At White House's Urging, Republicans Launch Anti-Tech Blitz Ahead of Election (politico.com) 148
The Trump administration is pressuring Senate Republicans to ratchet up scrutiny of social media companies it sees as biased against conservatives in the run-up to the November election, Politico reported Thursday, citing people familiar with the conversations say. And the effort appears to be paying off. From the report: In recent weeks, the White House has pressed Senate Republican leaders on key committees to hold public hearings on the law that protects Facebook, Twitter and other internet companies from lawsuits over how they treat user posts, three Senate staffers told POLITICO. They requested anonymity to discuss private communications. And action is following. Senate Commerce Chair Roger Wicker held a vote in his committee Thursday to issue subpoenas to the CEOs of Facebook, Twitter and Google to testify about how they police content on their platforms. That's after Democrats initially prevented the Mississippi Republican from pushing through subpoenas that could have compelled the CEOs to testify with only a few days' notice.
Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), meanwhile, last week introduced new legislation to address alleged bias on social media and the same day scheduled a markup of the bill for Thursday -- a move that would have made it the fastest any bill on tech's liability protections has moved from introduction to a markup on Capitol Hill in recent memory. Graham announced Thursday that consideration of the measure had been tabled. Both committees are targeting liability protections that have been credited with fueling Silicon Valley's success. The provision -- enshrined in a 1996 law known as Section 230 -- has allowed online businesses to grow without fear of lawsuits over user posts or their decisions to remove or otherwise moderate users' content.
Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), meanwhile, last week introduced new legislation to address alleged bias on social media and the same day scheduled a markup of the bill for Thursday -- a move that would have made it the fastest any bill on tech's liability protections has moved from introduction to a markup on Capitol Hill in recent memory. Graham announced Thursday that consideration of the measure had been tabled. Both committees are targeting liability protections that have been credited with fueling Silicon Valley's success. The provision -- enshrined in a 1996 law known as Section 230 -- has allowed online businesses to grow without fear of lawsuits over user posts or their decisions to remove or otherwise moderate users' content.
Anti-tech? Time to join the Amish (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno, everyone there took the day off to go hunting and fishing.
Re:Anti-tech? Time to join the Amish (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not "tech"! Social media computers use technology but they are NOT tech companies! So this article title is wrong and misleading and I was disappointed when I got here and it was about social media fluffery.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "tech"! Social media computers use technology but they are NOT tech companies! So this article title is wrong and misleading and I was disappointed when I got here and it was about social media fluffery.
Yes, this is a point. The article might be correct, but the Title makes it "fake news" !
Someone has turned this into propaganda, reguardless of the source. 8-{
Re: (Score:2)
It's computer-based and requires a herd of programmers to manage, so in the eyes of the thundering herds it's "tech". Since there is a lot more of them than there are of us that's going to be the press's focus.
They're trying to turn the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why they're going after these companies. It's why they're after Section 230, and it's why they're after Net Neutrality.
If the Establishment understood what the Internet was they never would have let us have it in the first place.
Re:They're trying to turn the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
I like the "old, wild" internet. I can take care of myself and don't need protection from incorrect, misleading, or offensive content. But I wonder if the "wild west" of the internet is destined to end for the same reasons that the "wild west" ended in the real world. The problems of social media networks may not be analogous, but the basic need for civilization is the same. We must be thoughtful, respectful, and responsible if we are to survive. I am, sadly, not sure that social networks and the "wild" internet can support that.
Re: They're trying to turn the Internet (Score:2)
The old wild internet is gone. When the internet was the some domain of geeks, students, and technology pros, a wild internet was fun and healthy.
Then everyone moved in. Corporations monetized it. We can't go back in time. We need new rules to move forward
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have read the proposals for reworking 230 and they look good.
Only if good means making you pay for shit other people do.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean replace vague terminology?
"Otherwise objectionable" -> "unlawful and promotes terrorism".
All it does is remove that "objectionable" defense companies are using to censor anything they want.
You cited a link and apparently haven't actually reviewed its content. Your description clearly fails to accurately describe changes. Here are the actual draft changes to existing text:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1... [justice.gov]
Why is any of that bad?
Section 1 A disposition is rendered null and void by the presence of any automated filtering or community moderation.
"Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any decision, agreement, or action by a provider or user of an interactive computer service to restrict access to or availability of mate
Re: (Score:2)
I've read the redline of proposed changes. They've added some reasonable wording.
But it seems like it would remove protections, create more litigation, and give prosecutors more leeway to harass websites they don't like.
Sure, Subparagraph (A), the main protection for site operators and users, remains, but then they add this:
(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any decision, agreement, or action by a provider or user of an interactive computer service to restrict access to or availability of material provided by another information content provider. Any applicable immunity for such conduct shall be provided solely by Paragraph (2) of this subsection.
Paragraph (2) is titled Civil Liability.
They're also proposing to add this:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent, impair, or limit the enforcement by the United States, or any agency thereof, of any civil Federal statute or regulation.
In a way, that goes without saying. But in another way, it's removing
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of redundant - Section 230, as is, doesn't protect a site if it engage in actions that violate Federal law.
The big problem with these changes is that the language will allow the Federal government to decide what's allowed or not
Re:They're trying to turn the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: They're trying to turn the Internet (Score:2)
Except you're not. If you say something other people don't like loud enough or often enough, you will be kicked off hosting you pay for. You'll be kicked out of data centers running your hardware, and you'll be dropped from the net.
Re: (Score:2)
Only we're talking about websites. Free websites that you don't even have to pay to use, I might add. Comparing Twitter and Facebook to a physical town where you live, work, shop and raise your kids is a bit of of touch, no?
Re: (Score:3)
I have a question, do the US Constitution change depending on how and where you "make your speech heard"?
Because that's what you are insinuating and the 1A doesn't have that distinction.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The rest of your comment is gibberish based on no facts or evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Obama is more conservative than Trump, in the traditional sense of the word.
Re: (Score:2)
I took a minute to look over the proposed updates and I have to agree. They do look good and well reasoned.
Re: (Score:3)
The "Blind Themselves and Law Enforcement to Illicit Material" provision is just anti-encryption by another name.
The "Require Platforms to Provide Users with Mechanisms to
Re: (Score:2)
That's two people who read that and thought it wasn't bad?! How is that possible? Their "Bad Samaritan" shtick is clearly designed to facilitate lawsuits over copyright, directed at Youtube, filehosting sites, etc. The "purposeful" qualifier either renders the law useless, or is itself ineffective, depending on how the law is worded.
Except it isn't. Its clearly written to remove protection from sites that clearly serve an illegal purpose such as backpage and silk road. Youtube etc are very much operating in good faith going by these definitions. They take down content that violates copyright and is illegal. They actually give the copyright holder a choice in the matter to either do a takedown or just receive revenue if they would rather. And I think Youtube actually goes too far because the respect legal takedowns from countries that I
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually not seeing that line in the redline or section by section.
For some reason which I can't explain, I didn't see the redline and so I've been working off of the Key Takeaways and Recommendations [justice.gov] document. It's on page 15. However, I think that mistake has served me here because I don't think I'd recognize the second part of section (d)(4) (from the redline) as being anti-encryption without that summary from the Key Takeaways document.
Also, your Terms of Service will not protect you here. That's spelled out explicitly in the Key Takeaways document:
A platform’s removal or restriction of content outside of (c)(2)(A) is not entitled to Section 230 immunity—under either (c)(1) or (c)(2)—even if consistent with the platform’s terms of service.
Though this doesn
Re: (Score:2)
Also, your Terms of Service will not protect you here. That's spelled out explicitly in the Key Takeaways document:
So this is one of the things I hate about reading legal documents is how self referential they can be which forces you to jump back and forth, losing your place and losing context. Your TOS will protect you as long as it doesn't try to ban anything that isn't listed in (c)(2)(A)
(c)(2)(A) is pretty broad about what you can remove.
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 has an objectively
reasonable belief is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent,
promoting terrorism or violent extremism, harassing, promoting self-harm,
or unlawful, whether or not such material is
constitutionally protected; or
The one change I would make to that is to increase it to also cover spam, unapproved advertisements and shilling as well as malware. Normal things moderators would be within their p
Re: (Score:2)
Your TOS will protect you as long as it doesn't try to ban anything that isn't listed in (c)(2)(A)
If you're just sticking with the stuff in (c)(2)(A), then your terms of service is unimportant. You're allowed to remove that stuff regardless of your TOS. Let me again emphasize: this is a list of things that you're allowed to remove from your website, where you pay the hosting fees for all of the crap that you're not allowed to remove.
