It's never a good business practice to "bear losses" when you have lawyers chompin' at the bit to get out there and prove their worth.
Any company in that position would need to get better/smarter lawyers then because gutting your competition without having to lift a finger and in fact being able to act as a 'victim' for PR points is a great business practice. Sure it would mean less profits in the short term but in the long term that's an outcome you usually have to bribe a bunch of politicians to get, and they'd be getting it for free.
But more to the point, advertisers won't be appeased by statements such as "we're waiting for the rest of the market to go under, then we'll unleash the lawyers on the government".
Which is why they wouldn't explain it that way, instead it would be 'looking at our legal options', or 'making sure we've got an airtight case so we can be sure of success when we take the matter to court'.
"They asked me to return the box," Collins said. "It could make the situation more difficult for me."
They attached the device to her vehicle, got caught, and when she exposed their actions they blamed her and threatened her if she didn't 'return' their gorram property.
Oh yeah, the very height of professional conduct there, definitely not a band of thugs willing to engage in petty vindictiveness.
... it baffles me that you wrote all of that without realizing that those arguing against 230 are arguing for government interference, not against it, or that there are big differences between the government saying 'you're not allowed to say that' and a private platform doing so.
If platforms have to worry about liability for user content then they are going to be a lot quicker to show people the door, so if your concern is people being 'wrongly' ostracized then you should be all for 230 and platforms not being told what content they will and will not host, as otherwise you're merely supporting the very thing you seem to be objecting to and your own question of 'would you support this if the other side was running things?' becomes something you should be asking yourself.
Because if there's one thing that will calm down people who are already feeling disillusioned and abused enough to protest it's making them desperate and putting them in a mindset where they feel they have nothing left to lose.
The problem is that large companies like Facebook and Google will be able to bear the losses for a good while, whereas a month or two of no ad revenue on top of the threat of liability stands to completely tank smaller companies/platforms that might currently or in the future compete with them, such that the larger companies(that actually have money for the legal fights) will actually have some incentive to slow down any legal responses they might make.
Stupidity as an excuse only gets you so far, all the more so when it's long-term and based upon hypocrisy and the person in question is in a position of authority that should carry a higher bar of acceptable behavior and expectations.
Oh that's easy, laws don't apply to police, and even if they did you'd need to find a prosecutor willing to use this law against not one or two but three cops, and good luck finding one of those.
Given the monument and more protections for police clauses/bullhorns I suspect that so long as anyone 'watching' doesn't have skin of a certain color they won't have to worry much about being arrested.
[B]y including a specially formatted but otherwise innocuous file in an app on a device that is then scanned by Cellebrite, it’s possible to execute code that modifies not just the Cellebrite report being created in that scan, but also all previous and future generated Cellebrite reports from all previously scanned devices and all future scanned devices in any arbitrary way (inserting or removing text, email, photos, contacts, files, or any other data), with no detectable timestamp changes or checksum failures. This could even be done at random, and would seriously call the data integrity of Cellebrite’s reports into question.
And in one fell swoop countless defense attorneys just needed to go change their pants for the good(if awkward) reason. Having it demonstrated that it's possible to undetectably corrupt the device such that it becomes impossible to trust the results it gives just made any evidence from it seriously questionable, and I suspect that countless defense attorneys will be arguing that any evidence gathered that way be tossed as inadmissible as a result, an argument that's going to be rather hard to refute with this finding.
It's important to not let them get away with probably the most egregious lie, that of claiming that people are being 'silenced' for their 'political views', when all that's really happening is they're being shown the door for repeatedly taking a dump on the floor.
They are hypocritically crying out for the government to step in and force companies to host speech they don't want to, and the 'harms' they are pointing to either do not exist or show just how abysmal the standards for 'acceptable behavior' has become for that lot(not that they're ever honest enough to admit that), and that should and needs to be shoved in their faces every time they bring this lie up, because that is the bedrock upon which their entire argument is based upon.
Hitchen's Razor: That which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Those crying that tech companies have been 'silencing' them for their political views(and boy are they loud for someone who's been 'silenced') have yet to actually presented evidence that anyone is being shown the door for their political views, rather than for being an asshole, and if you need it to be painstakingly explained why tech companies would want to foster platforms free of assholes that people want to use you may need to do some more research into the primary motivation of companies.
Got a quick and simple question for you in that case: Since this law allows an entire group to be blamed for the actions of a subset of it, and you're so very concerned about property destruction and 'thugs' would you be in favor of charging everyone who attended(both inside the building and outside) the failed insurrection with felonies, years of prison time and stripping them of their ability to vote? A simple yes or no will do, because if it's good enough for those in florida it should be good enough for those in DC.
People are pissed off about police brutality and a lack of accountability? Make protests illegal by calling them riots, make it so that there's no reason not to get violent and destructive allowing a single violent act to result in blame for everyone and ensure that police are given even more protections under the law! Brilliant, what could possibly go wrong!
At this point I find it near impossible to see this as anything other than a deliberate attempt to fan the flames and make things worse, with the goal of provoking even more protests and even more destruction and violence, I assume as an excuse to crack down even harder on the uppity public.
