"it shouldn’t make a service more liable for user-generated content any more than it would be without that extra decision"
I didn't say they should be liable for the content. I said they should be liable for the intentional promotion and surfacing of it, and IMO doubly so if the promotion enables profit-taking.
1A ans S230 cover the liability for user-content itself, but the display, surfacing and promotion is almost always not user-controlled, and definitively (by your argument) speech of the platform. In your view, it seems, the ordering and display of the content belongs to no one, which doesn't make sense, especially when the decisions (thanks for that terminology) are specifically being made by the platform.
And yes, 1A censorship still applies no matter who S230 (in any form) deems is responsible for the speech. But though citizens can be held responsible for incitement, currently the platforms cannot, despite the almost total control they hold over the actual presentation of user content. Because S230 is lacking and lets them claim "user content" for everything they offer, even if the actual "user content" is a small fraction of the final content.
It doesn't seem to be making the platform accountable for the content itself, just for the promotion and surfacing of it. If the content is just in a "firehose" of chronological posts, then S230 should apply just as it does now. But if the platform applies any kind of programmatic repositioning, reordering, promotion, or other control over the presentation of the content, then it becomes more than user content, it becomes the platform's content!
This makes sense! To reiterate: yes, the platforms don't control the content; but they DO control the presentation of it. The only thing the users control is when they post. Thus building any presentation of the content that is not simply chronological should be considered speech of the platform, and not of the users. This is a huge part of how the biggest platforms make money (ads near content that is promoted because it's "hot", ads near content that is promoted because it will drive interaction, etc), yet they are using S230 to sheild what should be considered the speech of the platforms.
To put it another way, Facebook could not pull off the bullshit they are doing with scam ads if they didn't control the presentation of the content. They literally had policies to let people get away with scams if it would impact their own bottom line, and to alter the presentation of user content to further increase their profit from those scam ads. Everything about this except for the actual user content, is purely in Facebook's control, and they should be held accountable for everything except the user content!
(I suppose users can add tags and such, so filtering by those additions would also be outside of the platform's control, as long as it stays chronological (no algorithmic sorting or promotion) inside the filters.)
If you see any actually good analysis of the patent, it's really just the Pokemon battle gameplay loop that's covered, not the individual parts. They didn't grant a patent on summoning, they granted a patent on a gameplay loop that includes summoning, specifically after throwing a thing, and then fighting with the summon, and then throwing a thing again to pick up the spoils of battle. It's literally a shot across the bow towards (very specifically) Palworld, not "a patent for most games ever".
While I don't want anyone to get hurt or killed, it will be very interesting what the courts have to say if one of these mystery officers kills someone, or gets killed by someone defending themselves. Does qualified immunity apply to an undeclared officer? Does "stand your ground" apply against an undeclared officer?
"And while one of Bump’s sources acknowledges in passing that “officers are worried about being targeted,”"
That's especially wild when held up next to the very common justification for our loose gun laws: "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun".
A masked, plain-clothed, un-badged person with a gun that is detaining unarmed people for unspecified reasons is a "bad guy with a gun", and should be getting "targeted" by all these proverbial "good guys with guns".
Do the accounts that got hacked get any of this money?
Why NSO Group itself and not the countries/groups that actually did the hacking?
Cars that can go illegally fast can be used to escape cops after a robbery, but it would be virtually impossible to get damages out of a car manufacturer. Arguably the car is designed and sold for other legal uses, but I'm surprised NSO couldn't make, and win, the same argument for their software: that it has legal uses depending on the jurisdiction, and it's up to the buyer to use it legally.
Actually, so far they haven't put any previously free things behind a paywall. It really is an add-on (so far). Which I'm ok with. I don't want analysis of my results or AI coaching or anything like that, so as long as they continue to let me get my data out for free, and have a decent historical view of my data in the basic tier that comes with the hardware purchase, all good. If putting some "premium" stuff behind a paywall keeps the hardware prices reasonable, I'm ok with it. Yes, reasonable is quite subjective, but my Fenix 6 Sapphire has cost me somewhere in the range of 35 cents a day over it's lifetime and shows no signs of stopping, that's easily worth the data it's collected for me and the daily value I get out of it.
It almost doesn't matter since most of the obviously aren't even verifying who is in these groups... But I have to wonder if any single one of them has actually set up Signal for maximum security: verifying fingerprints, checking safety numbers, setting up encrypted profiles, etc.