I read (d)(4) as limiting the design of your service such that you must be able to remove material specified by law enforcement. In other words, you can't operate a servi
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't read the proposals but I do feel that action is required. Political gatekeeping on social media is entirely skewing public debates and media perspectives, which is a disservice to society at large.
More specifically, your point that to person to whom you responded has got it backwards is very valid and entirely undeserving of the current '0 troll' moderation. I guess the very people trying to prevent conflicting views online fear people might agree with you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Only liars like tRump suffer.
Next time, get on your soapbox on the street.
Re:They're trying to turn the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes the cancel culture is bad. So is a bunch of right-wing lunatics running around with guns claiming to defend America but really attempting to intimidate anyone who doesn't think as do they. Their faux combat gear is a delightful comedic pause.
Re:They're trying to turn the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Cancel culture isn't bad. Corporate culture is. Boycotters don't shut things down, they ask for them to be shut down, and then corporate droids actually do the shutting down because only profit matters. The things being shut down were not being made available to make the world a better place, but only to make a profit - and the profit is concentrated in the hands of those who do nothing to create it. The worker's share of profits has been falling throughout history, with few exceptions.
Re:They're trying to turn the Internet (Score:5, Funny)
Me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution. I’ll happily provide video commentary.
— dick costolo (@dickc) October 1, 2020
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying they are causing me to see 404s on your website?
If so, how did they do it? Walk me through that. Call me an idiot while you're doing it, if it helps. I won't mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally that is what "cancel culture" is, and it was invented by people like you.
Haha! I don't know what's funnier: The claim that 'voting with your wallet' is a recent invention of your political opponent, or that you're trying to make this claim while the burning of Nikes because an NFL player kneeled is still in recent memory.
Whats the matter, did "SJW" lose all its meaning?
Re:They're trying to turn the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Antitrust claims would be orthogonal to Section 230 protections, anyway, as intimated by their own explanation above. They just added that as CYA wording and to make their proposed regulations restricting website operators look better.
Not Anti-Tech, Social Media Intimidation (Score:2)
I think it's hyperbole to describe these actions as anti-tech - it's an attempt to intimidate the social media companies to not label the President's and the Republican supporter posts as inaccurate propaganda.
Personally, I always want to look for the root cause and in this case the problem is inaccurate propaganda, stop postting it up and the "problem" should go away.
Re: (Score:2)
The main effects of the proposed changes would be to punish website operators for taking down content coming from third parties, while at the same time making it easier to prosecute those same website operators for leaving up content coming from third parties.
Only the government in power could win that.
Advertising companies (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are we calling advertising companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter "tech"? Serving ads to people isn't very technical.
Re: (Score:2)
Serving ads to people isn't very technical.
No, but targeting them to specific people based on their estimated propensity to click through together with a useful service to draw them in and do it all in a reasonable time for a user-base of billions across dozens of languages is no small technical feat. I'd like to see you do it, if it's so simple.
Re: (Score:2)
90% of it is behavioral research and typical contract stuff...sales, lawyers,etc. The 10% that remains is actually tech, probably 90% of that wasted due to inefficiencies inherent in large multi-party technical projects.
"Pro free-speech", not "anti big tech" (Score:2, Insightful)
The headline uses language intended to spread a narrative.
Alternative language: "Senate Republicans are launching a pro free speech initiative to address tech company censorship".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The headline uses language intended to spread a narrative.
Alternative language: "Senate Republicans are launching a pro free speech initiative to address tech company censorship".
Or "Senate Republicans afraid of having to tell the truth"
Re:"Pro free-speech", not "anti big tech" (Score:4, Insightful)
Or "Senate Republicans refuse to allow fact checking during the debates."
Re: "Pro free-speech", not "anti big tech" (Score:3, Informative)
I guess if you were interested in lying you could say that, so it's a good thing that the headline doesn't read as you suggest.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess if you were interested in lying you could say that, so it's a good thing that the headline doesn't read as you suggest.
Reading the summary alone, which part is "anti-tech"? Asking them to testify, or seeking to address alleged biases?
Would it still be "anti-tech" if the subject was "racial discrimination" instead of "ideological discrimination"?
