Nobody needs to use the internet and certainly nobody needs the internet to be one big toilet full of harmful content, harassment, and hate.
Arthur Chu is the man:
https://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/swatting_stalking_doxing_how_reddit_and_other_web_2_0_communities_broke_the_internet/
So a private right of action against cyberharassment needs to be added so victims can sue perpetrators.
It's painfully obvious laws need to be passed to address online harms. Tech Dirt is doing everything it can to PREVENT such laws from being passed
Everyone with a IQ above 25 understands it makes NO FUCKEN SENSE for internet companies to have TOTAL immunity because then what fucken incentive do they have to remove harmful content online?
That's not the invasion of privacy that I care about. I don't care if Google tracks users. What I care about is there are NO laws that prevent PEOPLE from invading the privacy of and harming OTHER PEOPLE, using platforms like Google. That's the harm I care about, not if Google tracks your cookies or some shit, which has no real life damages and is irrelevant.
What is relevant is if there are no laws preventing the posting of harmful, stalking content by ONE PERSON AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON. If no laws exist, then effectively you are saying we as a country (THE USA) allows people to randomly ruin the lives of another person online as some form of personal retribution, harassment, or stalking campaign.
I'm not OK with the fact that people can post anything they want about others online with no legal repercussions and the person being posted about has no legal remedies to get inaccurate, harassing, or plainly malicious content removed.
The "Right to be Forgotten" is absolutely necessary in the digital age to protect digital privacy FROM OTHER INDIVIDUALS.
I don't give a shit about protecting personal privacy from CORPORATIONS. What can Google do with my cookies? Don't give a rat's fuck.
There's nothing wrong with bogus DMCA claims as long as it adequately protects real legitimate claims. It's ok to have some collateral damage to low quality trashy speech online as long as victims are protected, you dumb biased piece of shit.
Internet should never be a toilet where anyone can post any garbage online that can ruin other people's lives without any type of legal recourse to get that content removed.
means that Tech Dirt is actively abetting online harassment and crimes by purposefully putting out misinformation that would prevent effective laws from being passed to hold cyberstalkers, cyber harassers, and doxers accountable for the harm they cause victims and the public safety.
"Who says they have to provide one?"
So why the fuck should we trust Tech Dirt then? If Tech Dirt can't offer ethical and unbiased analysis of online harms then it's obvious they are on the side of corporate profits over public safety. That means the entire organization reeks of dishonestly, immorality, and is ok with perpetuating harms against society to fatten their wallets. This makes them complicit in online harassment and other crimes.
So why the fuck would any one want to associate with Tech Dirt if it is so painfully clear they are ok throwing public safety under the bus for corporate profits?
Who would want to associate with immoral greedy pigs?
and misleading professors like Eugene Volokh and Eric Goldman writing misleading and pro-corporation articles in favour of Big Tech under the disguise of the First Amendment and completely ignoring the reality of rising online abuse and cyberharms on a global basis.
Eugene Volokh, Eric Goldman, and Reason Magazine has not written anything to address the rise of online harassment and how to protect victims. These people purposely turn a blind eye because they are likely paid behind the scenes by Big Tech to act as de facto corporate mouthpieces.
perpetrators hiding overseas just repost the harmful content on a US server and victims overseas have no legal remedy to remove it. US tech companies hide behind Section 230 on a GLOBAL basis so the content is always viewable on the US version of the website, regardless of local laws. Case in point, Right to be Forgotten in EU doesn't mean jacksquat because one can always find the removed links on Google USA, so removing it from Google EU, Google France, Google UK, means didly squat.
So basically the US is exporting its fucken "no regulations for big tech" policy globally. Section 230 repeal would allow foreign victims to sue the US companies which would remove the harmful content on US versions of the website. It would also allow victims of harassment by a foreign perpetrator out of jurisdiction of US courts to sue the platform for expeditious content removal.
It's the fucken retards on Tech Dirt who purposely want to turn a blind eye to this reality to support making money off of the pain they cause society.
Fucken scum.
Once they have legal notice of harmful content they are on the hook for legal liability if they do not take reasonable steps to remove it.
