Tanner Andrews 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1401) comment rss

  • On the post: Australia’s Upside Down Internet Liability Policy Shows How Section 230 Enables More Free Speech

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2022 @ 05:16am

    Not such a long arm is required

    Maybe Australians might start writing blogs that are hosted by usa company
    The problem is that the offending Australians are still within the reach of Australia's (kangaroo?) courts. Having their messages hosted offshort does not put the authors out of reach, so they can still be sued for offending thin-skinned politicians.

  • On the post: Australia’s Upside Down Internet Liability Policy Shows How Section 230 Enables More Free Speech

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 10 Jul, 2022 @ 01:46pm

    other people's offenses

    it immunises people from being held liable for someone else’s crimes. [] Which is taken as granted in most other countries
    Not in Australia. There, Google is held liable for the offense given by some local comedian. Here in the States, you might not expect such liability to arise. You would surely be correct. Here, S:230 is a procedural shortcut to reach early dismissal of claims founded on liability for third parties' speech. Without it, the result would be, if fully litigated, be the same but it wouild take more time and money to reach that result. (somehow it posted just the included text without letting me type in my response, so I am trying again)

  • On the post: Australia’s Upside Down Internet Liability Policy Shows How Section 230 Enables More Free Speech

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 10 Jul, 2022 @ 01:42pm

    other people

    In other words, it immunises people from being held liable for someone else’s crimes. Which is taken as granted in most other countries

  • On the post: Google Gives In To Republican Political Spammers: Launching Pilot Program To Whitelist Them Out Of Spam

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 07 Jul, 2022 @ 12:30pm

    Google GMail and MX Services Used by Spammers

    My point was that you essentially “outed” a bunch mail-addresses without actually knowing if they belonged to real persons that have been hacked or if they belonged to a spammer
    Right. That is a distinction without a difference. If the account was initially created by a legitimate person and then later taken over by a scammer, the result is not distinguishable from an account initially created by a scammer. Either way, the account
    • sends unsolicited commercial e-mail through Google servers
    • collects the responses to further the scam
    • all with the visible blessing and support of Google
    and so should be viewed as an evil whose eradication is desirable. Receiving the responses is essential to many of the scams, so we can discount the possibility that the spammer has just found a loose account for a one-time promotion. Rather, it is an account created or taken over and retained for nefarious purposes.
    That can be construed as saying that Google is willingly providing material support to spammers
    I should certainly hope it can be so construed. It was my intention to say precisely that. Google GMail prospers by sending spam as part of their business model. They also refuse spam reports, as observed by spamcop, which tells us something about their attitude toward spam. Google MX services and mail services prosper by sending spam and by providing maildrop service for scammers who wish to appear somewhat legitimate. I think they may even charge for MX hosting, but if not then they surely deem the associated ad revenue sufficient. So, yes, I am saying that Google intentionally provide spam hosting and scammer maildrop services. This is certainly providing material support to spammers. And, yes, I intentionally "outed" the maildrop names used by the scammers. Someone trying to sell me penis pills, or drain my trust account, is someone whose name should be put up in large red letters to serve as a warning to the legitimate and a caution to the others.

  • On the post: Now That Rupert Murdoch Has Convinced Governments To Force Facebook To Pay For News, Facebook No Longer Wants Anything To Do With News

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 07 Jul, 2022 @ 05:12am

    Re: generally speaking

    Historically, ``real'' newspapers sold subscriptions which provideded a third to a half of their income. Advertising covered the rest. The problem now is that some people are expecting to get news on a computer screen, rather than in a bunch of dead trees in the driveway. It may be mostly us older guys who want the dead trees every day. As a result, dead tree sales have fallen, and the newspapers are either cutting costs (e.g. closing out-of-town bureaus) or trying new business hacks (e.g. paywalls on web sites).

  • On the post: Now That Rupert Murdoch Has Convinced Governments To Force Facebook To Pay For News, Facebook No Longer Wants Anything To Do With News

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 07 Jul, 2022 @ 05:07am

    unhelpful

    wrote the law so that a site either include Aussie news sites and pays, or does not link to any news sites
    Refusing Strine links is not the solution under the law, as you note. There is no First Amendment there, so the government is largely free to regulate speech. Refusing registrations and usage from Australia, on the other hand, might avoid entanglement in their law. People attempting to access the site from Down Under would see a page saying ``unavailable in your area'' and giving a link to the law for reference. (they might also include a message saying ``preview still broken without javascript'' if they got ambitious)

  • On the post: New York Passes Ridiculous, Likely Unconstitutional, Bill Requiring Websites To Have ‘Hateful Conduct’ Policies

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 04 Jul, 2022 @ 11:20am

    Not Well Informed

    Merely putting up a site on the internet doesn’t subject you to the laws of every state
    Says the person unfamiliar with Zippo Mfg v. Zippo Dot Com, 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D. PA 1997), and the several circuit court cases adopting the standard from there. Putting up an interactive web site may not mean that ``preview'' works without javascript and its attendent evils, but it certainly does mean that you might be hauled into an unexpected and distant court, where you will be told that you should have expected it.