"In recent weeks, the White House has pressed Senate Republican leaders on key committees to hold public hearings on the law that protects Facebook, Twitter and other internet companies from lawsuits over how they treat user posts, three Senate staffers told POLITICO. They requested
Re: "Pro free-speech", not "anti big tech" (Score:2)
Reading the summary alone, which part is "anti-tech"? Asking them to testify, or seeking to address alleged biases? Would it still be "anti-tech" if the subject was "racial discrimination" instead of "ideological discrimination"?
Very nice begging the question. Kudos.
The part that's "anti-tech" is the part that you didn't see. Various businesses in related industries are gunning for parts of the tech sector because the blame the latter for hurting their business. For example, the Marriott hotel company has been one of a number of parties attacking 47 USC 230 because they want to undermine Airbnb [techdirt.com]. And I think everyone around here is well aware of how the movie and music industries hate the tech sector.
The allegations of bias are rea
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the summary alone, which part is "anti-tech"? Asking them to testify, or seeking to address alleged biases? Would it still be "anti-tech" if the subject was "racial discrimination" instead of "ideological discrimination"?
Very nice begging the question. Kudos.
The part that's "anti-tech" is the part that you didn't see. Various businesses in related industries are gunning for parts of the tech sector because the blame the latter for hurting their business. For example, the Marriott hotel company has been one of a number of parties attacking 47 USC 230 because they want to undermine Airbnb [techdirt.com]. And I think everyone around here is well aware of how the movie and music industries hate the tech sector.
The allegations of bias are really just an excuse, but one that is effective in roping in the Republicans. And helpfully for them, allegations of insufficient bias have been astonishingly pulling in some Democrats.
But that having been said, it is 100% legal for businesses to have a point of view as to morals, civic decency, etc. and to pick and choose who they will do business with based on that. The only exceptions are for race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and a few other very limited categories. (And of course those have been under assault lately by the same sorts of people whining about being discriminated against for trying to dismantle protections against discrimination. If I ran Facebook, perhaps I would ban users who did not appear to understand hypocrisy.)
I agree with you to an extent. It becomes dicey when large businesses with a broad reach decide to discriminate.
For example, I am a gun owner. If the management of my local utilities are anti-gun, can they turn off my water or electricity?
Re: "Pro free-speech", not "anti big tech" (Score:3)
Utilities are a bit special so how about a simpler example: Suppose the owner of your favorite pizzeria is vehemently opposed to guns. Can he blacklist you because he knows of your pro-gun opinions, refusing to sell you a slice in the store* or deliver to your house? Yes he can. Maybe if he loses a lot of business from that he will rethink his position, but if he can be prosperous and act on his beliefs, he will quite certainly be able to do so. There are very few exceptions to this rule. Facebook and Twitt
Re: (Score:2)
Utilities are a bit special so how about a simpler example: Suppose the owner of your favorite pizzeria is vehemently opposed to guns. Can he blacklist you because he knows of your pro-gun opinions, refusing to sell you a slice in the store* or deliver to your house? Yes he can. Maybe if he loses a lot of business from that he will rethink his position, but if he can be prosperous and act on his beliefs, he will quite certainly be able to do so. There are very few exceptions to this rule. Facebook and Twitter aren't any different.
*Assuming there is no pandemic
I submit that it is their scale and impact is what makes them different.
We may think of utilities as being "special", but what sets them apart?
Why can't my ISP cut off my internet service based on ideological beliefs alone?
Re: "Pro free-speech", not "anti big tech" (Score:2)
Utilities are generally treated as special, being subjected to additional regulation, for two reasons:
First, they're often natural monopolies. That is, the sizable initial investment and last mile problem make it unlikely there will be any competitors. You probably only have one power line, one phone line, one cable line, one water line, and one sewage line to your house. Even assuming someone built new power plants, phone central offices, cable tv facilities, waterworks, and sewage plants, and even if they
Re: (Score:2)
Utilities are generally treated as special, being subjected to additional regulation, for two reasons:
First, they're often natural monopolies. That is, the sizable initial investment and last mile problem make it unlikely there will be any competitors. You probably only have one power line, one phone line, one cable line, one water line, and one sewage line to your house. Even assuming someone built new power plants, phone central offices, cable tv facilities, waterworks, and sewage plants, and even if they could do so cheaply enough to compete on price and be profitable, running the service to you would be prohibitively expensive and difficult. Google Fiber tried and was not too successful, for example. Plus now the two utilities are each making less, which might make it even harder for them. Not all features of a utility are natural monopolies though. In terms of, say, cable tv, the company that has hardware in your neighborhood and a wire to your house is, but the actual television channels are not and there's no good reason you couldn't pick and choose which of them you want. But the point is that there could be abuse without competition giving you options. Regulation fills in as a substitute.
Second, they often get various perks from the government. For example, where I live, a power company can take your house in eminent domain, evict you, and tear it down, all to install a power line or substation. They get this power from the government, but the government also regulates the utility to keep it from abusing these powers and requires among other things that services are provided to all.
A broadband ISP should be a regulated utility because of the last mile problem. But the services that run on top of that need not be. And if you'll remember dialup ISPs, they wouldn't need to be because they could all compete and it was the regulated phone company that provided the wiring. Certainly the websites you access via the Internet don't merit regulation as utilities.
You make good points. Utilities are often natural monopolies, but not always. And you mention "But the point is that there could be abuse without competition giving you options. Regulation fills in as a substitute."
While the internet in theory offers unlimited choices in practice there are tech giants who have more or less cornered the market. They have acquired so much critical mass they have become essential services. They have the power to kill off the competition with ease.
I'm in no way begrudging th
Re: "Pro free-speech", not "anti big tech" (Score:2)
Piffle.
They are neither essential nor so secure in their position that they cannot be brought low by normal competition. You might think of Facebook as some sort of permanent institution but I remember a host of similar things before, each the leader in the field at the time, and we will see plenty more when their day is done.
Seriously, the idea that Facebook could be essential is just laughable. You're grasping at straws to justify a reason to allow the speakers of hate speech to have access to polite soci
Re: (Score:2)
Piffle.
They are neither essential nor so secure in their position that they cannot be brought low by normal competition. You might think of Facebook as some sort of permanent institution but I remember a host of similar things before, each the leader in the field at the time, and we will see plenty more when their day is done.
Seriously, the idea that Facebook could be essential is just laughable. You're grasping at straws to justify a reason to allow the speakers of hate speech to have access to polite society and it's really quite sickening as well as unconvincing.
You end with accusations and judgements that are unsupported by this conversation:
I'm not "grasping at straws". I expressed some views about free access to the services that developed outsized impact in our society.
I made no reference to hate speech. Is there an agreed definition as to what hate speech is?
No idea what you classify as "polite society". What is it exactly? Does it include people that curse?
And you end with how you are sickened. I'm sorry if you were upset, I didn't realize you were so d
Re: (Score:2)
Government sanctioned monopolies and regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Government sanctioned monopolies and regulations.
They aren't all monopolies, but they are regulated. Those regulations change all the time for many reasons.
Internet companies are regulated too, and some feel those regulations need change.
Re: (Score:2)
The attack on Section 230 is anti-tech. Without its protections it would be much, much harder to create many kinds of websites, apps and services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Pro free-speech", not "anti big tech" (Score:4, Informative)
You cannot promote free speech by forcing corporations to carry speech they don't want to. That is the opposite of freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:3)
You cannot promote free speech by forcing corporations to carry speech they don't want to. That is the opposite of freedom of speech.
Well said.
It's also worth noting that this is something that Republicans should recognize and appreciate. After all, it was Reagan's administration that got rid of the requirement that radio stations must cover each side of an issue in a neutral fashion (which ended up paving the way for right-wing radio talk shows in the decades that followed). Previously, they were being compelled to carry speech that they didn't agree with, which Reagan considered contrary to free speech, so he had the FCC remove that ru
Re: (Score:2)
No one said anything about leaving them unregulated. We said you can’t fix free speech problems by violating free speech. These companies definitely need regulation, but not in the way that you’ve apparently identified. Use the other levers at your disposal: break them up, compel them to make their platforms open to competitors at cost, or any number of other things.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you would support a cake maker refusing to make a custom cake with a message he or she didn't support? Like a cake for a gay wedding? [wikipedia.org]
The bakery in question did eventually win their case, though according to the Wikipedia article not on free speech grounds. So I guess it remains an open question as to whether forcing a company to carry speech they don't want to is something that should be allowed or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I actually would. I don't think necessities like utilities, supermarkets, or even car dealerships (not having a car makes you a second class citizen in this country, at least most of it) should be able to, but I think that non-essential luxuries like cake bakeries should have the right to refuse to take a job on those grounds. The right way to handle that situation is with shaming, protests, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
So the free market isn't working out so well for them?
