Jail Zuckerberg

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 10:13:09 AM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html
..
The meme spreads:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-bullying.html
..
Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 5:54:34 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 10:13:09 AM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html
.
The meme spreads:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-bullying.html
.
Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.
Facebook is getting in extremely deep doo-doo and Zuckerberg is finally getting the picture that not only is Facebook going to collapse but that criminal charges are going to be filed against him.

On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 5:19:33 PM UTC, wrote:
On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 5:54:34 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 10:13:09 AM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html
.
The meme spreads:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-bullying.html
.
Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.
Facebook is getting in extremely deep doo-doo and Zuckerberg is finally getting the picture that not only is Facebook going to collapse but that criminal charges are going to be filed against him.
,
He's paying the price for all those years of hypocrisy, saying Facebook was a public service bringing people together, until his shareholders forced him to start "monetising" their investment. -- AJ

On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 10:10:34 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 5:19:33 PM UTC, wrote:
On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 5:54:34 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 10:13:09 AM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html
.
The meme spreads:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-bullying.html
.
Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.
Facebook is getting in extremely deep doo-doo and Zuckerberg is finally getting the picture that not only is Facebook going to collapse but that criminal charges are going to be filed against him.
,
He's paying the price for all those years of hypocrisy, saying Facebook was a public service bringing people together, until his shareholders forced him to start "monetising" their investment. -- AJ
..
And Zuckerberg ran into trouble in an amazingly short space of time. He's clearly not too bright if he takes Angela Merkel's word that what was wanted from him was censorship of the right, which would buy him protection forever. Yo, Zuck yo surrogate momma is an unreconstructed Komsomol flack. If you don't know what this is, ask you pals at Google to look it up for you. -- AJ
..

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 7:06:16 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 12:20:56 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:

IMO, the entire issued could be remedied by repealing Section 230, which would effectively muzzle the defamers since they would be excluded from the platforms, or the platforms would wither and die. Win-win.
Not so fast - then you have to have some well-established and equally applied rules, which for all intents and purposes would constitute a) the gubmint dictating acceptable speech and b) the gubmint interfering the operation of a private business - both of which are anathema to conservatives. I think if you allow that to happen - effectively muzzling the defamers since they would be excluded from the platforms, or the platforms would wither and die - wouldn't be a win win at all. Again, one persons truth-to-power is another persons defamation.
Defamation law protects opinions and statements of belief, and First Amendment rights, if any, are protected by the liability standards announced in NYT v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. The law works well and has allowed people to speak truth to power over bull horns and in newspapers for centuries without liability.

Section 230(c)(1) prevents platforms from being characterized as "publishers" and exempts them from
liability for re-publishing defamatory statements -- an obligation that ordinary publishers have been observing
forever. It does not redefine defamation or protect the original defamer. It just lets platforms be lazy. WaPo
doesn't have the protections or the New York Post. Why Facebook? Because its really big and policing its
content would be hard? Defamation is defamation, and if you re-publish a defamatory statement, you should
be subject to liability -- unless we want to give a free pass to all erstwhile publishers.

I'm led to believe there's a difference between publishing and republishing.. Posting someone else's claim isn't the same as posting a claim of your own. Libelous information published by a newspapers reporter or editorial board that either didn't do their research or failed to fact check is very different from posting and opinion piece from someone with no affiliation to the publication other than they managed to get their work published. In the former case, certainly the published has culpability, in the latter, I don't think so, and isn't that why the disclaimer 'this bull**** is the work of the author, and does not represent views of the publishers or owners' exists?


The difference between me and the gung-ho pro Section 230(c)(1) folks is that I see most of these
platforms as a net detriment to society. I could care less if they withered and died. Let them play by
the ordinary rules applicable to every other publisher. I've also litigated cases involving internet defamation
(with significant commercial consequences), and immune platforms sit idly by and ISPs basically run
interference. Meanwhile, some poor guy gets put out of business. Imagine an anonymous poster
plastering the internet with claims that The Yellow Jersey sells phony Campy components made
by child sex-slaves chained-up in its basement. If I did that, and Andrew got hurt, well he knows
where to find me -- but he would not know where to find, uh, "Funkman." The publisher would be the only pocket.

Since when is there a law that the published can't provide information about the the author of the work? That's the choice of the publisher. If they decide they don't want to reveal the identity of the person making the claim, then sure, hold them liable. (I'm really not that hard to find, btw, it's just that certain people in this forum who tend to bitch about it are too ****ing lazy and stupid to figure it out).


Now, I'm conflicted about non-defamation liability as a publisher or distributor, and the slop over and into Section 230(c)(2)

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

Again, I don't see a problem here. If a platform decides to clean house - fine, it's their platform. If they decide to let stuff slide, then engage in the obfuscatory behaviour you describe above, then fine, hold them liable.. Take this as a nuance to my feeling: you can't sue the megaphone manufacturer unless they promote the speech of the user and/or protect the user. The point is that I don't think the govern should be saying 'you need to clean house'. Actions - and the lack thereof - have consequences. In the hypothetical that 'funkman' might publish injurious information about Yellow Jersey, I wouldn't disagree with the publisher being compelled to reveal the whereabouts of funkman, or themselves be held liable.