It's called "duty of care", and every industry has it, except for the greedy tech industry which doesn't give a shit if someone is killed on the platforms (aka Kiwifarms/Grindr).
Lack of duty of care makes no fucken sense but the pigs at Tech Dirt want you to think it's a good thing.
Fucken scum.
"How do they do that without enabling every scanner, crook and religious zealot to remove anything that they object to."
Again, a complete red herring/straw man. Sure, the law could be abused, but it would help a LOT MORE people who are actually stalked or harassed or doxed and need the harm to stop. The fact that any law can be abused is not justification for not having the law.
Maybe 5% of requests will be frivolous. But 95% of requests will be real. And I'm perfectly ok with some collateral damage to "low quality" speech of that 5% if it means 95% of the requests by actual people harmed by online stalkers can be satisfied.
In addition, victims need to be able to provide evidence. But to deny them a path altogether simply due to Section 230 does FAR MORE HARM than good for society.
"No, they’re not."
Yes, they are. The only EFFECTIVE solution for cyberstalking and online harassment is a repeal of Section 230 to make ISPs more sensitive to harmful content. Anything else is pure fantasy.
"It’s in the best financial interest of the companies to not be associated with rampant harassment and abuse among users. You have no clue how this shit works."
Tell that to Google and Bing who refuse to take down defamatory and harassing search results no matter how many times victims have to ask.
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/forum/all/bing-will-not-comply-with-court-order-for-removal/881347d6-119f-46e4-93e2-19714f4479be
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/forum/all/i-have-a-narrow-court-order-asking-microsoft-to/61d50e17-e6d7-4345-8972-1907816fa9c1
https://nypost.com/2019/08/17/how-google-has-destroyed-the-lives-of-revenge-porn-victims/
Get your facts right man. Big arrogant tech companies, in particular Google, don't give a rat's fuck about victims of online harassment and helping them. Google deserves to be sued into oblivion, and Google executives deserve life in prison without parole.
What has Tech Dirt proposed to address the exploding social harm of online harassment, cyberstalking and doxing? What if the perpetrator cannot be located, is hiding abroad, or using TOR or VPN?
Section 230 reform is the most obvious change that can meaningfully help protect Americans and people around the world from cyber stalker and online harassment. Yet Tech Dirt doesn't do shit and tries to spew bull shit about how Section 230 is good, in effect basically supporting cyber harassment and cyber stalking by leaving victims harmed by these crimes without proper recourse to remove harmful content and hold perpetrators or platforms who abet the crimes accountable.
It's not that hard to understand. You are purposely ignoring my point because you know it's right and Tech Dirt puts corporate profits above public safety and the law.
Basically, Tech Dirt is saying: let's not regulate online harms. Tech Dirt thinks big tech companies should NOT have any liability for online harms even if victims have no available recourse (if the perpetrator is hiding abroad or using VPN). This way, tech companies can just continue making money off of harmful content while hiding behind a liability shield.
HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS MAKE SENSE IN ANY REASONABLE SOCIETY?
Which is just basically saying let's sacrifice victims of online crimes to protect corporate profits.
Tech Dirt is full of greedy capitalistic corporate pigs.
Online speech should not include online harassment and doxxing. TechDirt cyberlibertarian pigs apparently want "online speech" to be all inclusive, even revenge porn and other illegal shit.
Very vile and immoral group of people - only care about profits and not give a shit about victims or public safety.
Without Section 230 I'll spend more time offline
Nobody needs to use the internet and certainly nobody needs the internet to be one big toilet full of harmful content, harassment, and hate. Arthur Chu is the man: https://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/swatting_stalking_doxing_how_reddit_and_other_web_2_0_communities_broke_the_internet/
America's biased and racist prosecutors don't enforce the laws
So a private right of action against cyberharassment needs to be added so victims can sue perpetrators. It's painfully obvious laws need to be passed to address online harms. Tech Dirt is doing everything it can to PREVENT such laws from being passed
Read the amicus curiae briefs for Gonzales v. Google
Everyone with a IQ above 25 understands it makes NO FUCKEN SENSE for internet companies to have TOTAL immunity because then what fucken incentive do they have to remove harmful content online?