Re: (Score:2)
Calling it pro-free-speech is nothing but narrative. That these people think companies like Google or Facebook have even the capacity to ever censor anyone, is laughable. But it's a lot less funny once they explain their "solution" to the problem, and then you see their sense of entitlement to other peoples' marketing, storage, networks and services. Combine that with their atypical rejection of DIY attitude, and it's hard to believe they're the same people (!?) who were pissed off by Obama's "you didn't ma
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative language: "Senate Republicans are launching a pro-Republican initiative to prosecute tech companies for taking down things Republicans like while at the same time prosecuting them for leaving things up that Republicans don't like".
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative language: "Senate Republicans are launching a pro-Republican initiative to prosecute tech companies for taking down things Republicans like while at the same time prosecuting them for leaving things up that Republicans don't like".
You're not very good at this narrative thing
Re: (Score:3)
Your title is a lie. "Free speech" is not spreading Russian Propaganda and only government can censor
This is laughably wrong on every level.
More is needed (Score:2)
Re:More is needed (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no law requiring you to have accounts on social media platforms. I don't have an account on Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have an account on Facebook
...that you know the password for. Your data is already there, thanks to machine learning and friends/relatives/neighbors who upload every detail of their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone knowing something about you and you having an active account with them are two different things. It's a bit disingenuous to raise a privacy angle in a thread that is clearly about active use of a platforms and the communications on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans like to "work the ref" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a continuation of their decades-long strategy of "working the ref". That is, they complain about anything they don't like reported by the media, accusing them loudly of bias, in order to scare reporters into not reporting objective facts for fear of triggering an avalanche of whining. And it's worked - look at how journalists just repeat Democratic and Republican claims, and no longer attempt to report facts, or call out lies. It's amazing how cowardly US reporting has become compared to most other countries. That's the result of decades of harassment, and of course almost all US media being owned by huge corporations who are risk-averse.
Re:Republicans like to "work the ref" (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks to the internet, journalism is so penniless and desperate that they can't do anything more than take the easy way out, mostly through emulating tabloids and creating click-bait headlines for vapid or self-indulgent articles. They just toss out the kind of meat their target demographic likes and keep a sharp eye on the ad revenue. Complaints are anecdotal, clicks are money.
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to say the same, this is a playbook they have been using for upwards of twenty years: Accuse the media of bias against them regardless of actual fact, forcing them to bias toward Republican views in order to seem "balanced". For quite some time that has allowed them special treatment, as well as giving them a means to insert counterfactual narratives in the name of "alternative viewpoints".
From my viewpoint this plan has started to break down over the last few years, as the general media has mov
"Back to basics, my flying monkeys!" (Score:2, Insightful)
To me, this is just another aspect of the anti-science, anti-reason political posturing of what was once known as the Republican Party. Aggravated by the extreme party discipline, which actually goes back long before Trump. The so-called Hastert Rule and demonization of Democrats by Gingrich are noteworthy. (Motivated by fear of corporatist Democrats "stealing" one of "their" issues?)
Now the big boss says to attack high-tech computer companies! "Attack, attack!"
Just another attempt to change the subject bef
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh*
s/mad a big splash/made a big splash/
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh*
s/Otoshizaro/Otoshizaru/
Re:"Back to basics, my flying monkeys!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What does a guy have to do to get a funny mod around this joint? I'm basically in concurrence with you on your substance, but I was trying to treat it more lightly.
By the way, my primary informant for Japanese says "Otoshizaru" is more like being a dropped monkey, but my next idea of "Kudarizaru" along the lines of a descending elevator didn't get more approval or even a chuckle. However my informant doesn't have much of a sense of humor.
Then I tried to start writing another joke, but Windows 10 froze and n
"anti-tech" ?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
it might be many things, and that's the topic of discussion, but not anti-tech
the headline, however, is clickbait and deceitful; at some point when coming up with a headline, somebody is making the conscious decision to sacrifice truth and accuracy for the benefits of luring eyeballs to garner ad revenue and racking up page hits; nothing like overplaying the controversy angle to justify that raise and promotion; I'd bet this same person believes themselves to be of high morals and a good person
no need for anyone to do anything, just registering my discontent on the internet and getting a good dose of that nice self-important, smug assurance that helps me cope with the world
Re: (Score:3)
It's a shorthand for "anti-tech company". The manchild has a decades-long tradition of initiating legal action against anyone who dares to speak unflatteringly. Direct the Senate to open the litigation floodgates and you don't even need to do that. Other people will start paying their lawyers to do it.
