That would be the ideal outcome at least, so here's hoping that's what happens rather than the dem supporters deciding that eh, if screwing over online platforms is what it takes to get the bill passed that's a price they're willing to have others pay.
In one case you lack the knowledge, something which can theoretically be fixed with just a little bit of learning. In the other case you know but simply don't care, a state which is harder to change because you've already chosen a position on the matter.
It's like the difference between playing russian roulette because you don't know what a gun is and therefore have no idea how insanely dangerous what you're doing is versus knowing what a gun is and how dangerous what you're doing is but playing anyway for some reason like thinking the other people will lose first.
Platforms: Okay, you 'win', you made it so we're liable for content on our platforms and moderation choices we made-
GOP: At last, we're finally free from moderation! ... wait, why did you put 'win' in quotes?
Platforms: You didn't let us finish. As we were saying since we're liable for your content now the various platforms will either be letting everything through, and good luck having anyone spot your stuff amongst the avalanche of other garbage, pre-vet everything and block anything that even might be problematic, which I'm sure would never include any of your stuff, or block user submitted content entirely, preventing you from posting anything.
Enjoy your 'win'.
And now there's two fictional version of me floating around in your head apparently, the fictional version of my post that was 'angry' and one you have decided simply must have been me(pro-tip: Since I got my account I don't post signed out). You really should see someone about that, jumping at shadows can't be good for you mental health.
Sadly that probably is the best way to avoid parasites stealing your stuff out from under you like happened here, though it's absurd that comes to that.
By all means put your money where your mouth is and offer to fund their legal fees for following that advice, just a tip though it might be a tad expensive so hope you've got deep pockets.
Strange, you'd think a university of all places would be against turning in someone else's homework under your own name...
You have to be a serious scumbag to see someone handing out an invention for free for everyone to use and decide that means you get to claim it and charge people to use it, and yet there they are.
From 'it's a violation of my first amendment rights if I can't speak on a privately owned platform of my choice' to 'it's a violation of my first amendment rights if someone else can't speak on a privately owned platform of their choice'...
It's amazing how utterly lacking in knowledge of the first amendment it's most strident 'defenders' display on a regular basis, almost as though they've never actually read the gorram thing and think it only applies to speech they like and only to the extent that they like it.
YongYea did a vid on this recently and the more details you know the worse it gets.
At the same time as he was sending out bogus claims, some of which were aimed at people he knew, he was 'mourning' about how easy it would be for someone to game the system and send out bogus claims and how terrible it was that (and once more for emphasis) people he knew and were talking to were having their content taken down because of the claims.
In a case of petty, spiteful revenge for having his own channel shut down after he kept posting game music that the company asked and then eventfully ordered be taken down after he refused he decided to screw everyone and if he thought he'd come out looking like a sympathetic person that people would be on the side of I can only imagine how well that's working out for him now.
Project Texas’s narrow focus on the security of a specific slice of US user data, much of which the Chinese government could simply buy from data brokers if it so chose, does not address fears that China, through ByteDance, could use TikTok to influence Americans’ commercial, cultural, or political behavior.
Gotta hand it to Buzzfeed, when they decide to write up a hatchetjob they go all in and don't let any of those pesky 'facts' get in the way.
If a company scooping up user data to potentially use it against them is a problem, and I'd certainly lean towards agreeing that it is, then it's a much bigger problem than just one company. If by your own admission you could strip them of all users overnight and they'd still have trivial access to the same data that company might not be the thing that should be getting most of the focus even if it does deserve some of it.
Oh I'm not mad, I'm just left scratching my head as to why someone thought that was at all a meaningful response to what I posted, but if it's just a matter of liking to type the word 'whoosh' then have at it I guess.
'The republicans who support it have made clear that they do so because they believe it can and will be used to sue platforms over moderation, are you still willing to support it knowing that?'
'Sure it might be used to bludgeon you over the head but if some other laws are upheld and/or repealed there will be other sticks available to those looking to swing them' strikes me as a really bad excuse to dismiss the concerns people have with the bill.
To be consistent you might as well dismiss any good parts of the bill by saying that some 'better' law might come out in the future so there's no point in supporting this one now.
'Spam filters keep classifying our stuff as spam. The problem clearly can't be on our end because we're all such brilliant people and our emails are works of creative glory so it must be on the email providers' end and if they refuse to accept our vital messages voluntarily the only solution is to force them to do so!'
Bill defenders: The people saying that the bill would be used as an attack on content moderation are engaging in fearmongering and lies, mischaracterizing the bill as while it's theoretically possible someone might read it as allowing such behavior that's a bug rather than a feature.
Handful of senators: Okay, if that's not the purpose then just make it clear that the bill can't be used like that.
GOP: Absolutely not, if you pull the ability to use the bill to attack content moderation our support is gone, that's the entire reason we're supporting it!
... I mean, fearmongering and lies, yeah, that.
That would be the ideal outcome at least, so here's hoping that's what happens rather than the dem supporters deciding that eh, if screwing over online platforms is what it takes to get the bill passed that's a price they're willing to have others pay.