This is really where the actions at for many people -- censorship or failure to censor, which translates
into a mind-boggling array of common law claims -- real and imagined, e.g.., Facebook getting sued
because it didn't take down a site fast enough, and caused emotional trauma to a Facebook user;
Facebook getting sued because some guy was shot in Paris by ISIS operatives who coordinated
on Facebook. Or Facebook getting sued because it filtered someone's violent videos.
I don't know what to do with that . . .

Again, if the platform refuses to reveal the information about the offender, sure hold them liable. This isn't a case where a reporter refuses to reveal a source. I seriously doubt facebook would suffer dramatically if they made a policy that legal action demanding the identity of the user will be complied with. Don't like that policy? Then either quit being an asshole on face book, or stop using facebook.

and again, I don't care, because if Facebook were gone tomorrow, it wouldn't matter to me.
I haven't thought through every angle of Section 230 and admit this is a **** in your own boots
kind of approach, but I'm pining away for the days of three networks and Walter Cronkite.

I don't disagree with you at all there. I'm on facebook, but if it were to disappear tomorrow it wouldn't faze me in the least

I'm much more concerned with anti-competitive behavior and the giant Google Algorithm which are not protected by Section 230.

Very clearly a much more insidious problem, imho.

On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 8:35:08 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 7:06:16 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 12:20:56 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:

IMO, the entire issued could be remedied by repealing Section 230, which would effectively muzzle the defamers since they would be excluded from the platforms, or the platforms would wither and die. Win-win.
Not so fast - then you have to have some well-established and equally applied rules, which for all intents and purposes would constitute a) the gubmint dictating acceptable speech and b) the gubmint interfering the operation of a private business - both of which are anathema to conservatives. I think if you allow that to happen - effectively muzzling the defamers since they would be excluded from the platforms, or the platforms would wither and die - wouldn't be a win win at all. Again, one persons truth-to-power is another persons defamation.
Defamation law protects opinions and statements of belief, and First Amendment rights, if any, are protected by the liability standards announced in NYT v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. The law works well and has allowed people to speak truth to power over bull horns and in newspapers for centuries without liability.

Section 230(c)(1) prevents platforms from being characterized as "publishers" and exempts them from
liability for re-publishing defamatory statements -- an obligation that ordinary publishers have been observing
forever. It does not redefine defamation or protect the original defamer. It just lets platforms be lazy. WaPo
doesn't have the protections or the New York Post. Why Facebook? Because its really big and policing its
content would be hard? Defamation is defamation, and if you re-publish a defamatory statement, you should
be subject to liability -- unless we want to give a free pass to all erstwhile publishers.
I'm led to believe there's a difference between publishing and republishing. Posting someone else's claim isn't the same as posting a claim of your own. Libelous information published by a newspapers reporter or editorial board that either didn't do their research or failed to fact check is very different from posting and opinion piece from someone with no affiliation to the publication other than they managed to get their work published. In the former case, certainly the published has culpability, in the latter, I don't think so, and isn't that why the disclaimer 'this bull**** is the work of the author, and does not represent views of the publishers or owners' exists?

The difference between me and the gung-ho pro Section 230(c)(1) folks is that I see most of these
platforms as a net detriment to society. I could care less if they withered and died. Let them play by
the ordinary rules applicable to every other publisher. I've also litigated cases involving internet defamation
(with significant commercial consequences), and immune platforms sit idly by and ISPs basically run
interference. Meanwhile, some poor guy gets put out of business. Imagine an anonymous poster
plastering the internet with claims that The Yellow Jersey sells phony Campy components made
by child sex-slaves chained-up in its basement. If I did that, and Andrew got hurt, well he knows
where to find me -- but he would not know where to find, uh, "Funkman." The publisher would be the only pocket.
Since when is there a law that the published can't provide information about the the author of the work? That's the choice of the publisher. If they decide they don't want to reveal the identity of the person making the claim, then sure, hold them liable. (I'm really not that hard to find, btw, it's just that certain people in this forum who tend to bitch about it are too ****ing lazy and stupid to figure it out).

Now, I'm conflicted about non-defamation liability as a publisher or distributor, and the slop over and into Section 230(c)(2)

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
Again, I don't see a problem here. If a platform decides to clean house - fine, it's their platform. If they decide to let stuff slide, then engage in the obfuscatory behaviour you describe above, then fine, hold them liable. Take this as a nuance to my feeling: you can't sue the megaphone manufacturer unless they promote the speech of the user and/or protect the user. The point is that I don't think the govern should be saying 'you need to clean house'. Actions - and the lack thereof - have consequences. In the hypothetical that 'funkman' might publish injurious information about Yellow Jersey, I wouldn't disagree with the publisher being compelled to reveal the whereabouts of funkman, or themselves be held liable.