Gotta love the bullhorn regarding pro-slavery monuments too, really makes clear the kind of people being pandered to here in addition to the authoritarians.
That really should be a huge red flag, especially for those that don't trust Facebook, that maybe gutting 230 is a bad idea when Facebook is on board with it.
When the larger companies are silent if not supportive of changing the law and it's the smaller companies that are objecting that should be all you need to know who stands to benefit from that change and who will really be 'reigned in' by that change.
Able to post without creating an account, and only obvious spam removed with it left up to the community to hide posts they find problematic behind a single mouse click? Yeah, I'm not sure I've yet come across a more permissive platform, sadly however some people have such an overwhelming sense of self-entitlement that unless they have everything they act as though they have nothing, unless they are allowed to say anything they wish with no consequence then it's no different than being unable to speak at all.
Bans aren't really a viable option on a platform that allows anonymous commenting and no account needed to post though no longer letting any of their comments caught by the spam filter through would have a similar result I suppose, and if there's one thing they actually are good at it's triggering the spam filter.
It's the kind of behavior that doesn't end just because some tweets get reinstated or there is a modicum of public outrage. Instead, it takes a concerted effort by groups like the EFF to force a corporate bully to change its ways. Given Proctorio's bad behavior in all of this, let's hope the courts don't let them off the hook.
Better yet schools can apply some real pressure and punishment in the form of not using their software, because if there's one thing that will get a company's attention it's a threat to their profits.
It's worth repeating, over and over: SEC230 doesn't help protect big tech with their big-budget legal firms (just like druglords with their own hired goons don't need protection from police.) Sec230 protects ordinary people with small blogs who want to carry on a conversation with their readers.
230 does protect both but arguably it protects smaller platforms far more than it protects the big ones, because while the likes of Facebook can afford to hire enormous numbers of moderators and spend even more on moderation software a smaller platform is going to find themselves completely overwhelmed if they faced liability for user posts.
Far from attacking 'Big Tech' those going after 230 are instead working to cement their position and gut countless smaller platforms that might have competed, even in minor ways, with them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: An argument built on imaginary slights
It's never a good business practice to "bear losses" when you have lawyers chompin' at the bit to get out there and prove their worth.
Any company in that position would need to get better/smarter lawyers then because gutting your competition without having to lift a finger and in fact being able to act as a 'victim' for PR points is a great business practice. Sure it would mean less profits in the short term but in the long term that's an outcome you usually have to bribe a bunch of politicians to get, and they'd be getting it for free.
But more to the point, advertisers won't be appeased by statements such as "we're waiting for the rest of the market to go under, then we'll unleash the lawyers on the government".
Which is why they wouldn't explain it that way, instead it would be 'looking at our legal options', or 'making sure we've got an airtight case so we can be sure of success when we take the matter to court'.
Re: Re: Stay classy you blue-suited goons
Ah, I misread that, thanks for the correction. Wow, as if my estimation of the police in the story hadn't already been low enough already...
Stay classy you blue-suited goons
"They asked me to return the box," Collins said. "It could make the situation more difficult for me."
They attached the device to her vehicle, got caught, and when she exposed their actions they blamed her and threatened her if she didn't 'return' their gorram property.
Oh yeah, the very height of professional conduct there, definitely not a band of thugs willing to engage in petty vindictiveness.
Re:
... it baffles me that you wrote all of that without realizing that those arguing against 230 are arguing for government interference, not against it, or that there are big differences between the government saying 'you're not allowed to say that' and a private platform doing so.
If platforms have to worry about liability for user content then they are going to be a lot quicker to show people the door, so if your concern is people being 'wrongly' ostracized then you should be all for 230 and platforms not being told what content they will and will not host, as otherwise you're merely supporting the very thing you seem to be objecting to and your own question of 'would you support this if the other side was running things?' becomes something you should be asking yourself.
Re: Run 'em over
Because if there's one thing that will calm down people who are already feeling disillusioned and abused enough to protest it's making them desperate and putting them in a mindset where they feel they have nothing left to lose.
Re: Re: An argument built on imaginary slights
The problem is that large companies like Facebook and Google will be able to bear the losses for a good while, whereas a month or two of no ad revenue on top of the threat of liability stands to completely tank smaller companies/platforms that might currently or in the future compete with them, such that the larger companies(that actually have money for the legal fights) will actually have some incentive to slow down any legal responses they might make.
Re: Re:
Stupidity as an excuse only gets you so far, all the more so when it's long-term and based upon hypocrisy and the person in question is in a position of authority that should carry a higher bar of acceptable behavior and expectations.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does this law not apply?
Oh that's easy, laws don't apply to police, and even if they did you'd need to find a prosecutor willing to use this law against not one or two but three cops, and good luck finding one of those.
Re: Re: Well that's one way to fan the flames
Given the monument and more protections for police clauses/bullhorns I suspect that so long as anyone 'watching' doesn't have skin of a certain color they won't have to worry much about being arrested.