  • On the post: Google Gives In To Republican Political Spammers: Launching Pilot Program To Whitelist Them Out Of Spam

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 04 Jul, 2022 @ 11:08am

    Surprise, Major Spam Hosting Service Refuses Spam Reports

    Report the email to sites such as SpamCop
    Normally a good idea, and I do so. It should be noted, however, that Google does not accept spamcop reports. I get t6he impression that handling spam is part of their business model, especially as they supply scammer maildrop services and scammer MX services.

  • On the post: Google Gives In To Republican Political Spammers: Launching Pilot Program To Whitelist Them Out Of Spam

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 04 Jul, 2022 @ 11:03am

    Spam Accounts

    Can you unequivocally say that each of those accounts are spam-accounts and not hacked accounts used by spammers?
    I cannot unequivocally say that taxes will increase this year in Volusia County, but I still have fairly high confidence in such a prediction. More directly to your question, I am having a hard time distinguishing a ``spam account'' from an ``account used by spammers''. This is made more difficult by the fact that, even if an account was hijacked, it i8s not onmly being used to send the spam, but also to receive responses. A trust account scam, or a list sale scam, or a phone service scam, only works if they can receive the responmses and direct the marks in the appropriate ways to send money. So, at the least, we would need some meaningful distinction between the two types of accounts you identify in order to answer your question. Ultimately, however, your question misses the point, which is that Google provides spam hosting and support services, and is surely worthy of derision for doing so.

  • On the post: Devin Nunes Loses Yet Another SLAPP Suit, This Time In California

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 03 Jul, 2022 @ 12:27am

    Persistence

    Insanity is …doing the exact… same fucking thing… over and over again expecting… shit to change… That. Is. Crazy.
    And yet it may not be. Consider the classic brick wall. Drive into it, ruin your car. Neighbor drives into it, ruins his car. Everyone on the block drives into it, ruins their cars. Yet when finally you get the insurance settlement, buy a new car, and drive into the oft-driven-into wall, it falls over. All those crazy people driving into it, over and over, weakened it to the point of failure. Jim Crow would endure forever. All those people in Alabama who protested Jim Crow, and got arrested, beaten, and killed by the likes of Lester Sullivan and Bull Connor, accomplished nothing. Until suddenly, the protest was too much and Jim Crow failed. Now Sullivan is mainly remembered as the loser in Times v. Sullivan, and Connor is mainly remembered from photos of Bloody Sunday.

  • On the post: Google Gives In To Republican Political Spammers: Launching Pilot Program To Whitelist Them Out Of Spam

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2022 @ 02:10am

    A difficulty

    Sign them up for every mailing, circular and “concerned citizen” USPS list we can find
    It would be more satisfying to do so if they had real addresses. So many of the least desirable mailers seem to have as their addresses ``suites'' in Mailboxes-R-Us and the like. That is, if you can find them at all. A lot of them hide behind GoDaddy or similar scammer concealment services, which themselves may use Mailboxes-R-Us as their addresses.

  • On the post: Google Gives In To Republican Political Spammers: Launching Pilot Program To Whitelist Them Out Of Spam

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2022 @ 02:02am

    Google Famous Pink Hosting

    They’re not “anit-republican”, they’re “anit-spam”
    Considering the amount of spam I get from Google, promoting (during June 2022) I might conclude that they are in fact very much pro-spam. That appears to be an important part of their business model. They also provide spammer MX concealment so spammers might appear to have somewhat legitimate domains, while sending spam through Google servers and using Google scammer maildrops. I might even reach that conclusion even though their most recent promotion offering spam lists lera.kirlin@targetlistinfo-usa.com was way back in early May.

  • On the post: Is The GOP Pro-Political Spam Bill Driven Entirely By GOP’s Favorite Spam Factory?

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2022 @ 01:33am

    Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spamity-Spam! Superlative Spam!

    Because receiving something unsolicited is a completely different thing from supporting it
    Not necessarily. If I am paying for the hosting and operation of my mail server, and you are using it without paying me in order to send me your junk e-mail, then I am paying the cost for your ad campaign. Sounds like receiving unsolicited commercial e-mail is in fact supporting the sender.

  • On the post: Clarence Thomas REALLY Wants To Make It Easier For The Powerful To Sue People For Criticizing Them

