Conversation

Notices

1. That Would Be Telling (thatwouldbetelling@shitposter.club)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Mar-2023 00:56:02 JST That Would Be Telling

   • Moon

   “Why Big Tech will lose its Supreme Court case on section 230

   “I only count two votes to ratify Big Tech’s sweeping immunity claims”

   A very interesting analysis of the oral arguments for Gonzalez v. Google where the former takes the latter to task for serving up ISIS content to people who like that sort of thing.

   This hinges on the protection every one of us reading this is depending on to immunize our service providers; we, not they are on the hook for anything illegal or tortuous we do, WRT to previously established law we’re the publishers.

   But service providers like AOL noted it was in the public interest for them to be able do a level of filtering to in their case (try to) create family safe spaces and that’s a publishing role.

   The Gonzalez case; well, let me quote Justice Kagan, who’s intellectual chops were questioned after nomination, but compared to the Wise Latina and now the negro who can’t define “woman” who also can’t stop talking in these oral arguments…:

   “Justice Kagan also sees that section 230 doesn’t really fit the modern internet. The Court’s job, she seems to say, is ‘to figure out how … this statute which was a pre-algorithm statute applies in a post-algorithm world.’ She thinks the plaintiff’s reading could ‘send us down the road such that 230 really can’t mean anything at all.’ She’s daunted by the difficulty of refashion the statute to avoid over-immunizing Big Tech:”

   And continues with the biggest issue of what sort of line can you realistically draw; this is hard.

   Here attacking algorithmically suggesting to someone who likes [ISIS] videos more [ISIS] videos is weak sauce to label someone a publisher. Heck, you can’t even impute intent, what about scholars?

   TL;DR: the real world is messy.

   https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/27/why-big-tech-will-lose-its-supreme-court-case-on-section-230/

   @Moon

   • cool_boy_mew (coolboymew@shitposter.club)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Mar-2023 00:56:01 JST cool_boy_mew

     in reply to

     • Moon
     @Moon @ThatWouldBeTelling Big Tech absolutely must lose their protection, they have been publishers for a long ass while, everyone else should keep it
   • Moon (moon@shitposter.club)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Mar-2023 00:56:02 JST Moon

     in reply to
     @ThatWouldBeTelling if we have to we will switch to being a tor hidden service
   • cool_boy_mew (coolboymew@shitposter.club)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Mar-2023 00:58:13 JST cool_boy_mew

     in reply to

     • Moon
     @Moon @ThatWouldBeTelling then fuck them, this is a bed of their own making
   • Moon (moon@shitposter.club)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Mar-2023 00:58:14 JST Moon

     in reply to

     • cool_boy_mew
     @coolboymew @ThatWouldBeTelling I believe a concern is that if the are explicitly publishers then they will have to become super-aggressive about removing content because they will become liable for it
   • cool_boy_mew (coolboymew@shitposter.club)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Mar-2023 03:06:42 JST cool_boy_mew

     in reply to

     • Moon
     • smug
     @smug @Moon @ThatWouldBeTelling then they should be ruled as an utility or something
   • smug@smuganimeavatar.xyz's status on Wednesday, 01-Mar-2023 03:06:43 JST smug

     in reply to

     • cool_boy_mew
     • Moon

     If you set a specific limit big tech will cheat to get under it legally. Or just pay a fine because lol lmao

   • That Would Be Telling (thatwouldbetelling@shitposter.club)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Mar-2023 03:25:44 JST That Would Be Telling

     in reply to

     • cool_boy_mew
     • Moon
     • smug

     @coolboymew @smug @Moon Of course this is academic as long as the totalitarian tech Left is a literal arm of the Deep State as shown in the Twitter Files, and even if they weren’t Joseph Nacchio was a stark object lesson in what would happen if you refused the Deep State’s “requests.”

     But back in the day, the FCC had two options to regulate the Internet, either as an old fashioned utility and that would have been insane, just as creating such regulations in their early days would have been (perhaps aside from radio frequency allocation, but that was quasi-instantly abused).

     Or as “enhanced” telecom providers or whatever, was a key word in the category.

     Here while it would be fairly easy to regulate the basic infrastructure now that it’s well developed, we have the same problem in that social media is quite new compared to the Internet, although perhaps not so new it couldn’t be regulated in a sane way.

     But again see the first problem, as long as we are ruled by a genocidal hostile elite that’s the problem that has to be solved, sane government after that … well history isn’t too encouraging, but we’ll see, or perhaps the younger of you or your descendants.

     cool_boy_mew likes this.