"You’ve addressed how China can buy data elsewhere. You didn’t explain the concerns over influence. You just handwaved them away as saying we hadn’t see evidence of it, and that they would be able to influence via other means."
Last time I checked, there wasn't a "foreign influence" exception to the First Amendment.
Not sure of your politics, but thinking that it is OK for the government to legally prevent people from getting access to information via media so they don't get "influenced" by it is essentially the argument that Right Wingers like DeSantis and Abbott have been making lately. If you are also Right Wing, it makes sense. If you claim that you aren't, then you are just fooling yourself.
"There’s no question that TikTok is a op run by Chinese intelligence and that its principle reason for existence is data/metadata gathering."
Huh?
Sure, Chinese intelligence spent a bunch of money and time to create an app to collect data ... instead of just buying the data (for a lot less money) from all the places where it is available.
""" So when an AI or search engine amplifies the audience from a few people on an obscure website, to anyone who does a search on a person, no additional harm occurs, according to Section 230.
This runs counter to 200 years of defamation law. """
Considering that defamation law is mainly a way for rich people to get money from other rich people, or WORSE for rich people to attempt to suppress criticism by non-rich people, I find it amusing that people are so concerned about it.
Without Section 230, it will become a lot harder for victims of sexism and racism to hold wealthy harassers and racists accountable.
The MeToo movement was mainly an online movement that allowed women to share stories about how powerful men were sexually harassing women and getting away with it.
Without Section 230, the movement never happens. Why? Because the targets would have just sicced their expensive lawyers on the sites where the victims were posting their info. Suing a single wealthy company is a lot easier than going after a lot of non-wealthy semi-anonymous people.
All the anti-230 need to explain why they think it was bad that we had the MeToo movement. Obviously, we know why Right Wing Republicans like Hawley hated the MeToo movement.
All the stuff that the writer states about the Republicans is true. The Republicans are at war with Tik Tok and all other social media.
But the Democrats aren't much different.
When you look at all the attempts by politicians to deny access to social media and privacy, they are very bipartisan.
The writer is in denial about how much his side is contributing to the things he dislikes.
I understand why Hawley wants to get rid of Section 230. He knows that getting rid of Section 230 will make it a lot harder to spread information about how much the Republicans suck, and as a bonus will silence a lot of people who aren't rich white Right Wingers.
But why are so many Democrats stupidly helping him? Without 230, the MeToo movement likely doesn't happen (because the harassers would have threatened lawsuits), and reporting current harassment will be extremely difficult (because no sites will want to take the risk).
Yet Democrats are like "why not".
"No, autocomplete does not produce novel output."
Sure it does. It is using its own model to determine which word I'm attempting to write, or which word I'm going to write next.
Anyway, even if the answer is "maybe or maybe not", there will be enough uncertainty about it to make it significantly harder to use section 230 as a defense. Of course, those companies won't even let the issues get to court, they'll just remove everything remotely controversial.
'And no, defamation lawsuits are not “the government”, that’s just the dumbest thing.'
The scope of defamation law is certainly determined by the government, so your "not the government" defense is lacking.
There is a term that describes the people who think that further empowering copyright holders will somehow magically benefit creators: USEFUL IDIOTS.
As Mike wrote, the past attempts to further empower copyright holders have almost entirely benefited the big companies, with very little benefit going to the creators. There is no reason to doubt that any future attempts will do the same.
-skh
My belief is that all these "think of the kids!1!!" moral panics are inherently right wing.
So the Democratic AGs need to ask themselves why they are trying to further right Wing agendas.
Right Wingers would love nothing more than to prevent kids from using social media. Stopping kids from the influence of the "woke mind virus", or preventing a trans kid in Alabama from making connections to trans kids in other parts of the country, is something that Right Wingers love.
And mandatory age verification is a privacy nightmare that make it a whole lot easier for Right Wing red states to find out who is trying to get an illegal abortion.