Compared to prosecutors changing their pants for the bad reason
[B]y including a specially formatted but otherwise innocuous file in an app on a device that is then scanned by Cellebrite, it’s possible to execute code that modifies not just the Cellebrite report being created in that scan, but also all previous and future generated Cellebrite reports from all previously scanned devices and all future scanned devices in any arbitrary way (inserting or removing text, email, photos, contacts, files, or any other data), with no detectable timestamp changes or checksum failures. This could even be done at random, and would seriously call the data integrity of Cellebrite’s reports into question.
And in one fell swoop countless defense attorneys just needed to go change their pants for the good(if awkward) reason. Having it demonstrated that it's possible to undetectably corrupt the device such that it becomes impossible to trust the results it gives just made any evidence from it seriously questionable, and I suspect that countless defense attorneys will be arguing that any evidence gathered that way be tossed as inadmissible as a result, an argument that's going to be rather hard to refute with this finding.
An argument built on imaginary slights
It's important to not let them get away with probably the most egregious lie, that of claiming that people are being 'silenced' for their 'political views', when all that's really happening is they're being shown the door for repeatedly taking a dump on the floor.
They are hypocritically crying out for the government to step in and force companies to host speech they don't want to, and the 'harms' they are pointing to either do not exist or show just how abysmal the standards for 'acceptable behavior' has become for that lot(not that they're ever honest enough to admit that), and that should and needs to be shoved in their faces every time they bring this lie up, because that is the bedrock upon which their entire argument is based upon.
Re:
'We must protect property! ... lives, not so much.'
The freakin ISS is going to be seeing that projection...
Hitchen's Razor: That which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Those crying that tech companies have been 'silencing' them for their political views(and boy are they loud for someone who's been 'silenced') have yet to actually presented evidence that anyone is being shown the door for their political views, rather than for being an asshole, and if you need it to be painstakingly explained why tech companies would want to foster platforms free of assholes that people want to use you may need to do some more research into the primary motivation of companies.
Re: Re:
Got a quick and simple question for you in that case: Since this law allows an entire group to be blamed for the actions of a subset of it, and you're so very concerned about property destruction and 'thugs' would you be in favor of charging everyone who attended(both inside the building and outside) the failed insurrection with felonies, years of prison time and stripping them of their ability to vote? A simple yes or no will do, because if it's good enough for those in florida it should be good enough for those in DC.
Well that's one way to fan the flames
People are pissed off about police brutality and a lack of accountability? Make protests illegal by calling them riots, make it so that there's no reason not to get violent and destructive allowing a single violent act to result in blame for everyone and ensure that police are given even more protections under the law! Brilliant, what could possibly go wrong!
At this point I find it near impossible to see this as anything other than a deliberate attempt to fan the flames and make things worse, with the goal of provoking even more protests and even more destruction and violence, I assume as an excuse to crack down even harder on the uppity public.
Gotta love the bullhorn regarding pro-slavery monuments too, really makes clear the kind of people being pandered to here in addition to the authoritarians.
'Why are they giving us the stick to beat them with...?'
That really should be a huge red flag, especially for those that don't trust Facebook, that maybe gutting 230 is a bad idea when Facebook is on board with it.
When the larger companies are silent if not supportive of changing the law and it's the smaller companies that are objecting that should be all you need to know who stands to benefit from that change and who will really be 'reigned in' by that change.
Re: Re:
Able to post without creating an account, and only obvious spam removed with it left up to the community to hide posts they find problematic behind a single mouse click? Yeah, I'm not sure I've yet come across a more permissive platform, sadly however some people have such an overwhelming sense of self-entitlement that unless they have everything they act as though they have nothing, unless they are allowed to say anything they wish with no consequence then it's no different than being unable to speak at all.
(untitled comment)
Bans aren't really a viable option on a platform that allows anonymous commenting and no account needed to post though no longer letting any of their comments caught by the spam filter through would have a similar result I suppose, and if there's one thing they actually are good at it's triggering the spam filter.
Public outrage: 'Meh'. Profits tank: Engage panic mode
It's the kind of behavior that doesn't end just because some tweets get reinstated or there is a modicum of public outrage. Instead, it takes a concerted effort by groups like the EFF to force a corporate bully to change its ways. Given Proctorio's bad behavior in all of this, let's hope the courts don't let them off the hook.
Better yet schools can apply some real pressure and punishment in the form of not using their software, because if there's one thing that will get a company's attention it's a threat to their profits.
'Oh noes, not the briar patch Mr. Senators...'
It's worth repeating, over and over: SEC230 doesn't help protect big tech with their big-budget legal firms (just like druglords with their own hired goons don't need protection from police.) Sec230 protects ordinary people with small blogs who want to carry on a conversation with their readers.
230 does protect both but arguably it protects smaller platforms far more than it protects the big ones, because while the likes of Facebook can afford to hire enormous numbers of moderators and spend even more on moderation software a smaller platform is going to find themselves completely overwhelmed if they faced liability for user posts.
Far from attacking 'Big Tech' those going after 230 are instead working to cement their position and gut countless smaller platforms that might have competed, even in minor ways, with them.
More comments from That One Guy >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by That One Guy.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt