|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 01:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 01:00 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 00:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 00:19 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 23:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 21 2017 21:57 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 14:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 13:29 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
They could just be a real media company and have an editorial staff, but that would get in the way of them soaking up ad dollars. I really have zero sympathy for companies that build their buisness on disrupting established industries. The networks and media facebook would be out of buisness if they ran white nationalist news stories. No paper in the country could function for long shilling the 14 words. But facebook, reddit and twitter convinced everyone that they can't moderate their own services, so its just the price of free speech to have nazis use their sites. And if they happen to make money off the hate groups. Well that isn't their fault either, since they are so big. Except Facebook, while always intended as a disruptive business, was never built to disrupt the news industry. Not because of a lack of desire, I doubt, but because no one could have predicted that these internet services would overtake the entire news industry. And part of that is the news industry's complete lack of foresight or motivation to update themselves to an internet era. And part of that is everyone underestimating how willing people are to intentionally blinder themselves outside of their established worldviews. But one way or another, people would rather have information fed to them through a social circle instead of a informed source, so these tech companies are playing catch-up to improve a service they didn't know they'd be providing. Also, probably importantly, I doubt 20 or 15 years ago people would've thought Nazi groups were genuinely a "thing". Yes, there is some vague sentiment of people like that still being out there, and they'd occasionally pop up in the news as a reminder. But it's really the information propagation of these social media services that these groups have properly entered public consciousness again. Which is the catch 22 of only knowing there's a problem that needs addressing, only after you've exposed it. It also isn’t a level playing field. Facebook and others on the internet have complete liability protection that no TV network or news paper enjoys. They don’t need fact checkers because they can’t be sued if the facts on their site or incorrect. They are also not under the same regulatory scrutiny, since they don’t have provide or keep public records of political ads bought on the serve or details as to how they were distributed. Disruptive is just a buzz word for “dodging regulations”. The news industry has plenty of faults, I’m not buying into the tech industry’s PR just providing a better service. They entered the field with an unfair advantage due to lack of regulation and act like it was a meritocracy the whole time. Which is complete bullshit. As for the hate groups and Nazis, people have been complaining to facebook about that for years. And reddit. And youtube. All the way back to 2014 and earlier. There is no way they didn’t know about this, people have been telling them for years. Yep, you just need to look at Uber to see how "disruption" can boil down to "avoiding the spirit of the law because the letter of it hasn't caught up to tech yet." The difference between Uber and these web services is that Uber is actually violating laws and regulations that were in place. Governments are just selectively ignoring those rules. Facebook, Reddit, etc. are all completed uncharted territory when it comes to regulating. P6 talks about liability for incorrect facts, except those sites and those organizations are not posting those facts. Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. And as for advertising, those regulations haven't changed since 2006. Facebook, Reddit and Twitter had only just entered the market in 2006. And it's not lobbying that prevented regulation, because these internet tech giants only started spending huge lobbying dollars in the new tens (when things like SOPA started getting pushed around). Again, I don’t have a lot of reverence for companies that built their entire product on a liability protection handed on in the mid 1990s. They entire business model is built on a law that was pretty outdated at the time Facebook was founded. There is no way they would use software or crowd sourcing to moderate their sites if they didn’t have this liability protection. Their business model is built on not having to worry about things out media companies worry about. And just for everyone’s information, the tech industry lobbies constantly to assure that regulation never gets updated. They love that liability protection. They know it’s the cornerstone of their industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act Yeah...while I understand why people might hate Section 230, it (or similar laws in other countries) is also the reason why everything I ever use on the internet exists (including Liquid and Twitch). It's a regulation that could be updated, but not to the extent that you probably want. At least not without breaking the internet and almost everything you enjoy about it. But it doesn’t need to be stripped or destroyed. Just updated once in 20 years. Maybe publically listed companies like facebook might not enjoy the same protection as TL? Maybe reddit and twitter should be held accountable for being unable to stop people from creating harassment campaigns on their service? Maybe sites like TL should still have that protection, because they are tiny. Except no other industry is responsible for stopping any of that, either. News papers and magazines are not responsible for what is printed on their pages? They can’t create some sort of blind submission program that automatically ads articles to the next issue and say “not our fault if it calls for people harass someone. This system allows everyone to speak.” The same with personal ads in the news paper or letters to the editor. Only the internet receives the magical protection where you profit off of other peoples articles, but not be responsible for the content of those articles. And its not even all of the internet. Buzzfeed doesn’t get this protection, because they employee writers and a editorial staff. Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 01:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, I'm pretty sure if you sell a billboard space to a harassment billboard you can be held liable. Though it's actually surprisingly difficult to find that information when I tried to dig into it. And ad space on TL/Facebook is about as different from billboards as taxi services are from Uber, which is to say not at all That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets.
Apples to apples comparison please.
When's the last time a printing press maker was sued for a defamatory story? No, that's not exactly the same as Facebook either, but it's a lot closer than a News company.
Also, not sure if this has ever actually been tested in court, but you're making it sound like Facebook couldn't be sued for a defamatory ad. And Section 230 does not cover that, from what I know. Now, advertising to Nazis isn't illegal at all, for anyone, it's just in very, very bad taste.
|
On September 22 2017 01:39 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 01:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 01:00 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 00:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 00:19 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 23:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 21 2017 21:57 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 14:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Except Facebook, while always intended as a disruptive business, was never built to disrupt the news industry. Not because of a lack of desire, I doubt, but because no one could have predicted that these internet services would overtake the entire news industry.
And part of that is the news industry's complete lack of foresight or motivation to update themselves to an internet era. And part of that is everyone underestimating how willing people are to intentionally blinder themselves outside of their established worldviews. But one way or another, people would rather have information fed to them through a social circle instead of a informed source, so these tech companies are playing catch-up to improve a service they didn't know they'd be providing.
Also, probably importantly, I doubt 20 or 15 years ago people would've thought Nazi groups were genuinely a "thing". Yes, there is some vague sentiment of people like that still being out there, and they'd occasionally pop up in the news as a reminder. But it's really the information propagation of these social media services that these groups have properly entered public consciousness again. Which is the catch 22 of only knowing there's a problem that needs addressing, only after you've exposed it. It also isn’t a level playing field. Facebook and others on the internet have complete liability protection that no TV network or news paper enjoys. They don’t need fact checkers because they can’t be sued if the facts on their site or incorrect. They are also not under the same regulatory scrutiny, since they don’t have provide or keep public records of political ads bought on the serve or details as to how they were distributed. Disruptive is just a buzz word for “dodging regulations”. The news industry has plenty of faults, I’m not buying into the tech industry’s PR just providing a better service. They entered the field with an unfair advantage due to lack of regulation and act like it was a meritocracy the whole time. Which is complete bullshit. As for the hate groups and Nazis, people have been complaining to facebook about that for years. And reddit. And youtube. All the way back to 2014 and earlier. There is no way they didn’t know about this, people have been telling them for years. Yep, you just need to look at Uber to see how "disruption" can boil down to "avoiding the spirit of the law because the letter of it hasn't caught up to tech yet." The difference between Uber and these web services is that Uber is actually violating laws and regulations that were in place. Governments are just selectively ignoring those rules. Facebook, Reddit, etc. are all completed uncharted territory when it comes to regulating. P6 talks about liability for incorrect facts, except those sites and those organizations are not posting those facts. Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. And as for advertising, those regulations haven't changed since 2006. Facebook, Reddit and Twitter had only just entered the market in 2006. And it's not lobbying that prevented regulation, because these internet tech giants only started spending huge lobbying dollars in the new tens (when things like SOPA started getting pushed around). Again, I don’t have a lot of reverence for companies that built their entire product on a liability protection handed on in the mid 1990s. They entire business model is built on a law that was pretty outdated at the time Facebook was founded. There is no way they would use software or crowd sourcing to moderate their sites if they didn’t have this liability protection. Their business model is built on not having to worry about things out media companies worry about. And just for everyone’s information, the tech industry lobbies constantly to assure that regulation never gets updated. They love that liability protection. They know it’s the cornerstone of their industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act Yeah...while I understand why people might hate Section 230, it (or similar laws in other countries) is also the reason why everything I ever use on the internet exists (including Liquid and Twitch). It's a regulation that could be updated, but not to the extent that you probably want. At least not without breaking the internet and almost everything you enjoy about it. But it doesn’t need to be stripped or destroyed. Just updated once in 20 years. Maybe publically listed companies like facebook might not enjoy the same protection as TL? Maybe reddit and twitter should be held accountable for being unable to stop people from creating harassment campaigns on their service? Maybe sites like TL should still have that protection, because they are tiny. Except no other industry is responsible for stopping any of that, either. News papers and magazines are not responsible for what is printed on their pages? They can’t create some sort of blind submission program that automatically ads articles to the next issue and say “not our fault if it calls for people harass someone. This system allows everyone to speak.” The same with personal ads in the news paper or letters to the editor. Only the internet receives the magical protection where you profit off of other peoples articles, but not be responsible for the content of those articles. And its not even all of the internet. Buzzfeed doesn’t get this protection, because they employee writers and a editorial staff. On September 22 2017 01:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, I'm pretty sure if you sell a billboard space to a harassment billboard you can be held liable. Though it's actually surprisingly difficult to find that information when I tried to dig into it. And ad space on TL/Facebook is about as different from billboards as taxi services are from Uber, which is to say not at all That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. Apples to apples comparison please. When's the last time a printing press maker was sued for a defamatory story? No, that's not exactly the same as Facebook either, but it's a lot closer than a News company. Also, not sure if this has ever actually been tested in court, but you're making it sound like Facebook couldn't be sued for a defamatory ad. And Section 230 does not cover that, from what I know. Now, advertising to Nazis isn't illegal at all, for anyone, it's just in very, very bad taste.
Facebook invented its own The Space Apple, which functions a lot like normal apples. But they are from space, which can't be regulated. Because space is the future and we can't regulate space. Please excuse the hyperbole, but you said name one industry and then demanded apples to apples comparisons. You need to be more specific.
How often do papers and news agencies publish corrections? A lot, because they have to or they will get sued. Also Gawker got sued into the ground. That case was some hot bullshit, but it happened. Tabloids get sued all the time and have to issue corrections as part of the settlement.
Advertising to Nazis isn't illegal. But profiting from groups that promote hate, harassment and violence normally gets companies landed in a civil action, which is what we have been talking about.
|
The problem is that people are stupid and take way too much stuff as "actual news".
Just look at commentary sectins under articles clearly marked as oppinion/satire/editorial or whatever.
|
On September 22 2017 01:49 Velr wrote:
The problem is that people are stupid and take way too much stuff as "actual news".
Just look at commentary sectins under articles clearly marked as oppinion/satire/editorial or whatever.
As zlefin has often noted, the stupidity of the masses is indeed the problem, but if we're looking for solutions, "make everyone not stupid" isn't super practical. I'm not sure p6 is exactly right about how tech should be handled, but he's not wrong to highlight some of these problems as places where regulation might do some good.
|
I would just like regulations of a fast moving industry like the internet be updated most often than once every 20 years. I don't think this is some crazy, outlandish opinion. They can still be well behind the curve by doing it once every 10 years.
And people will be shocked how much a little fear of liability will make companies behave better. Just a pinch.
|
On September 22 2017 01:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 01:39 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 01:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 01:00 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 00:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 00:19 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 23:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 21 2017 21:57 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It also isn’t a level playing field. Facebook and others on the internet have complete liability protection that no TV network or news paper enjoys. They don’t need fact checkers because they can’t be sued if the facts on their site or incorrect. They are also not under the same regulatory scrutiny, since they don’t have provide or keep public records of political ads bought on the serve or details as to how they were distributed. Disruptive is just a buzz word for “dodging regulations”.
The news industry has plenty of faults, I’m not buying into the tech industry’s PR just providing a better service. They entered the field with an unfair advantage due to lack of regulation and act like it was a meritocracy the whole time. Which is complete bullshit.
As for the hate groups and Nazis, people have been complaining to facebook about that for years. And reddit. And youtube. All the way back to 2014 and earlier. There is no way they didn’t know about this, people have been telling them for years.