I don't care about Google's tracking individuals
That's not the invasion of privacy that I care about. I don't care if Google tracks users. What I care about is there are NO laws that prevent PEOPLE from invading the privacy of and harming OTHER PEOPLE, using platforms like Google. That's the harm I care about, not if Google tracks your cookies or some shit, which has no real life damages and is irrelevant. What is relevant is if there are no laws preventing the posting of harmful, stalking content by ONE PERSON AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON. If no laws exist, then effectively you are saying we as a country (THE USA) allows people to randomly ruin the lives of another person online as some form of personal retribution, harassment, or stalking campaign. I'm not OK with the fact that people can post anything they want about others online with no legal repercussions and the person being posted about has no legal remedies to get inaccurate, harassing, or plainly malicious content removed. The "Right to be Forgotten" is absolutely necessary in the digital age to protect digital privacy FROM OTHER INDIVIDUALS. I don't give a shit about protecting personal privacy from CORPORATIONS. What can Google do with my cookies? Don't give a rat's fuck.
Most DMCA claims are legitimate. Where's your source for >50%? fucker
There's nothing wrong with bogus DMCA claims as long as it adequately protects real legitimate claims. It's ok to have some collateral damage to low quality trashy speech online as long as victims are protected, you dumb biased piece of shit. Internet should never be a toilet where anyone can post any garbage online that can ruin other people's lives without any type of legal recourse to get that content removed.
The evidence against Section 230 is fucken overwhelming...
But most pigs on this forum are straight up willfully blind because they put corporate profits over public safety.
Tech Dirt, by failing to address online harms and reforming Section 230...
means that Tech Dirt is actively abetting online harassment and crimes by purposefully putting out misinformation that would prevent effective laws from being passed to hold cyberstalkers, cyber harassers, and doxers accountable for the harm they cause victims and the public safety.
"Who says they have to provide one?" So why the fuck should we trust Tech Dirt then? If Tech Dirt can't offer ethical and unbiased analysis of online harms then it's obvious they are on the side of corporate profits over public safety. That means the entire organization reeks of dishonestly, immorality, and is ok with perpetuating harms against society to fatten their wallets. This makes them complicit in online harassment and other crimes. So why the fuck would any one want to associate with Tech Dirt if it is so painfully clear they are ok throwing public safety under the bus for corporate profits? Who would want to associate with immoral greedy pigs?
It's fucken better than Tech Dirt taking money from Big Tech
and misleading professors like Eugene Volokh and Eric Goldman writing misleading and pro-corporation articles in favour of Big Tech under the disguise of the First Amendment and completely ignoring the reality of rising online abuse and cyberharms on a global basis. Eugene Volokh, Eric Goldman, and Reason Magazine has not written anything to address the rise of online harassment and how to protect victims. These people purposely turn a blind eye because they are likely paid behind the scenes by Big Tech to act as de facto corporate mouthpieces.
A US law helps international victims because currently...
perpetrators hiding overseas just repost the harmful content on a US server and victims overseas have no legal remedy to remove it. US tech companies hide behind Section 230 on a GLOBAL basis so the content is always viewable on the US version of the website, regardless of local laws. Case in point, Right to be Forgotten in EU doesn't mean jacksquat because one can always find the removed links on Google USA, so removing it from Google EU, Google France, Google UK, means didly squat. So basically the US is exporting its fucken "no regulations for big tech" policy globally. Section 230 repeal would allow foreign victims to sue the US companies which would remove the harmful content on US versions of the website. It would also allow victims of harassment by a foreign perpetrator out of jurisdiction of US courts to sue the platform for expeditious content removal. It's the fucken retards on Tech Dirt who purposely want to turn a blind eye to this reality to support making money off of the pain they cause society. Fucken scum.
Companies do not need to approve every post made but...
