?

  • On the post: No Section 230 Has Nothing To Do With Horrific NY Times Story Of Online Stalker Getting Revenge For Decades' Old Slight

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2021 @ 03:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hoops

    Yes, I agree.

  • On the post: No Section 230 Has Nothing To Do With Horrific NY Times Story Of Online Stalker Getting Revenge For Decades' Old Slight

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2021 @ 02:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Hoops

    This is a legit concern. Figuring out how to balance the burden is challenging. I do not have the skills to propose a system for which I want to advocate but, neither, am I convinced that the current system si the best we can do.

  • On the post: No Section 230 Has Nothing To Do With Horrific NY Times Story Of Online Stalker Getting Revenge For Decades' Old Slight

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2021 @ 02:08pm

    Re: Hoops

    Mr. Stone says:
    Your entire idea hinges on the premise that content should be taken down before it is determined to be defamatory. That is a gross violation of the First Amendment — in spirit, if not in letter. No, I don't believe I said that (and I certainly did not intend it). You and I seem to agree it would be a problem to have a system where Babcock's mere allegation of defamation results in a takedown unless the counter-party jumps through hoops to prove the negative (i.e., no defamation). I am hypothesizing a different system where Babcock has to get a court to confirm there was defamation. In that hypothetical system, the or iginal poster would have an option to contest the allegation of defamation. Maybe the platforms would have that option too. Maybe an industry organization, in which the platforms could share, would have that option too. Only when Babcock won his case, would potential liability be triggered for platforms. To whom, exactly, would that pose an unfair burden?

  • On the post: No Section 230 Has Nothing To Do With Horrific NY Times Story Of Online Stalker Getting Revenge For Decades' Old Slight

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2021 @ 06:46am

    Re: Re: Is it really binary?

    I agree with lots of what you say, e.g., re better approaches they could have taken. Good points. On intermediary liability, let me elaborate. I would NOT propose a simple DMCA takedown system expanded to cover allegations of defamation just as the current DMCA system covers allegations of infringement. The abuses of the current system have been well explained on this site and an expansion of this kind would make it much worse. However, suppose we invent some additional hoops through which the party seeking takedown must jump. For example, if I go into court seeking a preliminary injunction, the judge can, as a condition of granting the injunction, require me to post a bond that I forfeit if I cannot prove my case. (Further explanation may be found at https://www.performancesuretybonds.com/blog/what-is-the-purpose-of-a-preliminary-injunction-bond/.) It's up to the judge to decide whether I am likely to prevail on the merits (if not, my request for an injunction is denied) and also how big a bond is appropriate to balance the equities. A system like that is not perfect and, like almost any system is subject to abuse. But at least there is a control built in to moderate the potential for abuse. A problem with the current DMCA system is that it puts too much burden on the party opposing takedown. This is one way (maybe there are others) to shift the balance of the burdens. By the way, I do very much appreciate the civility of your comment.

  • On the post: No Section 230 Has Nothing To Do With Horrific NY Times Story Of Online Stalker Getting Revenge For Decades' Old Slight

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2021 @ 05:35pm

    Re: Re: Is it really binary?

    A fair comment and concern.

  • On the post: No Section 230 Has Nothing To Do With Horrific NY Times Story Of Online Stalker Getting Revenge For Decades' Old Slight

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2021 @ 04:37pm

    Is it really binary?

    If the choice is between no intermediary liability ever and 100% intermediary liability always, I guess I might reluctantly choose the former. But I am not convinced there are no other choices. The NYTimes article (whose factual reciations I have not attempted to verify) says that the victims spent a lot of resources getting RipOffReport to take down the defamatory content. It also says that multiple other websites with overlapping business models refused to take down the content and asserted Sec. 230 as a defense. So, on one interpretation of this data, various bad actors (RipOffReport and its ilk) have profited at the expense of innocent victims, the extended Babcock family. Some commenters dismiss this as a non-issue by pointing out that the victims include Canadian citizens and that Sec. 230 is not a Canadian law. I don't follow that logic: the NYTimes article asserts that the Babcock family is spread across the U.K., Canada and the U.S. and that they have been defamed globally. If we assume (but I cannot prove) that some of the defamation comes from U.S. hosted websites,U.S. law is relevant and it is not constructive to note that some of the victims are Canadian. Back to the binary issue. The common law legal system (spanning multiple countries and multiple centuries) often imposes intermediary liability, e.g., in cases where there is no effective and practical remedy against the "real" villain. I acknowledge the risks associated with that approach and am not so confident in the trade offs (e.g., vis a vis the consequences to free speech) that I want immediately to argue for imposing that liability. However, I think it is worthy of reasoned debate. I am not particularly inclined to select Google or other search engines as the optimal targets of intermediary liability as the forces of the marketplace and their own self interest might suffice. But what about platforms like RipOffReport? Might it be justified subjecting them to intermediary liability? Some of the audience will, of course, note that I raised a similar concern in comments on another post a few days ago. Some of the respondents to those earlier comments decided that obscenities made a good counter-argument. Perhaps those respondents will be a little more thoughtful this time.

Next >>