Yep, you just need to look at Uber to see how "disruption" can boil down to "avoiding the spirit of the law because the letter of it hasn't caught up to tech yet." The difference between Uber and these web services is that Uber is actually violating laws and regulations that were in place. Governments are just selectively ignoring those rules. Facebook, Reddit, etc. are all completed uncharted territory when it comes to regulating. P6 talks about liability for incorrect facts, except those sites and those organizations are not posting those facts. Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. And as for advertising, those regulations haven't changed since 2006. Facebook, Reddit and Twitter had only just entered the market in 2006. And it's not lobbying that prevented regulation, because these internet tech giants only started spending huge lobbying dollars in the new tens (when things like SOPA started getting pushed around). Again, I don’t have a lot of reverence for companies that built their entire product on a liability protection handed on in the mid 1990s. They entire business model is built on a law that was pretty outdated at the time Facebook was founded. There is no way they would use software or crowd sourcing to moderate their sites if they didn’t have this liability protection. Their business model is built on not having to worry about things out media companies worry about. And just for everyone’s information, the tech industry lobbies constantly to assure that regulation never gets updated. They love that liability protection. They know it’s the cornerstone of their industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act Yeah...while I understand why people might hate Section 230, it (or similar laws in other countries) is also the reason why everything I ever use on the internet exists (including Liquid and Twitch). It's a regulation that could be updated, but not to the extent that you probably want. At least not without breaking the internet and almost everything you enjoy about it. But it doesn’t need to be stripped or destroyed. Just updated once in 20 years. Maybe publically listed companies like facebook might not enjoy the same protection as TL? Maybe reddit and twitter should be held accountable for being unable to stop people from creating harassment campaigns on their service? Maybe sites like TL should still have that protection, because they are tiny. Except no other industry is responsible for stopping any of that, either. News papers and magazines are not responsible for what is printed on their pages? They can’t create some sort of blind submission program that automatically ads articles to the next issue and say “not our fault if it calls for people harass someone. This system allows everyone to speak.” The same with personal ads in the news paper or letters to the editor. Only the internet receives the magical protection where you profit off of other peoples articles, but not be responsible for the content of those articles. And its not even all of the internet. Buzzfeed doesn’t get this protection, because they employee writers and a editorial staff. On September 22 2017 01:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, I'm pretty sure if you sell a billboard space to a harassment billboard you can be held liable. Though it's actually surprisingly difficult to find that information when I tried to dig into it. And ad space on TL/Facebook is about as different from billboards as taxi services are from Uber, which is to say not at all That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. Apples to apples comparison please. When's the last time a printing press maker was sued for a defamatory story? No, that's not exactly the same as Facebook either, but it's a lot closer than a News company. Also, not sure if this has ever actually been tested in court, but you're making it sound like Facebook couldn't be sued for a defamatory ad. And Section 230 does not cover that, from what I know. Now, advertising to Nazis isn't illegal at all, for anyone, it's just in very, very bad taste. Facebook invented its own The Space Apple, which functions a lot like normal apples. But they are from space, which can't be regulated. Because space is the future and we can't regulate space. Please excuse the hyperbole, but you said name one industry and then demanded apples to apples comparisons. How often do papers and news agencies publish corrections? A lot, because they have to or they will get sued. Also Gawker got sued into the ground. That case was some hot bullshit, but it happened. Tabloids get sued all the time and have to issue corrections as part of the settlement. Advertising to Nazis isn't illegal. But profiting from groups that promote hate, harassment and violence normally gets companies landed in a civil action, which is what we have been talking about.
It's a bad comparison because you keep calling Facebook a publisher. And they're not a publisher. Which is like the entire point.
How often does the New York Times publish a correction for a user comment? Never. How many times have they lost a lawsuit over a user comment? Never.
|
The New York Times website can be easily distinguished from Facebook if you're asking those questions though. The former exists for the purpose of disseminating news stories with comment functions attached whereas the latter exists primarily as a platform for comment sharing in the first place. In that sense, it's not unreasonable to assign publisher liability differently between the two.
|
On September 22 2017 02:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 01:48 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 01:39 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 01:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 01:00 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 00:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 00:19 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 23:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Yep, you just need to look at Uber to see how "disruption" can boil down to "avoiding the spirit of the law because the letter of it hasn't caught up to tech yet."