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2022 @ 12:11am

    Federal Anti-SLAPP Considered Unlikely

    why not go crazy and not just codify the actual malice standard into law, but pair it with a strong, functioning federal anti-SLAPP law that would allow defendants dragged into court as an intimidation and speech suppression tactic to get cases kicked out of court quickly
    Well, the main problem is that defamation is essentially a state-law thing. The Federal courts only deal with it when there is a basis for Federal jurisdiction, and even then they will normally apply the substantive law of the underlying state. Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). The U.S. Constitution bars states from doing certain things, e.g. enforcing race-based covenants, Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), or penalizing certain speech, Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). It may add certain defensive protections to a state's standard law, as, for instance, barring defamation claims for true speech, Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964), unless that speech offends a police officer, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). That case is commonly known for the ``fighting words'' doctrine, which allows punishment without consideration of whether the offending words are true. This leaves you with the problem that Federal law is not likely to help much. Most defamation cases will remain in state court, so a procedural statute is of limited value. For a substantive statute, you need a Federal ``hook''. That is, the offending speech needs to have affected interstate commerce, or treaty obligations, or some other thing which gives Congress the power to act. Getting that Federal ``hook'' is supposed to be challenging. You need to be able to say that defamation, generally, affects interstate commerce. That is different from saying that a particular libel crossed state lines, so that a libel in Pensacola might injure one's reputation in Alabama. For a Federal anti-SLAPP, then, you would need some sort of finding that baseless defamation claims are somehow clogging the channels of commerce. I do not say it cannot happen. Congress does occasionally find seemingly local activity to clog the channels of commerce. In Heart of Atlanta v. U.S., 379 U.S. 241 (1964), the court allowed application of Federal anti-discrimination law to businesses which were involved in accommodating interstate travellers even where the businesses themselves stayed within a local area. But it is difficult to get that Federal ``hook'', and it is supposed to be difficult. Sure, I would like to see it happen. I just think it is going to be challenging to make a Federal anti-SLAPP law work in state court actions.

  • On the post: Victims’ Rights Laws Abused Again To Hide Identities Of Officers Who Killed Someone

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 28 Jun, 2022 @ 04:53am

    The Herald-Tribune, which had already obtained some of this information [...] is rightfully upset at this turn of events
    As well they should be. The U.S. Supreme Court already addressed that very fact pattern in _Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989), where the newspaper obtained the names from the papers put out for reporters in the press room. The state court awarded damages for publishing victim names. This was initially upheld on appeal, _Florida Star v. B.J.F., 499 So.2d 883 (1DCA 1986), but reversed on cert to U.S. Supremes. Not my case, so I am free to point, laugh, and jeer at the kind of judge that would not scold Carol Jean LoCicero and James B. Lake, from the firm of Thomas & LoCicero in Tampa, for bringing such a thing to court. That was a pretty poor judge, indeed, who granted a temporary injunction to the Sheriff's Dept to bar dissemmination of the names of its deputies.

  • On the post: The Worst Reason To Brush Off Content Moderation Concerns In Antitrust Bills: Eh, The Supreme Court May Destroy 230 Anyway, So It Shouldn’t Much Matter…

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2022 @ 11:37pm

    It’s gay rights and abortion, actually
    I think it is gay rights and contraception. They are already looking at Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, which was contraception. Brown v. Board of Education, Henderson v. U.S., and Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority to follow shortly thereafter.

  • On the post: California Seems To Be Taking The Exact Wrong Lessons From Texas And Florida’s Social Media Censorship Laws

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2022 @ 06:19am

    Definitions

    First, what is a “semi-public” profile,
    How about a profile that is only visible to ``members'' of the service. If wankporn.com shows its user profiles only to logged-in users, then those would be semi-public.
    Second, what does “a bounded system” mean?
    I weill take it as a ``walled garden''. For instance of you can have wankporn.com friends, who by definition must have profiles on that site and who may post content on that site, then you have a bounded system. Even if you can link out from wankporn.com to other web sites, the idea is that there is a collection of material on wankporn.com and you can browse within that ``walled garden'' secure in the knowledge that you will have only appropriate content so long as you stay on that website. None of this is to suggest that regulation, even with sound definitions for semi-public profiles and bounded systems, could possibly comport with the U.S. First Amendment.

  • On the post: Uvalde PD Continues Stonewalling, Hires Private Law Firm To Block Release Of School Shooting Recordings

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2022 @ 01:54am

    Castle Rock

    legal ability to hold police accountable for their action or inaction
    It might be unwise to express optimism. Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 647 (2005)

  • On the post: Dish’s New 5G Network, Created By Trump Regulators To Justify Rubber Stamping T-Mobile Merger, Looks Like A Silly Dud

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2022 @ 06:18am

    Travel Through Rural Areas

    Nobody in a population centre is hard for choice with cell service
    Admittedly, I am located in the city, and we have strong service downtown. But, if I travel across the state, there are some rural areas where service is kind of dodgy with a major carrier. Now, imagine crossing the state with minor brand Dish instead. How many tens of miles will I travel out of range of their towers? It could be a long, long way in rural areas. How long will people who live in cities, but travel between them, put up with sparse coverage? It might not be all that long. Dish may well be doomed, even as I sit here writing this there may be a miasma of death about them.

  • On the post: New York Passes Ridiculous, Likely Unconstitutional, Bill Requiring Websites To Have ‘Hateful Conduct’ Policies

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2022 @ 12:36am

    liability in other states

    erely putting up a site on the internet doesn’t subject you to the laws of every state
    True. The common view is the Zippo sliding scale. If your web site is purely passive and makes no effort to be available and used in a particular state, then you probably cannot be reached. On the other hand, if yhour site is interactive, and you have members in a particular state, then they are likely to feel entitled. See Zippo Mfg v. Zippo Dot Com, 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa, 1997) and the circuit courts of appeal cases adopting it. You might be able to avoid it by expressly barring users from offending states. But maybe not. Talk to a lawyer in the state whose Long Arm you seek to avoid.

Next >>