The fact is that Democrats who are falling for this moral panic are complicit in the Right Wing Republican attack on LGBTQ kids and abortion rights.
-K Smith
Dr. Hany Farid is really itching for the government to destroy privacy and suppress speech.
We need to stop beating around the bush, and start accurately describing Farid ... as a Fascist.
Sure, the government should have the power to go after companies based on their viewpoints. What could go wrong? I'm sure it will never be wielded by the Right.
Seriously...
Worrying about Fox News is such a waste of time for the left. It is part of an industry on its last legs. Wow ... A million people a day watch it...out of 350 million.
I think a lot of lefty types think that if it wasn't for Fox News, things like racism wouldn't exist. But guess what...we're a country that had slavery and Jim Crow long before Tucker Carlson's balls dropped.
There are bigger things to worry about. For example, our criminal justice is atrocious. And even if every Right Winger disappeared tomorrow, it would be only slightly better.
Whining about an crappy media org in a dying industry is a waste of time.
There are certainly a lot of people who give Democrats a free pass on their support of really bad legislation, even though their legislation is just as damaging.
Republicans:
"We hate LGBTQ people." -> Support KOSA -> LGBTQ people lose valuable support info.
Democrats:
"We love LGBTQ people." -> Support KOSA -> LGBTQ people lose valuable support info.
But ... Mike Masnick, as well as the rest of BestNetTech, is 100% willing to call out Democrats when they propose bad legislation. Good for Mike!
Make no mistake ...
KOSA is anti-LGBTQ.
And it's supporters are anti-LGBTQ.
Plenty of its supporters will talk about how they fully support the LGBTQ community, but their actions will speak louder than their words.
There is no way that a bill this bad bill will pass.
Sure, the Republicans (aka. the bad side) who dominate House will likely be able to pass it, as they will want to pass a bill that will empower them to suppress LGBTQ information.
But the Democrats (aka. the good side) control the Senate and the presidency. Surely, they will overwhelmingly reject this ridiculous bill.
And of the Democrats (aka. the good side) don't overwhelmingly reject this horrible bill, a number of people would have to admit that "yeah, it IS both sides". We can't have that though...
-Kevin Smith
"Authoritarians want to frame absolutely any effort to rein in propaganda as itself “Orwellian” suppression of speech"
Seems to me that "reining in propaganda" is the excuse that authoritarians typically use to ... ya know ... do authoritarian things.
But the writer of this article is mad that the government doesn't have the power to do it.
"The Right Wing is a danger, so let's make it really easy for them to suppress dissent (in the name of 'reining in propaganda') when they next have the ability to do so (which, on a federal level, could be in 1.5 years)."
Smart thinking there.
Not necessarily the point of the post, but ...
The disappearance of MH370 is not that mysterious. The most likely explanation is that one of the pilots deliberately caused the plane to go down in the Indian Ocean.
And regarding cell phone data, cell phones are kinda useless in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Also, as to why the passengers didn't call anyone, there is a decent chance that they weren't fully aware about the diversion due to it happening at night.
-K Smith
There is no shortage of craven political actors these days.
The pro-CJPA people are among the worst.
Pro-CJPA people: "When Facebook links to news sites, it is 'stealing' their revenue. We must tax Facebook so that the news media gets their 'stolen' revenue back!"
Also ... Pro-CJPA people: "How dare Facebook stop linking to news sites! They want to ban journalism!"
How can people make this incoherent argument with a straight face?
I'd have some respect for a person who reacted to Facebook stopping links to news sites with "Good for Facebook. I'm glad that it will no longer 'steal' news revenue." That person is still supporting a bad law, but at least they are coherent.
Just admit that you don't like 1A
"You’ve addressed how China can buy data elsewhere. You didn’t explain the concerns over influence. You just handwaved them away as saying we hadn’t see evidence of it, and that they would be able to influence via other means." Last time I checked, there wasn't a "foreign influence" exception to the First Amendment. Not sure of your politics, but thinking that it is OK for the government to legally prevent people from getting access to information via media so they don't get "influenced" by it is essentially the argument that Right Wingers like DeSantis and Abbott have been making lately. If you are also Right Wing, it makes sense. If you claim that you aren't, then you are just fooling yourself.
