Jail Zuckerberg

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.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 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.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.


Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 9:13:27 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.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.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Facebook is a private company. If someone doesn't like the manner in which they conduct their business, they are under no obligation to participate. I agree with your assessment of section 230, Andrew, but I'd add the caveat that trying to limit the spread of dis-information is a delicate balance. One persons freedom fighter is another persons traitor. There's no way they can self-police without ****ing _some_body off. There are other remedies -If Hillary Clinton wants to hold someone libel for promoting the notion that she's a cannibalistic pedophile, she needs to go after the person screaming into the megaphone, not the megaphone manufacturer.

On 2/19/2021 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 9:13:27 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.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.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.


Facebook is a private company. If someone doesn't like the manner in which they conduct their business, they are under no obligation to participate. I agree with your assessment of section 230, Andrew, but I'd add the caveat that trying to limit the spread of dis-information is a delicate balance. One persons freedom fighter is another persons traitor. There's no way they can self-police without ****ing _some_body off. There are other remedies -If Hillary Clinton wants to hold someone libel for promoting the notion that she's a cannibalistic pedophile, she needs to go after the person screaming into the megaphone, not the megaphone manufacturer.


We agree on your main argument.

Yes, these are private entities, but consider:

"Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press..."

Congress did make Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act.
One might argue that the Act does, by denying access to the
civil courts for redress of torts, abridge freedom of speech.

I have drawn no breathless passionate conclusion yet. I'm
not convinced this law is wrong as written. Then again no
one but no one is interested in applying it as written either.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 10:00:25 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 9:13:27 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.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.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

Facebook is a private company. If someone doesn't like the manner in which they conduct their business, they are under no obligation to participate. I agree with your assessment of section 230, Andrew, but I'd add the caveat that trying to limit the spread of dis-information is a delicate balance. One persons freedom fighter is another persons traitor. There's no way they can self-police without ****ing _some_body off. There are other remedies -If Hillary Clinton wants to hold someone libel for promoting the notion that she's a cannibalistic pedophile, she needs to go after the person screaming into the megaphone, not the megaphone manufacturer.

We agree on your main argument.

Yes, these are private entities, but consider:

"Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press..."

Congress did make Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act.
One might argue that the Act does, by denying access to the
civil courts for redress of torts, abridge freedom of speech.

I have drawn no breathless passionate conclusion yet. I'm
not convinced this law is wrong as written. Then again no
one but no one is interested in applying it as written either.

No, the liability limitations do not prevent or compel speech. It's not a First Amendment issue, although it may be a Fifth Amendment/Fourteenth Amendment Due Process issue -- or even a Seventh Amendment right to jury trial, but considering all the federal liability protections out there -- from guns to planes to vaccines to COVID countermeasures -- I doubt any of those arguments have gotten traction, but I haven't looked. Section 230 clearly relates to interstate commerce -- or clearly enough. I don't see any basis for challenging federal power to make the law.

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. Go back to reading the newspapers and watching non-defamatory YouTube videos on how to fix my backflow preventer. I have a Facebook page that I never visit; I don't Twitter and don't own stock in either of them. This is the sum-total of my internet presence, and small platforms like Usenet or bike bulletin boards can be moderated.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 1:00:25 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 9:13:27 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.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.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

Facebook is a private company. If someone doesn't like the manner in which they conduct their business, they are under no obligation to participate. I agree with your assessment of section 230, Andrew, but I'd add the caveat that trying to limit the spread of dis-information is a delicate balance. One persons freedom fighter is another persons traitor. There's no way they can self-police without ****ing _some_body off. There are other remedies -If Hillary Clinton wants to hold someone libel for promoting the notion that she's a cannibalistic pedophile, she needs to go after the person screaming into the megaphone, not the megaphone manufacturer.

We agree on your main argument.

Yes, these are private entities, but consider:

"Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press..."

Congress did make Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act.
One might argue that the Act does, by denying access to the
civil courts for redress of torts, abridge freedom of speech.

I'd argue the exact opposite. By not allowing people to sue the megaphone manufacturer, the inherently protect the speech of the individual screaming into it. As I said, there are other methods of redress still available - the liable-ee can sue the liable-er without having to involve the megaphone. There is nothing in section 230 which suppresses the right of the offended to seek redress against the offender.

I have drawn no breathless passionate conclusion yet. I'm
not convinced this law is wrong as written. Then again no
one but no one is interested in applying it as written either.

The main point was a hands off approach by the gubmint. It doesn't take much effort to apply that.

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.


-- Jay Beattie.

On 2/19/2021 2:20 PM, 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.


-- Jay Beattie.

+1
This isn't as clear-cut as some would claim.
I remain concerned but undecided.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

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.

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.

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).

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

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2/19/2021 6:06 PM, 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.

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.

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).

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

-- Jay Beattie.

+1 Yes, I get those points.

I'm concerned as well that one's political positions,
failing any other test, can be labeled 'hate speech' and
banned/erased/deplatformed because and only because they do
not align with Mr Zuckerberg's world view. I am also not a
member of The Face Book or any of those but the issue brings
serious issues readily to mind.

Section 230 was written in as much good faith as 535 of the
least among us could manage. But without any enforcement,
the wording, and they're nice words, is just as impotent as
the Soviet 1936 Constitution.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971