And then wondering why those people (if they exist) aren't yelling at colleagues that their actions are putting them all at risk. Or is the delusion that they're all effectively above the law if they just lick the Orange Guy's boots enough... is that delusion completely pervasive? Of course, it's a delusion that conveniently forgets that past boot-licking doesn't matter when the Tyrant Baby has a tantrum and changes his mind about who is on his side, and he will throw them under the bus on a whim.
(Sidebar: where are his kids and every one else who was supposed to be the best of the best from his first admininstration? None of them did enough to help him lie his way into office this time? Except Voldemort-wanna-be Stephen Miller, somehow...)
They voted for throwing out the Constitution? I understand people who voted for Trump's promise to deport illegals, but that's not what they're doing right now. They're deporting alleged criminals, dissenters, and random brown people, claiming they are all criminals without due process
"[and] every foreign student that hates America and supports Hamas"
If you truly believe that, then you are the one that hates America. You might be trolling, but you might be just misunderstanding something. One of the most important things we have here the promise of innocence until proven guilty, with due process given to proving that. To ignore or avoid that is quite literally anti-American.
Shouting to throw out non-criminal dissenters at all is quite unpatriotic. Dissenting, protesting, disagreeing is the foundation of democracy, right next to compromise.
Shouting to throw out anyonewithout due process is one of the most unpatriotic things you could do. And incredibly stupid, because it sets a precedent for the exact same thing to happen to you, if someone you give that power to suddenly decides they don't want you around.
"Do they just think everyone is fucking stupid?"
It sure seems like it. And that's become my new argument against supporters:
"You know, they think you're an idiot... so fucking stupid that they need to do the thinking for you. First they lied to you, and then they kept lying to you, and now they're acting like you're too stupid to notice. But you're not stupid, right? Are you gonna take that kind of shit?"
One man's nagging is another man's fraud protection: Arguably, Brother could be responding to requests for better ways to detect counterfeit cartridges. Since the federal government, and the biggest retailers around seem reluctant* to actually police product fraud, perhaps people asked for a way to detect athentic Brother carts.
I know I've had trouble with 3rd-party inkjet carts either clogging almost instantly or somehow containing even less ink than 1st-party "starter" carts: Probably 1 for 3 on getting actual good 3rd-party carts for our old HP PhotoJet**. At that rate, if the 3rd-party carts aren't at most 1/3 of the price, they're kinda not worth it. Sometimes it actually pays to go 1st-party instead of rolling the dice on trying to find 3rd party products that are not garbage.
I have yet to try 3rd parter toner in our (more often used lately) Brother B&W laser, because I keep finding 1st party carts at decent enough prices to sway me against rolling the dice on potential 3rd party garbage.
*(see: de minimus bullshit and complete ignorance of the cloning industry across the Pacific, as long as the dollars keep flowing to already overflowing wallets. Though they're still seemingly happy to excessively guard against even the _potential_ for IP fraud/theft via the grossly overpowered DMCA...)
**(purchased before HP went fully off the deep end. They seem to have completely dropped support for it, and maybe because of that it still takes any cartridge I throw at it. Old is good sometimes!)
Isn't doing unnessecary things, and especially undoing them, pretty much the easiest "inefficiency" to get rid of?
One step [obstenibly] forward, onto a rake, two steps back, now with a bloody nose that needs [potentially expensive] repair.
It's basically "measure twice, cut once", and he somehow can't even do that correctly. He'd rather "cut a hundred times, and then waste time and money to glue it back together and/or find replacements".
This ignorant quest for rooting out "inefficiency" is one of the most wildly inefficient things to ever exist. Did anyone vote for this?
TIL that it is just a guideline, which sucks for the reasons you mentioned. I've told people I care about that care about police or fire worker that if they really want to show support in that way, at the very least switch a "line-only" design, not a bastardization of the stars & stripes.
Taking out the red white and blue, and replacing them with shades of gray & a single blue line is very likely against the Flag Code, and definitely makes it not an American flag anymore. The simple presence of the bastardized flag is a loud symbol of how the "rule of law" only applies to some people. And when it seemingly doesn't apply to those allegedly working to uphold the law, that sends a pretty clear message. If they're willing to blatantly break a simple and easy-to-comply-with rule, what others rules and laws are they willing to disregard...?
I'm super surprised they didn't try to get them on the Flag Code, especially being a government agency that should be the standard bearer of flag display.
In this case it's tough to "make them make you comply", because the choice is between complying and losing all funding, aka dieing. Yes, pulling the funding unilaterally without proper approval is illegal, but that doesn't help keep people on the payroll to do the non-complying.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Justinfinity.