Huh?
"There’s no question that TikTok is a op run by Chinese intelligence and that its principle reason for existence is data/metadata gathering." Huh? Sure, Chinese intelligence spent a bunch of money and time to create an app to collect data ... instead of just buying the data (for a lot less money) from all the places where it is available.
Oh no! Defamation.
""" So when an AI or search engine amplifies the audience from a few people on an obscure website, to anyone who does a search on a person, no additional harm occurs, according to Section 230. This runs counter to 200 years of defamation law. """ Considering that defamation law is mainly a way for rich people to get money from other rich people, or WORSE for rich people to attempt to suppress criticism by non-rich people, I find it amusing that people are so concerned about it. Without Section 230, it will become a lot harder for victims of sexism and racism to hold wealthy harassers and racists accountable.
Without 230, MeToo never happens
The MeToo movement was mainly an online movement that allowed women to share stories about how powerful men were sexually harassing women and getting away with it. Without Section 230, the movement never happens. Why? Because the targets would have just sicced their expensive lawyers on the sites where the victims were posting their info. Suing a single wealthy company is a lot easier than going after a lot of non-wealthy semi-anonymous people. All the anti-230 need to explain why they think it was bad that we had the MeToo movement. Obviously, we know why Right Wing Republicans like Hawley hated the MeToo movement.
Not just the GOP
All the stuff that the writer states about the Republicans is true. The Republicans are at war with Tik Tok and all other social media. But the Democrats aren't much different. When you look at all the attempts by politicians to deny access to social media and privacy, they are very bipartisan. The writer is in denial about how much his side is contributing to the things he dislikes.
WTF is wrong with the Democrats
I understand why Hawley wants to get rid of Section 230. He knows that getting rid of Section 230 will make it a lot harder to spread information about how much the Republicans suck, and as a bonus will silence a lot of people who aren't rich white Right Wingers. But why are so many Democrats stupidly helping him? Without 230, the MeToo movement likely doesn't happen (because the harassers would have threatened lawsuits), and reporting current harassment will be extremely difficult (because no sites will want to take the risk). Yet Democrats are like "why not".
Autocomplete could be AI
"No, autocomplete does not produce novel output." Sure it does. It is using its own model to determine which word I'm attempting to write, or which word I'm going to write next. Anyway, even if the answer is "maybe or maybe not", there will be enough uncertainty about it to make it significantly harder to use section 230 as a defense. Of course, those companies won't even let the issues get to court, they'll just remove everything remotely controversial.
Yeah, defamation is related to the government
'And no, defamation lawsuits are not “the government”, that’s just the dumbest thing.' The scope of defamation law is certainly determined by the government, so your "not the government" defense is lacking.
There is a term ...
There is a term that describes the people who think that further empowering copyright holders will somehow magically benefit creators: USEFUL IDIOTS. As Mike wrote, the past attempts to further empower copyright holders have almost entirely benefited the big companies, with very little benefit going to the creators. There is no reason to doubt that any future attempts will do the same. -skh
Moral panics are right wing
My belief is that all these "think of the kids!1!!" moral panics are inherently right wing. So the Democratic AGs need to ask themselves why they are trying to further right Wing agendas. Right Wingers would love nothing more than to prevent kids from using social media. Stopping kids from the influence of the "woke mind virus", or preventing a trans kid in Alabama from making connections to trans kids in other parts of the country, is something that Right Wingers love. And mandatory age verification is a privacy nightmare that make it a whole lot easier for Right Wing red states to find out who is trying to get an illegal abortion. The fact is that Democrats who are falling for this moral panic are complicit in the Right Wing Republican attack on LGBTQ kids and abortion rights. -K Smith
There is a word for it ..