This is really where the actions at for many people -- censorship or failure to censor, which translates
into a mind-boggling array of common law claims -- real and imagined, e..g., Facebook getting sued
because it didn't take down a site fast enough, and caused emotional trauma to a Facebook user;
Facebook getting sued because some guy was shot in Paris by ISIS operatives who coordinated
on Facebook. Or Facebook getting sued because it filtered someone's violent videos.
I don't know what to do with that . . .
Again, if the platform refuses to reveal the information about the offender, sure hold them liable. This isn't a case where a reporter refuses to reveal a source. I seriously doubt facebook would suffer dramatically if they made a policy that legal action demanding the identity of the user will be complied with. Don't like that policy? Then either quit being an asshole on face book, or stop using facebook.

There are interesting options for dealing with defamers, but censorship seems to be why Facebook is so reviled -- too much or too little, and not of defamatory material (necessarily). Most of the suits I've seen look frivolous, so I don't have an issue with Section 203(c)(2) immunity, but those pouting about having their megaphones pulled may see it differently, particularly if there is some business angle.

This reminds me of another service I need to disconnect from my e-mail: Nextdoor. People complain about things that I didn't even know were a thing.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:35:05 -0800, scribed:


I'm led to believe there's a difference between publishing and
republishing.

That is the nub of the matter.
Facesbook, Gfgdh, et all are not paying to collect the information for
the initial report and are using their market power to put their
advertisers in the eyeballs of people wanting the information.

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:34:25 -0800, Andre Jute scribed:

..
And Zuckerberg ran into trouble in an amazingly short space of time.
He's clearly not too bright if he takes Angela Merkel's word that what
was wanted from him was censorship of the right, which would buy him
protection forever. Yo, Zuck yo surrogate momma is an unreconstructed
Komsomol flack. If you don't know what this is, ask you pals at Google
to look it up for you. -- AJ .

No wonder your books never sell.

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 3:01:22 AM UTC, News 2021 wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:34:25 -0800, Andre Jute scribed:
.
And Zuckerberg ran into trouble in an amazingly short space of time.
He's clearly not too bright if he takes Angela Merkel's word that what
was wanted from him was censorship of the right, which would buy him
protection forever. Yo, Zuck yo surrogate momma is an unreconstructed
Komsomol flack. If you don't know what this is, ask you pals at Google
to look it up for you. -- AJ .
No wonder your books never sell.
..
My novels and other books were commissioned by leading publishers. Since you won't know what that means, it means they contracted and paid for them before I wrote them. If you imagine they would have kept on doing it for half a century if there was no return, you're even more stupid than you appear to be.

Look, I understand your general perception of your own worthlessness, and your consequent resentment of someone who apparently effortlessly received everything you lust after but, honestly, you don't want my life: I work sixteen hour days seven days a week.

By stalking me so ineffectually, you're telling us a great deal more about your own inadequacies than about me. And it all makes zero difference: in the end I'll cut your balls off and the next day have to ask your name. Soon some new little man will take your place in the hot belief that by harassing me he'll make a name for himself. I'll shrug and bat him around a bit while I think up an amazing way to turn him into a profit centre.

Unsigned out of contempt for a public idiot.
Multitasking, that's the thing.

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 8:47:40 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 3:01:22 AM UTC, News 2021 wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:34:25 -0800, Andre Jute scribed:
.
And Zuckerberg ran into trouble in an amazingly short space of time.
He's clearly not too bright if he takes Angela Merkel's word that what
was wanted from him was censorship of the right, which would buy him
protection forever. Yo, Zuck yo surrogate momma is an unreconstructed
Komsomol flack. If you don't know what this is, ask you pals at Google
to look it up for you. -- AJ .
No wonder your books never sell.
.
My novels and other books were commissioned by leading publishers. Since you won't know what that means, it means they contracted and paid for them before I wrote them. If you imagine they would have kept on doing it for half a century if there was no return, you're even more stupid than you appear to be.

Look, I understand your general perception of your own worthlessness, and your consequent resentment of someone who apparently effortlessly received everything you lust after but, honestly, you don't want my life: I work sixteen hour days seven days a week.

By stalking me so ineffectually, you're telling us a great deal more about your own inadequacies than about me. And it all makes zero difference: in the end I'll cut your balls off and the next day have to ask your name. Soon some new little man will take your place in the hot belief that by harassing me he'll make a name for himself. I'll shrug and bat him around a bit while I think up an amazing way to turn him into a profit centre.

Unsigned out of contempt for a public idiot.
Multitasking, that's the thing.
Andre, don't bother to respond to the idiot trio. They are like dust in the wind. None of them have ever accomplished a single thing that they can be proud of so all they can do is attempt to degrade others down to the sewer level.