"it shouldn’t make a service more liable for user-generated content any more than it would be without that extra decision" I didn't say they should be liable for the content. I said they should be liable for the intentional promotion and surfacing of it, and IMO doubly so if the promotion enables profit-taking. 1A ans S230 cover the liability for user-content itself, but the display, surfacing and promotion is almost always not user-controlled, and definitively (by your argument) speech of the platform. In your view, it seems, the ordering and display of the content belongs to no one, which doesn't make sense, especially when the decisions (thanks for that terminology) are specifically being made by the platform.
And yes, 1A censorship still applies no matter who S230 (in any form) deems is responsible for the speech. But though citizens can be held responsible for incitement, currently the platforms cannot, despite the almost total control they hold over the actual presentation of user content. Because S230 is lacking and lets them claim "user content" for everything they offer, even if the actual "user content" is a small fraction of the final content.
This actually makes sense to me...
It doesn't seem to be making the platform accountable for the content itself, just for the promotion and surfacing of it. If the content is just in a "firehose" of chronological posts, then S230 should apply just as it does now. But if the platform applies any kind of programmatic repositioning, reordering, promotion, or other control over the presentation of the content, then it becomes more than user content, it becomes the platform's content! This makes sense! To reiterate: yes, the platforms don't control the content; but they DO control the presentation of it. The only thing the users control is when they post. Thus building any presentation of the content that is not simply chronological should be considered speech of the platform, and not of the users. This is a huge part of how the biggest platforms make money (ads near content that is promoted because it's "hot", ads near content that is promoted because it will drive interaction, etc), yet they are using S230 to sheild what should be considered the speech of the platforms. To put it another way, Facebook could not pull off the bullshit they are doing with scam ads if they didn't control the presentation of the content. They literally had policies to let people get away with scams if it would impact their own bottom line, and to alter the presentation of user content to further increase their profit from those scam ads. Everything about this except for the actual user content, is purely in Facebook's control, and they should be held accountable for everything except the user content! (I suppose users can add tags and such, so filtering by those additions would also be outside of the platform's control, as long as it stays chronological (no algorithmic sorting or promotion) inside the filters.)
Go just a bit deeper...
If you see any actually good analysis of the patent, it's really just the Pokemon battle gameplay loop that's covered, not the individual parts. They didn't grant a patent on summoning, they granted a patent on a gameplay loop that includes summoning, specifically after throwing a thing, and then fighting with the summon, and then throwing a thing again to pick up the spoils of battle. It's literally a shot across the bow towards (very specifically) Palworld, not "a patent for most games ever".
While I don't want anyone to get hurt or killed, it will be very interesting what the courts have to say if one of these mystery officers kills someone, or gets killed by someone defending themselves. Does qualified immunity apply to an undeclared officer? Does "stand your ground" apply against an undeclared officer?
"And while one of Bump’s sources acknowledges in passing that “officers are worried about being targeted,”" That's especially wild when held up next to the very common justification for our loose gun laws: "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun". A masked, plain-clothed, un-badged person with a gun that is detaining unarmed people for unspecified reasons is a "bad guy with a gun", and should be getting "targeted" by all these proverbial "good guys with guns".
Do the accounts that got hacked get any of this money? Why NSO Group itself and not the countries/groups that actually did the hacking? Cars that can go illegally fast can be used to escape cops after a robbery, but it would be virtually impossible to get damages out of a car manufacturer. Arguably the car is designed and sold for other legal uses, but I'm surprised NSO couldn't make, and win, the same argument for their software: that it has legal uses depending on the jurisdiction, and it's up to the buyer to use it legally.
Actually, so far they haven't put any previously free things behind a paywall. It really is an add-on (so far). Which I'm ok with. I don't want analysis of my results or AI coaching or anything like that, so as long as they continue to let me get my data out for free, and have a decent historical view of my data in the basic tier that comes with the hardware purchase, all good. If putting some "premium" stuff behind a paywall keeps the hardware prices reasonable, I'm ok with it. Yes, reasonable is quite subjective, but my Fenix 6 Sapphire has cost me somewhere in the range of 35 cents a day over it's lifetime and shows no signs of stopping, that's easily worth the data it's collected for me and the daily value I get out of it.