The difference between Uber and these web services is that Uber is actually violating laws and regulations that were in place. Governments are just selectively ignoring those rules. Facebook, Reddit, etc. are all completed uncharted territory when it comes to regulating. P6 talks about liability for incorrect facts, except those sites and those organizations are not posting those facts. Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. And as for advertising, those regulations haven't changed since 2006. Facebook, Reddit and Twitter had only just entered the market in 2006. And it's not lobbying that prevented regulation, because these internet tech giants only started spending huge lobbying dollars in the new tens (when things like SOPA started getting pushed around). Again, I don’t have a lot of reverence for companies that built their entire product on a liability protection handed on in the mid 1990s. They entire business model is built on a law that was pretty outdated at the time Facebook was founded. There is no way they would use software or crowd sourcing to moderate their sites if they didn’t have this liability protection. Their business model is built on not having to worry about things out media companies worry about. And just for everyone’s information, the tech industry lobbies constantly to assure that regulation never gets updated. They love that liability protection. They know it’s the cornerstone of their industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act Yeah...while I understand why people might hate Section 230, it (or similar laws in other countries) is also the reason why everything I ever use on the internet exists (including Liquid and Twitch). It's a regulation that could be updated, but not to the extent that you probably want. At least not without breaking the internet and almost everything you enjoy about it. But it doesn’t need to be stripped or destroyed. Just updated once in 20 years. Maybe publically listed companies like facebook might not enjoy the same protection as TL? Maybe reddit and twitter should be held accountable for being unable to stop people from creating harassment campaigns on their service? Maybe sites like TL should still have that protection, because they are tiny. Except no other industry is responsible for stopping any of that, either. News papers and magazines are not responsible for what is printed on their pages? They can’t create some sort of blind submission program that automatically ads articles to the next issue and say “not our fault if it calls for people harass someone. This system allows everyone to speak.” The same with personal ads in the news paper or letters to the editor. Only the internet receives the magical protection where you profit off of other peoples articles, but not be responsible for the content of those articles. And its not even all of the internet. Buzzfeed doesn’t get this protection, because they employee writers and a editorial staff. On September 22 2017 01:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, I'm pretty sure if you sell a billboard space to a harassment billboard you can be held liable. Though it's actually surprisingly difficult to find that information when I tried to dig into it. And ad space on TL/Facebook is about as different from billboards as taxi services are from Uber, which is to say not at all That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. Apples to apples comparison please. When's the last time a printing press maker was sued for a defamatory story? No, that's not exactly the same as Facebook either, but it's a lot closer than a News company. Also, not sure if this has ever actually been tested in court, but you're making it sound like Facebook couldn't be sued for a defamatory ad. And Section 230 does not cover that, from what I know. Now, advertising to Nazis isn't illegal at all, for anyone, it's just in very, very bad taste. Facebook invented its own The Space Apple, which functions a lot like normal apples. But they are from space, which can't be regulated. Because space is the future and we can't regulate space. Please excuse the hyperbole, but you said name one industry and then demanded apples to apples comparisons. How often do papers and news agencies publish corrections? A lot, because they have to or they will get sued. Also Gawker got sued into the ground. That case was some hot bullshit, but it happened. Tabloids get sued all the time and have to issue corrections as part of the settlement. Advertising to Nazis isn't illegal. But profiting from groups that promote hate, harassment and violence normally gets companies landed in a civil action, which is what we have been talking about. It's a bad comparison because you keep calling Facebook a publisher. And they're not a publisher. Which is like the entire point. How often does the New York Times publish a correction for a user comment? Never. How many times have they lost a lawsuit over a user comment? Never.
The thing is I don't buy into your logic that they are not a publisher. They function the exact same way a publisher does. They have a product they sell the public. They take in money for ads on that product and the feature stories on that product. And they share the profits from those featured stories with the group that wrote them. They even offer services to target the exposure of ads and stories. They do all the things publishers do, but they aren't a publisher because they say so.
And the New York Times does not profit from their comments section. And they moderate it.
|
On September 22 2017 02:08 farvacola wrote:
The New York Times website can be easily distinguished from Facebook if you're asking those questions though. The former exists for the purpose of disseminating news stories with comment functions attached whereas the latter exists primarily as a platform for comment sharing in the first place. In that sense, it's not unreasonable to assign publisher liability differently between the two.