Once they have legal notice of harmful content they are on the hook for legal liability if they do not take reasonable steps to remove it. It's called "duty of care", and every industry has it, except for the greedy tech industry which doesn't give a shit if someone is killed on the platforms (aka Kiwifarms/Grindr). Lack of duty of care makes no fucken sense but the pigs at Tech Dirt want you to think it's a good thing. Fucken scum.
Again, a complete red herring/straw man from Section 230 supporters
"How do they do that without enabling every scanner, crook and religious zealot to remove anything that they object to." Again, a complete red herring/straw man. Sure, the law could be abused, but it would help a LOT MORE people who are actually stalked or harassed or doxed and need the harm to stop. The fact that any law can be abused is not justification for not having the law. Maybe 5% of requests will be frivolous. But 95% of requests will be real. And I'm perfectly ok with some collateral damage to "low quality" speech of that 5% if it means 95% of the requests by actual people harmed by online stalkers can be satisfied. In addition, victims need to be able to provide evidence. But to deny them a path altogether simply due to Section 230 does FAR MORE HARM than good for society.
Google and Bing ignore court orders, thanks to Section 230
"No, they’re not." Yes, they are. The only EFFECTIVE solution for cyberstalking and online harassment is a repeal of Section 230 to make ISPs more sensitive to harmful content. Anything else is pure fantasy. "It’s in the best financial interest of the companies to not be associated with rampant harassment and abuse among users. You have no clue how this shit works." Tell that to Google and Bing who refuse to take down defamatory and harassing search results no matter how many times victims have to ask. https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/forum/all/bing-will-not-comply-with-court-order-for-removal/881347d6-119f-46e4-93e2-19714f4479be https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/forum/all/i-have-a-narrow-court-order-asking-microsoft-to/61d50e17-e6d7-4345-8972-1907816fa9c1 https://nypost.com/2019/08/17/how-google-has-destroyed-the-lives-of-revenge-porn-victims/ Get your facts right man. Big arrogant tech companies, in particular Google, don't give a rat's fuck about victims of online harassment and helping them. Google deserves to be sued into oblivion, and Google executives deserve life in prison without parole.
Fine, so what is Tech Dirt's solution to online harassment and cyberstalking?
What has Tech Dirt proposed to address the exploding social harm of online harassment, cyberstalking and doxing? What if the perpetrator cannot be located, is hiding abroad, or using TOR or VPN?
Fuck cyber libertarianism and Section 230!
Section 230 needs to be repealed ASAP to hold tech companies and platforms ACCOUNTABLE for fostering harassment, abuse, and misinformation!
I don't care about ads. I care about Tech Dirt's failure to advocate for Section 230 reform
Section 230 reform is the most obvious change that can meaningfully help protect Americans and people around the world from cyber stalker and online harassment. Yet Tech Dirt doesn't do shit and tries to spew bull shit about how Section 230 is good, in effect basically supporting cyber harassment and cyber stalking by leaving victims harmed by these crimes without proper recourse to remove harmful content and hold perpetrators or platforms who abet the crimes accountable. It's not that hard to understand. You are purposely ignoring my point because you know it's right and Tech Dirt puts corporate profits above public safety and the law.
The only false information is spewed by Tech Dirt
Basically, Tech Dirt is saying: let's not regulate online harms. Tech Dirt thinks big tech companies should NOT have any liability for online harms even if victims have no available recourse (if the perpetrator is hiding abroad or using VPN). This way, tech companies can just continue making money off of harmful content while hiding behind a liability shield. HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS MAKE SENSE IN ANY REASONABLE SOCIETY?
Google should face EVEN MORE lawsuits
Google is perhaps one of the most vile and evil corporations on earth.
Her argument is morally sound. Unlike Tech Dirt's argument...
Which is just basically saying let's sacrifice victims of online crimes to protect corporate profits. Tech Dirt is full of greedy capitalistic corporate pigs.
Online speech should not include online harassment and doxxing
Online speech should not include online harassment and doxxing. TechDirt cyberlibertarian pigs apparently want "online speech" to be all inclusive, even revenge porn and other illegal shit. Very vile and immoral group of people - only care about profits and not give a shit about victims or public safety.