Section 230 is in trouble -- at last !

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
User avatar
wexter
Sucks Fan
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 67 times

Re: Section 230 is in trouble -- at last !

Post by wexter » Wed May 04, 2022 10:18 pm

Litigation is a non-starter because of 230.. case dismissed... 100% of the time.

If you post a bad review of a business on google you can be sued; the same potential exists on Wikipedia.

Both, Google and Wikipedia are fully protected by section 230.

If you were sued because you edited Wikipedia; an internal business judgement might be made by WMF (based on their needs to repel a test case) to defend you (or not, more likley).

You can be sued for anything by anyone justified or not.

Notice that Wikipedia entries are developed by a mosh-pit of people. You are safer poking the bear on Wikipedia then you would be reviewing a business on Google.

I remember seeing an WP:outing of a Wikipedian on youtube by a justifiably aggrieved victim of an errant, false, and harassing biography; He was able to smoke out an autistic adult living in his mom's attic

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 3174
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 420 times
Been thanked: 716 times

Re: Section 230 is in trouble -- at last !

Post by ericbarbour » Fri May 13, 2022 6:50 pm

Well, thanks to two 5th Circuit federal judges in the Texas HB20 case, 230 (and a lot of other internet-related law) is hanging by a thread. Funniest part: thanks to the Trump-era removal of net neutrality laws, the internet services and websites were not considered "common carriers" anyway. This questionable decision undoubtedly is scaring the pants off commercial social website operators. And the WMF will lose its shit if people in Texas can sue it because their "independent" admins removed any content and commentary.

The top story on Verge today:

https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/13/2306 ... ection-230

also
https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/te ... rcuit.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/13/tech/tex ... index.html

Predictable Washington Post editorial (the Post is owned by Jeff Bezos and he's probably raging over this, "HOW DARE THEY TELL ME WHAT TO DO" etc)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ed-courts/

Remember: we are seeing all this criticism on websites. It probably will get only a passing mention in print or broadcast media, because it (probably?) does not apply to them. Also: "libertarians" can be massive hypocrites--when a government regulation directly impacts their own personal money stream.
-----
путин грязная маленькая шлюха

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Fan
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 67 times

Re: Section 230 is in trouble -- at last !

Post by wexter » Thu May 19, 2022 2:42 pm

Wikipedia is afraid; very afraid - the content moderation process (which is to bash folks that speak to fact-truth, to bully others, and to dominate the narrative) would be out the window.

The Wiki-idiots are arguing that they have the right to say (do) whatever they want. It's another spin on the rules apply to you but not me.

The brief stands as confirmation that Wikipedia is in fact a social media outlet.

https://www.eff.org/document/effcdt-mot ... -netchoice

The stay harms the public interest by upending the longstanding status quo of content moderation by social media platforms, which is fundamental to free speech online and has largely been to the public’s benefit. Internet users benefit from the availability of social media services that engage in a range of content moderation approaches,

aka "Fuck you, If you don't like Wikipedia go someplace else" when in fact there is no alternative.

-------------------------------Case in point

As an illustration; This social justice warrior;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Praxidicae

->Praxidcae is a greek god that exacts justice

can say whatever he wants on a variety of issues; he is creating a reality through narrative (a narrative against Wikipedia policy btw); if you were to say the exact opposite you would be banned from the platform.

Low and behold the SJW was called out;

You've got this racist user page which lists all of these cherry-picked incidents

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1087047558

with a revert shortly thereafter;

My areas of expertise are constitutional law, criminal law and civil tort law. In my talk page, feel free to request a legal analysis of contemporary or past cases in which you might want expert opinion. In the medical field, I am expert in pharmacology, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, and also contribute to Wikipedia articles on those topics. I created this account on November 8, 2021. Thank you for visiting my user page. RaforThix\ 10:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

For calling political nonsense out Razor was indefinitely blocked
Razor appealed his block and it was of course denied

Free speech is very important. I should be able to provide my point of view on the article's talk page, a point of view for which I provided facts and sources. And I should be able to do that without be indefinitely banned for dog-whistling. In terms of edit warring, I am not engaged in an edit war and have left the article the way it was, and was discussing the matter on the article's talk page when I was banned. RaforThix\ 23:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)



User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 3174
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 420 times
Been thanked: 716 times

Re: Section 230 is in trouble -- at last !

Post by ericbarbour » Thu May 19, 2022 11:52 pm

wexter wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 2:42 pm
For calling political nonsense out Razor was indefinitely blocked
Razor appealed his block and it was of course denied
On one hand, RazorThick was being a politically-biased asshole and pushing his/her (probably his) luck a bit too far. Sniping at admins is very poor form. He should know by now that they will tag-team to get rid of his account. (And of course, he can always run a hundred sockpuppets. Like any "good Wikipedian".) Read the room and don't get into screaming matches, dammit.

On the other hand, this is a stretch of "policy" I rarely see. The little prick (and yeah, I'm talking to you, "DreamyJazz", you smug little ban-revert-sockchaser and probably a Pakistani nerd from Bedlington) did not even bother to cite a rule. Just a classic smug "do not be disruptive on your talkpage or poof". Invent a rule and beat people with it.