Yeah, that's why it's kind of the whole point. The law explicitly states they are not publishers.
And yes, there's the argument that they should be considered publishers. As long as you're also acknowledging that you basically don't want the internet, and internet services, to exist anymore.
|
That facebook is shielded in the US from all kinds of responsibility concerning the comments people make on the platform is awful. They make a shit-ton of money from 'disrupting' any form of reasonable discourse. If you're making money of an infrastructure you are, at least to a reasonable degree, responsible for what happens on it.
|
On September 22 2017 02:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 02:08 farvacola wrote:
The New York Times website can be easily distinguished from Facebook if you're asking those questions though. The former exists for the purpose of disseminating news stories with comment functions attached whereas the latter exists primarily as a platform for comment sharing in the first place. In that sense, it's not unreasonable to assign publisher liability differently between the two. Yeah, that's why it's kind of the whole point. The law explicitly states they are not publishers. And yes, there's the argument that they should be considered publishers. As long as you're also acknowledging that you basically don't want the internet, and internet services, to exist anymore.
No, that's not consistent with what you're agreeing to; the idea that Facebook should be assigned a different kind of publisher liability easily gels with enforcing the terms of said liability through methods unlike typical defamation actions or other routine causes of action against publishers. For example, regulatorily mandated oversight on the part of Facebook with regards to filtering out or even simply identifying specific kinds of inputs would likely keep out a lot of the garbage that floats around willy nilly. The FCC could very easily be assigned special rule-making authority as an additional layer of oversight. This condescendingly hyperbolic "I guess you don't want the internet if you want Facebook to be more accountable for what it disseminates" nonsense is just that.
|
On September 22 2017 02:24 Nyxisto wrote:
That facebook is shielded in the US from all kinds of responsibility concerning the comments people make on the platform is awful. They make a shit-ton of money from 'disrupting' any form of reasonable discourse. If you're making money of an infrastructure you are, at least to a reasonable degree, responsible for what happens on it.
But we can't make them responsible in any way without destroying the internet, apparently.
|
Butbut freespeech.
There is memeing
There is trolling
But there is also plain hate camouflaged as news or truth.
|
On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task.
its called education and critical thinking
On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote:
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date.
2nd amendment cough cough 
On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets.
let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content".
|
On September 22 2017 02:27 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 02:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 02:08 farvacola wrote:
The New York Times website can be easily distinguished from Facebook if you're asking those questions though. The former exists for the purpose of disseminating news stories with comment functions attached whereas the latter exists primarily as a platform for comment sharing in the first place. In that sense, it's not unreasonable to assign publisher liability differently between the two. Yeah, that's why it's kind of the whole point. The law explicitly states they are not publishers. And yes, there's the argument that they should be considered publishers. As long as you're also acknowledging that you basically don't want the internet, and internet services, to exist anymore. No, that's not consistent with what you're agreeing to; the idea that Facebook should be assigned a different kind of publisher liability easily gels with enforcing the terms of said liability through methods unlike typical defamation actions or other routine causes of action against publishers. For example, regulatorily mandated oversight on the part of Facebook with regards to filtering out or even simply identifying specific kinds of inputs would likely keep out a lot of the garbage that floats around willy nilly. The FCC could very easily be assigned special rule-making authority as an additional layer of oversight. This condescendingly hyperbolic "I guess you don't want the internet if you want Facebook to be more accountable for what it disseminates" nonsense is just that.
This is entirely different than holding Facebook responsible for defamatory comments, but let me parse this out then:
1) The FCC would set a specific list of restricted content.
2) Internet services must block that restricted content.
This was tried with pornographic material at the same time Section 230 was written into law. That part was ruled unconstitutional after it went to court.
This also doesn't address defamatory or harassing content, which was the major point of contention. The FCC cannot just say "defamation or harassment can't be on your service". If they did, yes, that would break the internet. Team Liquid would be sued or fined if I insulted you, for example (and I have a hard time buying that TL is too small or not profitable enough that they'd be exempt).