It almost doesn't matter since most of the obviously aren't even verifying who is in these groups... But I have to wonder if any single one of them has actually set up Signal for maximum security: verifying fingerprints, checking safety numbers, setting up encrypted profiles, etc. And then wondering why those people (if they exist) aren't yelling at colleagues that their actions are putting them all at risk. Or is the delusion that they're all effectively above the law if they just lick the Orange Guy's boots enough... is that delusion completely pervasive? Of course, it's a delusion that conveniently forgets that past boot-licking doesn't matter when the Tyrant Baby has a tantrum and changes his mind about who is on his side, and he will throw them under the bus on a whim. (Sidebar: where are his kids and every one else who was supposed to be the best of the best from his first admininstration? None of them did enough to help him lie his way into office this time? Except Voldemort-wanna-be Stephen Miller, somehow...)
They voted for throwing out the Constitution? I understand people who voted for Trump's promise to deport illegals, but that's not what they're doing right now. They're deporting alleged criminals, dissenters, and random brown people, claiming they are all criminals without due process "[and] every foreign student that hates America and supports Hamas" If you truly believe that, then you are the one that hates America. You might be trolling, but you might be just misunderstanding something. One of the most important things we have here the promise of innocence until proven guilty, with due process given to proving that. To ignore or avoid that is quite literally anti-American. Shouting to throw out non-criminal dissenters at all is quite unpatriotic. Dissenting, protesting, disagreeing is the foundation of democracy, right next to compromise. Shouting to throw out anyone without due process is one of the most unpatriotic things you could do. And incredibly stupid, because it sets a precedent for the exact same thing to happen to you, if someone you give that power to suddenly decides they don't want you around.
"Do they just think everyone is fucking stupid?" It sure seems like it. And that's become my new argument against supporters: "You know, they think you're an idiot... so fucking stupid that they need to do the thinking for you. First they lied to you, and then they kept lying to you, and now they're acting like you're too stupid to notice. But you're not stupid, right? Are you gonna take that kind of shit?"
One man's nagging is another man's fraud protection
One man's nagging is another man's fraud protection: Arguably, Brother could be responding to requests for better ways to detect counterfeit cartridges. Since the federal government, and the biggest retailers around seem reluctant* to actually police product fraud, perhaps people asked for a way to detect athentic Brother carts. I know I've had trouble with 3rd-party inkjet carts either clogging almost instantly or somehow containing even less ink than 1st-party "starter" carts: Probably 1 for 3 on getting actual good 3rd-party carts for our old HP PhotoJet**. At that rate, if the 3rd-party carts aren't at most 1/3 of the price, they're kinda not worth it. Sometimes it actually pays to go 1st-party instead of rolling the dice on trying to find 3rd party products that are not garbage. I have yet to try 3rd parter toner in our (more often used lately) Brother B&W laser, because I keep finding 1st party carts at decent enough prices to sway me against rolling the dice on potential 3rd party garbage. *(see: de minimus bullshit and complete ignorance of the cloning industry across the Pacific, as long as the dollars keep flowing to already overflowing wallets. Though they're still seemingly happy to excessively guard against even the _potential_ for IP fraud/theft via the grossly overpowered DMCA...) **(purchased before HP went fully off the deep end. They seem to have completely dropped support for it, and maybe because of that it still takes any cartridge I throw at it. Old is good sometimes!)
Isn't doing unnessecary things, and especially undoing them, pretty much the easiest "inefficiency" to get rid of? One step [obstenibly] forward, onto a rake, two steps back, now with a bloody nose that needs [potentially expensive] repair. It's basically "measure twice, cut once", and he somehow can't even do that correctly. He'd rather "cut a hundred times, and then waste time and money to glue it back together and/or find replacements". This ignorant quest for rooting out "inefficiency" is one of the most wildly inefficient things to ever exist. Did anyone vote for this?
whoosh!!
right over your head there...
TIL
TIL that it is just a guideline, which sucks for the reasons you mentioned. I've told people I care about that care about police or fire worker that if they really want to show support in that way, at the very least switch a "line-only" design, not a bastardization of the stars & stripes.
It's not an "American Flag", bastardization is the most correct term for it
Taking out the red white and blue, and replacing them with shades of gray & a single blue line is very likely against the Flag Code, and definitely makes it not an American flag anymore. The simple presence of the bastardized flag is a loud symbol of how the "rule of law" only applies to some people. And when it seemingly doesn't apply to those allegedly working to uphold the law, that sends a pretty clear message. If they're willing to blatantly break a simple and easy-to-comply-with rule, what others rules and laws are they willing to disregard...? I'm super surprised they didn't try to get them on the Flag Code, especially being a government agency that should be the standard bearer of flag display.
In this case it's tough to "make them make you comply", because the choice is between complying and losing all funding, aka dieing. Yes, pulling the funding unilaterally without proper approval is illegal, but that doesn't help keep people on the payroll to do the non-complying.