One asshole blocks another. Just another day of snivelling on the "social media pedia" thing.
Screenshot 2022-05-19 at 16-43-01 User talk RazorThick - Wikipedia.png
Screenshot 2022-05-19 at 16-43-01 User talk RazorThick - Wikipedia.png (52.18 KiB) Viewed 398 times
-----
путин грязная маленькая шлюха

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Fan
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 67 times

Re: Section 230 is in trouble -- at last !

Post by wexter » Fri May 20, 2022 4:58 pm

My point is no matter where you look, there is Wiki-kool-aid to be found;

RazorThick was being a politically-biased with a red asshole
"DreamyJazz", has a blue ass-hole, with the moral and Wiki-idiot high ground.
Bottom line, anyone looking for real information loses (we all lose in fact)

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Fan
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 67 times

Re: Section 230 is in trouble -- at last !

Post by wexter » Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:43 am

-----> Talk talk form letter from the FL AG..

Thank you for contacting our office about your experience with this social media platform.

A new law in Florida, Section 501.2041, Florida Statutes, would require that certain social media platforms provide users with notice if a user’s content or material is removed and provide users the opportunity to opt-out of certain algorithms that affect interaction with the platform. This law contains a private right of action which may allow individuals to sue for money damages and other relief. The new law is currently being challenged in federal court and it is uncertain whether it will be upheld.

If you feel that your rights have been violated, you may wish to consult with a private attorney for more information. The Florida Bar offers an attorney referral service which is available online at: https://lrs.floridabar.org/. Our office is unable to represent you individually or provide you with legal advice.

Our office relies on complaints such as yours to ensure businesses and others are complying with Florida law. We appreciate your taking the time to contact our office about this issue.

Sincerely,

OFFICE OF CITIZEN SERVICES
Florida Attorney General's Office

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 3174
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 420 times
Been thanked: 716 times

Re: Section 230 is in trouble -- at last !

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:24 pm

wexter wrote:
Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:43 am
-----> Talk talk form letter from the FL AG..

Thank you for contacting our office about your experience with this social media platform.

A new law in Florida, Section 501.2041, Florida Statutes, would require that certain social media platforms provide users with notice if a user’s content or material is removed and provide users the opportunity to opt-out of certain algorithms that affect interaction with the platform. This law contains a private right of action which may allow individuals to sue for money damages and other relief. The new law is currently being challenged in federal court and it is uncertain whether it will be upheld.
You can't expect any help from Florida. Their stupid law was intended to let angry conservatives sue in civil court because someone totally said something mean about them on Facebook or Twitter. No MONEY was appropriated to enforce it--you're supposed to pay for any legal action out of your own pocket. And it stands a good chance of being overturned in a federal court anyway.

The screaming will continue until Congress finally gets off its corpulent ass and repeals or modifies Section 230. But nooo, they are too busy trying to pwn each other to "enact laws".
-----
путин грязная маленькая шлюха

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 3174
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 420 times
Been thanked: 716 times

Re: Section 230 is in trouble -- at last !

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Jun 06, 2022 7:54 pm

anyone ever heard of Jordan Shanks aka "friendlyjordies"?
https://www.youtube.com/user/friendlyjordies

Minor political video blogger. He rants and splutters about Liberal Party politicians. Yeah I get it, they're corrupt and John Barilaro is a scum and Peter Dutton is a scum, everybody snark on Scomo, etc etc.

Hey Jordan, not enough of your fellow Aussies seem to give a damn. You're only an "entertainer". A professional annoying twit. Funny at times but not "powerful". Just sayin'.

However, this is mentioned because he's made a little problem for Google.

https://fortune.com/2022/06/06/google-o ... be-videos/

https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/ ... 5ar9r.html

Let me guess: "Well, we're an American corporation, and Section 230, so fuck you" or somesuch.

Oopsies. Meh? So does this mean Jordan actually DOES have some "power"?
-----
путин грязная маленькая шлюха

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 3174
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 420 times
Been thanked: 716 times

Re: Section 230 is in trouble -- at last !

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:02 pm

And now, No. 1:

Ron Wyden claims that attempts to remove Section 230 are connected to Republican attempts to ban anything to do with abortion, even discussion of abortion. Maybe, but still not the only reason for Section 230 hatred.

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/06/16/yes ... on-rights/
-----
путин грязная маленькая шлюха

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 3174
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 420 times
Been thanked: 716 times

Re: Section 230 is in trouble -- at last !

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:08 am

Does anyone think 230 repeal will lead to this happening in North America and Europe? It's doubtful, but people are making the claim anyway.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/japa ... -rcna33669
Japan has made online insults punishable by up to a year in prison in an effort to reduce cyberbullying after the death of a reality television star who had faced a wave of online abuse.

Previously, the maximum penalty for the crime of “insultation” was less than 30 days’ detention or a fine of less than 10,000 yen ($75). The amendment to Japan’s penal code, which lawmakers passed Monday and is set to take effect this summer, introduces the prison term and increases the maximum fine to 300,000 yen.
-----
путин грязная маленькая шлюха

Post Reply