Dr. Hany Farid is really itching for the government to destroy privacy and suppress speech. We need to stop beating around the bush, and start accurately describing Farid ... as a Fascist.
What could go wrong?
Sure, the government should have the power to go after companies based on their viewpoints. What could go wrong? I'm sure it will never be wielded by the Right. Seriously... Worrying about Fox News is such a waste of time for the left. It is part of an industry on its last legs. Wow ... A million people a day watch it...out of 350 million. I think a lot of lefty types think that if it wasn't for Fox News, things like racism wouldn't exist. But guess what...we're a country that had slavery and Jim Crow long before Tucker Carlson's balls dropped. There are bigger things to worry about. For example, our criminal justice is atrocious. And even if every Right Winger disappeared tomorrow, it would be only slightly better. Whining about an crappy media org in a dying industry is a waste of time.
As a Masnick Faithful ...
There are certainly a lot of people who give Democrats a free pass on their support of really bad legislation, even though their legislation is just as damaging. Republicans: "We hate LGBTQ people." -> Support KOSA -> LGBTQ people lose valuable support info. Democrats: "We love LGBTQ people." -> Support KOSA -> LGBTQ people lose valuable support info. But ... Mike Masnick, as well as the rest of BestNetTech, is 100% willing to call out Democrats when they propose bad legislation. Good for Mike!
If this was happening elsewhere ...
Why do I feel like this would be getting a lot more (negative) coverage if it were happening in Florida?
Huh?
Koby- You think that the internet is trying "sexualize our kids"? What kind of QAnon/Right Wing BS is that?
KOSA is anti-LGBTQ
Make no mistake ... KOSA is anti-LGBTQ. And it's supporters are anti-LGBTQ. Plenty of its supporters will talk about how they fully support the LGBTQ community, but their actions will speak louder than their words.
No need to worry!
There is no way that a bill this bad bill will pass. Sure, the Republicans (aka. the bad side) who dominate House will likely be able to pass it, as they will want to pass a bill that will empower them to suppress LGBTQ information. But the Democrats (aka. the good side) control the Senate and the presidency. Surely, they will overwhelmingly reject this ridiculous bill. And of the Democrats (aka. the good side) don't overwhelmingly reject this horrible bill, a number of people would have to admit that "yeah, it IS both sides". We can't have that though... -Kevin Smith
Smart thinking (not)
"Authoritarians want to frame absolutely any effort to rein in propaganda as itself “Orwellian” suppression of speech" Seems to me that "reining in propaganda" is the excuse that authoritarians typically use to ... ya know ... do authoritarian things. But the writer of this article is mad that the government doesn't have the power to do it. "The Right Wing is a danger, so let's make it really easy for them to suppress dissent (in the name of 'reining in propaganda') when they next have the ability to do so (which, on a federal level, could be in 1.5 years)." Smart thinking there.
Not that mysterious
Not necessarily the point of the post, but ... The disappearance of MH370 is not that mysterious. The most likely explanation is that one of the pilots deliberately caused the plane to go down in the Indian Ocean. And regarding cell phone data, cell phones are kinda useless in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Also, as to why the passengers didn't call anyone, there is a decent chance that they weren't fully aware about the diversion due to it happening at night. -K Smith
Pro-CJPA argument is ridiculous
There is no shortage of craven political actors these days. The pro-CJPA people are among the worst. Pro-CJPA people: "When Facebook links to news sites, it is 'stealing' their revenue. We must tax Facebook so that the news media gets their 'stolen' revenue back!" Also ... Pro-CJPA people: "How dare Facebook stop linking to news sites! They want to ban journalism!" How can people make this incoherent argument with a straight face? I'd have some respect for a person who reacted to Facebook stopping links to news sites with "Good for Facebook. I'm glad that it will no longer 'steal' news revenue." That person is still supporting a bad law, but at least they are coherent.