Tortured English (Score:3)
The provision -- enshrined in a 1996 law known as Section 230 -- has allowed online businesses to grow without fear of lawsuits over user posts or their decisions to remove or otherwise moderate users' content.
The 1996 law known as the Communications Decency Act, commonly abbreviated as CDA, contains a Section 230, the provision in question. But you sure wouldn't know that from this inept summary.
As I recall, Slashdot wasn't too pleased with the CDA at the time, though not specifically Section 230.
Still a month to go before the elections(s) (Score:2)
Plenty of time to top off the election fund coffers.
Can we have an anti-monopoly blitz instead? (Score:2)
Instead of threatening to nuke the Internet with insane legal theories of boundless liability by proxy... they could instead go after companies like Google and Facebook on anti-trust grounds.
Ultimately it will be the large monopolies with fully staffed legal departments and full time compliance goons who reap benefit from red tape. Monopolies often are the ones cheerleading new regulation with open arms because they know it ultimately serves as yet another barrier for entry into their market.
Ironic (Score:2)
Ignorant boomers sharing his BS on facebook was a direct contributor to his victory in 2016.
Tech companies biased? (Score:3)
I think it's time to face the facts that much of America is currently biased against republicans. They have only their own lying corrupt selves to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
As seen on elections. Oh wait...
What do you mean oh wait? https://projects.fivethirtyeig... [fivethirtyeight.com]
Really? (Score:2)
I thought they were anti-tech and anti-science from the get-go.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't they just refuse to respond to the subpoena? (Score:2)
Upping scrutiny of social media isn't anti-tech (Score:2)
I mean, I understand "Orange Man Bad" but just redefining what words mean and outright lying...isn't that what we condemn him for doing all the time?
Oh, no, Demoncrats aren't supposed to be good... (Score:2)
at using social media. Only Reptilians can use social media, and if the Bad People are using it, we need to shut them down.
Besides, they're starting to filter Trumpolini ads as fake news....
Re: No the other guys censor, not us! (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of the First Amendment is to stop those in power from silencing speech that gets in their way.
No, it's to stop the government from silencing speech and to stop them from mandating speech. Private actors, whether individual people, groups, or businesses, are protected by the right but not obligated to respect it. If, for example, the owner of /. decided to ban you and delete your posts, they'd be well within their rights to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the First Amendment is to stop those in power from silencing speech that gets in their way.
No, it's to stop the government from silencing speech and to stop them from mandating speech
Is this a semantic argument or do you actually have a different operating definition of "those in power" than "the government" ? As far as I'm concerned "those in power" is another way of saying "the government." I've tried to think of a single example of an entity or actor for whom I would use the term "in power", other than the government, and I've got nothing.
Re: No the other guys censor, not us! (Score:3)
Lots of people wield power without being in the government. Religious leaders, the wealthy (varying depending on the size of the pond; the owner of a few local car dealerships can have the sort of influence locally that a multi billionaire can have nationally), the heads of major businesses or sports teams, etc.
Zuckerberg, for example, has a lot of power because he controls Facebook and can thus exert a lot of influence over elections, grass roots political movements, genocidal campaigns, etc. In some resp
Re: (Score:2)
That didn't answer my question nor even acknowledge the point I was trying to make.
I'm not talking about people who "have power". I'm saying that the words "in power" are a figure of speech. Another way of saying "in office."
In other words, I interpreted the person you were responding to as speaking specifically about government due to his choice of words. He didn't say people who have power, he said people IN power. That means something very specific to me at least: government.
The conversation about whethe
Re: No the other guys censor, not us! (Score:3)
I don't think "in power" is necessarily synonymous with controlling the government.
But I think we nevertheless understand our points and are in agreement though; I said that the first amendment only places controls over the government, as you'll recall.
Re: No the other guys censor, not us! (Score:3)
Technically, a private organization or individual that works under a government contract or receives substantial funding from the government can also violate your 1A rights. This is why there are so many campus free speech controversies.