Saying it would break the internet may sound like hyperbole, but think how many internet related services you use that rely on user interaction or user generated content, and consider how many would exist if the law said they are directly responsible for everything their users say. Answer will probably be most of them, and very few of them, respectively.
|
On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking
There's some recent research out there, some quoted in Jason Brennan's Against Democracy that higher education and higher involvement in politics actually increases bias instead of reducing it, because involved or intelligent people are just as, if not more likely to rationalise their prejudices.
'Educationalism' isn't really a cure for anything, this is a civic and political problem.
let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content".
phone companies facilitate private, not public communication. You don't reach people you don't know over a phone. It's not a means of talking to society at large or producing viral content. That's a bad comparison.
|
On September 22 2017 02:50 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking There's some recent research out there, some quoted in Jason Brennan's Against Democracy that higher education and higher involvement in politics actually increases bias instead of reducing it, because involved or intelligent people are just as, if not more likely to rationalise their prejudices. 'Educationalism' isn't really a cure for anything, this is a civic and political problem.
care to see that I included critical thinking. as a teacher, I can tell you that education solves most problems, but we fail to teach critical thinking
On September 22 2017 02:50 Nyxisto wrote:
phone companies facilitate private, not public communication. You don't reach people you don't know over a phone. It's not a means of talking to society at large or producing viral content. That's a bad comparison.
thats the best you'll ever get, because these are different times and different means of communication, but the idea is the same. you have a company that provides the means for communication.
|
On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote:
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date. 2nd amendment cough cough Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content".
Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar.
|
On September 22 2017 02:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 02:27 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2017 02:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 02:08 farvacola wrote:
The New York Times website can be easily distinguished from Facebook if you're asking those questions though. The former exists for the purpose of disseminating news stories with comment functions attached whereas the latter exists primarily as a platform for comment sharing in the first place. In that sense, it's not unreasonable to assign publisher liability differently between the two. Yeah, that's why it's kind of the whole point. The law explicitly states they are not publishers. And yes, there's the argument that they should be considered publishers. As long as you're also acknowledging that you basically don't want the internet, and internet services, to exist anymore. No, that's not consistent with what you're agreeing to; the idea that Facebook should be assigned a different kind of publisher liability easily gels with enforcing the terms of said liability through methods unlike typical defamation actions or other routine causes of action against publishers. For example, regulatorily mandated oversight on the part of Facebook with regards to filtering out or even simply identifying specific kinds of inputs would likely keep out a lot of the garbage that floats around willy nilly. The FCC could very easily be assigned special rule-making authority as an additional layer of oversight. This condescendingly hyperbolic "I guess you don't want the internet if you want Facebook to be more accountable for what it disseminates" nonsense is just that. This is entirely different than holding Facebook responsible for defamatory comments, but let me parse this out then: 1) The FCC would set a specific list of restricted content. 2) Internet services must block that restricted content. This was tried with pornographic material at the same time Section 230 was written into law. That part was ruled unconstitutional after it went to court. This also doesn't address defamatory or harassing content, which was the major point of contention. The FCC cannot just say "defamation or harassment can't be on your service". If they did, yes, that would break the internet. Team Liquid would be sued or fined if I insulted you, for example (and I have a hard time buying that TL is too small or not profitable enough that they'd be exempt). Saying it would break the internet may sound like hyperbole, but think how many internet related services you use that rely on user interaction or user generated content, and consider how many would exist if the law said they are directly responsible for everything their users say. Answer will probably be most of them, and very few of them, respectively.
Look, just because you lack the imagination to come up with a constitutional and appropriate method of increasing Facebook's legal responsibility when it comes to what their site is used for does not mean that shoehorning every proposal into the same built-to-fail scheme is the only way to make sense of this. Unique and unprecedented media forms must be approached from a similar perspective regulation-wise; straight up "these forms of speech are restricted" rules are only the tip of the iceberg and not a good reason to start positing that reformers want to do away with the internet. Like I already said, even a simple registry system in which Facebook IDs and pools potentially problematic comments could help cut down on hostile/dangerous/malicious posts, particularly if it were partnered with an FCC program aimed at assisting victims seeking relief from harassment.
|
On September 22 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar.
find me another example of a means of communication that has user generated content. I'm really sorry that this is the first one that sells ad space. lol
btw I do get calls from firms and services that offer their products to me and some of them are know quack. Do you mean to tell me you would blame the phone company for that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
