The first article:
The cost of proposals like this is that many more cases survive the motion-to-dismiss stage, which is exactly the protective value 230 currently provides.
The article explicitly emphasizes getting cases to discovery. For Big Tech, discovery costs are negligible, but for forums, hobby communities, open-source projects, new entrants, etc., discovery costs can be existential.
There are better approaches.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
RIAA should issue DMCA takedown to Google for Chromium source code that allows users to download copyrighted content from YouTube for playback in the browser.
Other than popularity, I don't know what sort of relevant distinctions can be made between VK and TikTok. I'm assuming VK engages in the same sort of data harvesting as everyone else, just like TikTok. And I'm sure VK's apps have had security vulnerabilities in the past, just like TikTok (and every other piece of software ever made). And if we're gonna go the CHINA BAD route, then, well, I'd say Russia is arguably worse given their meddling in USA elections.
Anyone more familiar with VK who might have some better insight as to why it has managed to fly under the radar?
I don't see how the United States could order Google or Apple to remove the app from their respective app stores. Trump can shriek as loud as he wants, but just don't see the legal means by which he could make this happen. Any theories?
It was definitely unsolicited. I've been adamantly anti-Trump from day one, and I've never been a Republican or given my phone number to any political campaigns.
Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the lawsuit, it is patently absurd that cheating in a cartoon game for babies would have legal consequences for a 14-year-old.
Thanks for the clarification, and thanks to everyone else. As a non-lawyer, I don't always recognize the weaknesses in legal arguments. But that's also why I tried to frame my comment as more inquisitive than conclusive.
I think some of you guys are being a little too hard on the guy, though. I don't think it's fair to suggest that he's a terrible or unqualified lawyer. Yikes. But maybe I'm just biased because I'm a fan of the dude's content.
Yeah, I've been pretty critical in his comments section of his CDA 230 stuff. I think he gets it completely wrong.
In fairness to him, he seems to offer somewhat of a conceit in a later video where he acknowledges that the point of CDA 230 is to encourage moderation, but then he doubles down on his argument that CDA 230 immunity can be revoked. He cites case law, but when I looked into it, it seemed pretty weak.
MCW v Badbusinessbureau.com—Filed December 2002, in the Northern District of Texas District Court under cause number 3:06cv0179. There is a valuable opinion from this unpublished case that states [company founder] Magedson is not entitled CDA immunity to the extent that he is developing and creating “report titles, headings, and some of the defamatory messages posted on the websites.” Case closed and the report is still online with no rebuttal.
Source
Frie seems to attempt to argue that Magedson's editorialization of comments left on the site constitute a form of moderation, and therefore certain forms of moderation can lead to the courts revoking CDA 230 immunity. I remain unconvinced of his argument.
My argument here is poached from Viva Frie, who does a much better job of explaining the potential issues with this dismissal. The main crux of the argument is that when there's a dismissal, there's no evidence. Dismissals are based solely on agreed upon facts of the case. This dismissal, however, appears to be based on what should have been admitted as evidence.
The decision seems to hinge on evidence that had not yet been adduced. For example, as you note above, the court cites how Phillips felt during the incident, but it's not like the court is basing that on any sort of testimony given by Phillips. The court also seems to be overextending its dismissal of the language that's used; I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the court might be able to determine whether someone is being "swarmed" by a crowd, just as the court seems to be perfectly fine with accepting that Phillips felt like he was "blocked" by Sandmann. Likewise I don't think it's necessarily outside the realm of possibility that a court could come up with reasonable thresholds for what might constitute "taunting" or "aggressive." Or maybe the judge is right and the court can't figure that out. To be fair, I do agree that these are terms that are not easily defined and are therefore matters of opinion, but the point is that determination ought to have made in court after reviewing the evidence.
If you have a YouTube premium account, you can download videos and watch (or listen to) them offline. So that pretty much negates every argument you made against this move. This really seems like a non-issue, to be honest. I guess if you want to make a big stink about having to pay for YouTube Premium, that's fine; I won't be bothered to die on that hill, though.
This is fantastic. Guy tweets @TMobileHelp telling them that he has a friend who can't connect to Wikipedia. T-Mo tells him to have his friend contact them, so he tweets @JohnLegere letting him know that a T-Mobile CSR will walk him through loading up Wikipedia so he can look up the EFF.
