Section 230 is in trouble -- at last !

[ericbarbour]

Another beneficiary of Section 230: 2channel founder Hiroyuki Nishimura. He lost control of it and ended up buying 4chan. Where he does the same tricks to avoid taking any responsibility for what his users post.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/18/busi ... imura.html

Mr. Nishimura, he said, spent countless hours thinking up ways to avoid laws and regulations. The servers used by 2channel were based in the United States, beyond the reach of Japanese law.

[ericbarbour]

Remember that item last year about the Internet Archive being sued by major book publishers? There was "supposed" to be a trial date by or after November 12, 2021.

https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... 833#p20833

Original complaint was filed in July 2020. At the time the Archive demanded a jury trial.

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_Y ... _et_al/33/

In October 2021 the Archive's lawyers complained that the publishers were withholding documents requested for discovery.

https://www.eff.org/files/2021/10/29/hv ... koeltl.pdf

They (who, I can't tell) managed to drag it out into 2022. And got the EFF to provide legal support. EFF's lawyers filed a request for summary judgment in July.

https://www.eff.org/document/hachette-v ... y-judgment

In August the publishers made their OWN demand for summary judgment.

https://copyrightalliance.org/wp-conten ... rief-1.pdf

This was posted on their blog in December. The Archive filed their final brief in October, ALSO asking for summary judgment.

http://blog.archive.org/2022/12/28/2022 ... in-review/
https://www.eff.org/document/hachette-v ... y-judgment

There STILL has been no summary judgment, no jury trial, and no settlement--not that I can find.

Now you know what lawyers do in this stupid country, kids! They obfuscate and drag things out.

[ericbarbour]

A Wall Street Journal story about the Supreme Court mulling over Section 230 changes. It revolves around YouTube recommending videos posted by Islamic terrorists. Genius! Also, a great reason to shit on YouTube....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-say ... 1673553968
avoid their paywall and use the archive
https://archive.ph/LZfa8

The case was brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in the 2015 Islamic State terrorist attack in Paris. The plaintiffs claim that YouTube, a unit of Google, aided ISIS by recommending the terrorist group’s videos to users.

[SkepticalHistorian]

avoid their paywall and use the archive
https://archive.ph/LZfa8

The case was brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in the 2015 Islamic State terrorist attack in Paris. The plaintiffs claim that YouTube, a unit of Google, aided ISIS by recommending the terrorist group’s videos to users.

Lol “avoid the paywall.” (Copyright)

Similar lawsuit/criminal complaint by US government against New Zealand citizen Kim.com for his megaupload; where anyone could post movies in violation of copyright. He’s still fighting extradition… very active/ radical on Twitter, I’d love to meet him.

[ericbarbour]

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/0 ... ez-reddit/

“Without Section 230, Wikipedia could not exist,” says Jacob Rogers, associate general counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation. He says the community of volunteers that manages content on Wikipedia “designs content moderation policies and processes that reflect the nuances of sharing free knowledge with the world. Alterations to Section 230 would jeopardize this process by centralizing content moderation further, eliminating communal voices, and reducing freedom of speech.”

In its own brief to the Supreme Court, Wikimedia warned that changes to liability will leave smaller technology companies unable to compete with the bigger companies that can afford to fight a host of lawsuits. “The costs of defending suits challenging the content hosted on Wikimedia Foundation’s sites would pose existential threats to the organization,” lawyers for the foundation wrote.

The full amicus brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... dation.pdf

This bit was especially "amusing". Reddit still has subreddits where sexual abuse, racial hatred, etc. are not only tolerated, they are the primary purpose thereof. Despite more than 16 years of cracking down on "hateful" subreddits. Their "sitewide policies" are NOT APPLIED EQUALLY OR EFFECTIVELY. Similar to the erratic way WIkipedia's "official policies" are not being followed closely. And I suspect the conservative justices know this, since no one complains about Wikipedia abuse more than politically-conservative editors.

“It is true that Reddit has a different model for content moderation, but what they aren’t telling you is that some communities are moderated by and populated by incels, white supremacists, racists, election deniers, covid deniers, etc.,” he says.

[ericbarbour]

Arguments in front of the Supremes over the Gonzalez case are apparently happening this week, because media coverage is increasing. Hope the social media giants will need dental help, from grinding their teeth. The Smell of Fear:

https://archive.ph/0feyZ

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/16/go ... -gonzalez/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/family- ... d=96463560

[ericbarbour]

Barely noticed when it ran last week:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... veillance/

The court said "certiorari denied" and that was the end of that. Even though the WMF showed an NSA document leaked by Snowden, that specified Wikipedia as a major target for NSA surveillance, "national security" and "state secrets" overrode all else.

IMO this lawsuit was really stretching the limits, and I suspect the WMF's own legal team knew it. But they kept pursuing it, for eight years. What a waste of money. "Oh well, we can just run more banner ads, screaming that Wikipedia will shut down if the suckers don't contribute. And take in another $30-40 million easily."

Meanwhile the Supremes heard Gonzalez Vs. Google arguments. Still waiting for a decision--might take months.

[ericbarbour]

Still no news yet on Google vs. Gonzalez.

However....if you wanna sue Google for defamation and they stonewall you, try it in Canada:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... pedophile/

Which reminds me: anyone wishing to ruin a businessperson's life can still use ripoffreport.com. Because they are STILL very sloppy and poorly run, and hiding behind 230 in legal cases. Their Wikipedia article is both badly written and hilarious.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, this mechanism is an example of "how to make money rebuilding reputations: have them destroyed first", which is why a federal court stated that victims have "probable cause to sue for extortion and racketeering".[8][9] As of 2021, Google Search started to consider this practice deceptive and to downrank Ripoff Report's webpages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fromthestretch
Is UNQUESTIONABLY a paid account working for Ripoff Report. If Bbb23 weren't such an idiot he would have blocked this account....

[wexter]

The Supreme court just left Section 230 intact - Twitter and Google did not aid terrorism.

Lets not upset the apple-cart when big business is concerned. Twitter, Google, Facebook and Wikipedia -- the cash cow keeps on giving.

[ericbarbour]

Yep, the Supremes (many of whom have said uncomplementary things about Sec 230), decided to kick this can down the road and pretend it does not exist. From the Wikipedia article:

The Court issued decisions for both Gonzalez and Twitter on May 18, 2023. In Twitter, the Court unanimously held that the families' claims against the social media companies were not allowable under the Antiterrorism Act, and did not make any ruling related to Section 230. Subsequently, in the per curiam order given for Gonzalez, the Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for that court to reconsider the case in light of the Twitter decision.[12]