In one case you lack the knowledge, something which can theoretically be fixed with just a little bit of learning. In the other case you know but simply don't care, a state which is harder to change because you've already chosen a position on the matter. It's like the difference between playing russian roulette because you don't know what a gun is and therefore have no idea how insanely dangerous what you're doing is versus knowing what a gun is and how dangerous what you're doing is but playing anyway for some reason like thinking the other people will lose first.
'Winning' the battle and losing the war
Platforms: Okay, you 'win', you made it so we're liable for content on our platforms and moderation choices we made- GOP: At last, we're finally free from moderation! ... wait, why did you put 'win' in quotes? Platforms: You didn't let us finish. As we were saying since we're liable for your content now the various platforms will either be letting everything through, and good luck having anyone spot your stuff amongst the avalanche of other garbage, pre-vet everything and block anything that even might be problematic, which I'm sure would never include any of your stuff, or block user submitted content entirely, preventing you from posting anything. Enjoy your 'win'.
I find it somewhat amusing that people think I missed the sarcasm in the title even as they seem to have missed my own.
And now there's two fictional version of me floating around in your head apparently, the fictional version of my post that was 'angry' and one you have decided simply must have been me(pro-tip: Since I got my account I don't post signed out). You really should see someone about that, jumping at shadows can't be good for you mental health.
Sadly that probably is the best way to avoid parasites stealing your stuff out from under you like happened here, though it's absurd that comes to that.
By all means put your money where your mouth is and offer to fund their legal fees for following that advice, just a tip though it might be a tad expensive so hope you've got deep pockets.
I'll take that
Strange, you'd think a university of all places would be against turning in someone else's homework under your own name... You have to be a serious scumbag to see someone handing out an invention for free for everyone to use and decide that means you get to claim it and charge people to use it, and yet there they are.
'Of course they're guilty, we said they were!'
'The only people caught by the system are criminals.' 'How do you know they're a criminal?' 'They got caught by the system.'
'That's speech we like, of course it gets protection'.
I could easily see the curtailment of corporate speech they don't agree with even as they praise and defend speech they like.
Have fun attacking a fictional version of myself if you want I guess.
As though the self-entitlement wasn't bad enough already...
From 'it's a violation of my first amendment rights if I can't speak on a privately owned platform of my choice' to 'it's a violation of my first amendment rights if someone else can't speak on a privately owned platform of their choice'... It's amazing how utterly lacking in knowledge of the first amendment it's most strident 'defenders' display on a regular basis, almost as though they've never actually read the gorram thing and think it only applies to speech they like and only to the extent that they like it.
But wait, it gets worse
YongYea did a vid on this recently and the more details you know the worse it gets. At the same time as he was sending out bogus claims, some of which were aimed at people he knew, he was 'mourning' about how easy it would be for someone to game the system and send out bogus claims and how terrible it was that (and once more for emphasis) people he knew and were talking to were having their content taken down because of the claims. In a case of petty, spiteful revenge for having his own channel shut down after he kept posting game music that the company asked and then eventfully ordered be taken down after he refused he decided to screw everyone and if he thought he'd come out looking like a sympathetic person that people would be on the side of I can only imagine how well that's working out for him now.
'It's only bad when they do it for... reasons.'
Project Texas’s narrow focus on the security of a specific slice of US user data, much of which the Chinese government could simply buy from data brokers if it so chose, does not address fears that China, through ByteDance, could use TikTok to influence Americans’ commercial, cultural, or political behavior. Gotta hand it to Buzzfeed, when they decide to write up a hatchetjob they go all in and don't let any of those pesky 'facts' get in the way. If a company scooping up user data to potentially use it against them is a problem, and I'd certainly lean towards agreeing that it is, then it's a much bigger problem than just one company. If by your own admission you could strip them of all users overnight and they'd still have trivial access to the same data that company might not be the thing that should be getting most of the focus even if it does deserve some of it.
Oh I'm not mad, I'm just left scratching my head as to why someone thought that was at all a meaningful response to what I posted, but if it's just a matter of liking to type the word 'whoosh' then have at it I guess.
... Did you have a point or do you just like that word?
'The republicans who support it have made clear that they do so because they believe it can and will be used to sue platforms over moderation, are you still willing to support it knowing that?'
Wishful thinking as legal analysis
'Sure it might be used to bludgeon you over the head but if some other laws are upheld and/or repealed there will be other sticks available to those looking to swing them' strikes me as a really bad excuse to dismiss the concerns people have with the bill. To be consistent you might as well dismiss any good parts of the bill by saying that some 'better' law might come out in the future so there's no point in supporting this one now.
'... No, no the spam filters are wrong.'
'Spam filters keep classifying our stuff as spam. The problem clearly can't be on our end because we're all such brilliant people and our emails are works of creative glory so it must be on the email providers' end and if they refuse to accept our vital messages voluntarily the only solution is to force them to do so!'
Someone said the quiet part out loud again
Bill defenders: The people saying that the bill would be used as an attack on content moderation are engaging in fearmongering and lies, mischaracterizing the bill as while it's theoretically possible someone might read it as allowing such behavior that's a bug rather than a feature. Handful of senators: Okay, if that's not the purpose then just make it clear that the bill can't be used like that. GOP: Absolutely not, if you pull the ability to use the bill to attack content moderation our support is gone, that's the entire reason we're supporting it! ... I mean, fearmongering and lies, yeah, that.