The first article: The cost of proposals like this is that many more cases survive the motion-to-dismiss stage, which is exactly the protective value 230 currently provides. The article explicitly emphasizes getting cases to discovery. For Big Tech, discovery costs are negligible, but for forums, hobby communities, open-source projects, new entrants, etc., discovery costs can be existential. There are better approaches.
He's talking about §230(c)(1), which is 26 words:
That's the core of Section 230.RIAA should issue DMCA takedown to Google for Chromium source code that allows users to download copyrighted content from YouTube for playback in the browser.
Why hasn't Trump tried to ban VK? ????
Other than popularity, I don't know what sort of relevant distinctions can be made between VK and TikTok. I'm assuming VK engages in the same sort of data harvesting as everyone else, just like TikTok. And I'm sure VK's apps have had security vulnerabilities in the past, just like TikTok (and every other piece of software ever made). And if we're gonna go the CHINA BAD route, then, well, I'd say Russia is arguably worse given their meddling in USA elections.
Anyone more familiar with VK who might have some better insight as to why it has managed to fly under the radar?
What if ByteDance refuses? How could USA block TikTok?
I don't see how the United States could order Google or Apple to remove the app from their respective app stores. Trump can shriek as loud as he wants, but just don't see the legal means by which he could make this happen. Any theories?
I received one of those messages.
It was definitely unsolicited. I've been adamantly anti-Trump from day one, and I've never been a Republican or given my phone number to any political campaigns.
Screenshot
Legal consequences for children caught cheating?
Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the lawsuit, it is patently absurd that cheating in a cartoon game for babies would have legal consequences for a 14-year-old.
Re: Re: Viva Frie CDA 230 position
"...he seems to offer somewhat of a conceit..." -- oops, I meant "concession." I'll pretend it was autocorrect.
Re: Re: Is this a premature decision?
Thanks for the clarification, and thanks to everyone else. As a non-lawyer, I don't always recognize the weaknesses in legal arguments. But that's also why I tried to frame my comment as more inquisitive than conclusive. I think some of you guys are being a little too hard on the guy, though. I don't think it's fair to suggest that he's a terrible or unqualified lawyer. Yikes. But maybe I'm just biased because I'm a fan of the dude's content.
Re: Viva Frie CDA 230 position
Yeah, I've been pretty critical in his comments section of his CDA 230 stuff. I think he gets it completely wrong. In fairness to him, he seems to offer somewhat of a conceit in a later video where he acknowledges that the point of CDA 230 is to encourage moderation, but then he doubles down on his argument that CDA 230 immunity can be revoked. He cites case law, but when I looked into it, it seemed pretty weak.
Source Frie seems to attempt to argue that Magedson's editorialization of comments left on the site constitute a form of moderation, and therefore certain forms of moderation can lead to the courts revoking CDA 230 immunity. I remain unconvinced of his argument.Is this a premature decision?
My argument here is poached from Viva Frie, who does a much better job of explaining the potential issues with this dismissal. The main crux of the argument is that when there's a dismissal, there's no evidence. Dismissals are based solely on agreed upon facts of the case. This dismissal, however, appears to be based on what should have been admitted as evidence.
The decision seems to hinge on evidence that had not yet been adduced. For example, as you note above, the court cites how Phillips felt during the incident, but it's not like the court is basing that on any sort of testimony given by Phillips. The court also seems to be overextending its dismissal of the language that's used; I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the court might be able to determine whether someone is being "swarmed" by a crowd, just as the court seems to be perfectly fine with accepting that Phillips felt like he was "blocked" by Sandmann. Likewise I don't think it's necessarily outside the realm of possibility that a court could come up with reasonable thresholds for what might constitute "taunting" or "aggressive." Or maybe the judge is right and the court can't figure that out. To be fair, I do agree that these are terms that are not easily defined and are therefore matters of opinion, but the point is that determination ought to have made in court after reviewing the evidence.
Meh. Not that big of a deal.
If you have a YouTube premium account, you can download videos and watch (or listen to) them offline. So that pretty much negates every argument you made against this move. This really seems like a non-issue, to be honest. I guess if you want to make a big stink about having to pay for YouTube Premium, that's fine; I won't be bothered to die on that hill, though.
lol
This is fantastic. Guy tweets @TMobileHelp telling them that he has a friend who can't connect to Wikipedia. T-Mo tells him to have his friend contact them, so he tweets @JohnLegere letting him know that a T-Mobile CSR will walk him through loading up Wikipedia so he can look up the EFF.
http://i.imgur.com/qS3Zy9j.png
https://twitter.com/mattl/status/685217399142920193