Koby: a difference of opinion is where people can hold different viewpoints. That's fair.
Misinformation and hate is where you deliberately lie -- such as claiming that Sandy Hook was a false flag information -- or where you deliberately push for violence or dangerous actions against people as a show of power. I am against "hate speech" laws for the ability of the government to misuse them, but what we're talking about here is NOT a "disagreement" over "viewpoints."
And if you can't understand the difference, the problem is on your end and I'd kindly ask you to fuck off.
This is a good question and from the unclear statements it sounds like the amendment would allow FB to hit the nuclear option at a later date, rather than being locked in to a bad arbitrator decision. But the details are still not totally clear yet.
If total traffic is down then those news sites are going have to figure out a way to replace the Facebook traffic.
These are not one-to-one comparisons. Trust me, from experience, I can tell you that direct traffic is worth WAY WAY MORE than drive-by social media traffic. When people come to Techdirt via social media, they tend do quick drive-bys, staying for a very short period of time. When people come to Techdirt directly, they tend to stick around and view multiple pages.
I'd much prefer a smaller number of direct visitors than a larger number of social media traffic.
Nope. The way the bill is written, if ANY news links are posted to FB, including those by users, then FB is forced to negotiate a "fee" with the news orgs, and if they can't agree, than an arbitrator will set the fee for them.
Actually, moderation is the cruelest form of abridging freedom of speech and limits our constitutional rights.
No. It's not. It's a private company deciding what speech it wishes to host and be associated with. It's a clear showing of the 1st Amendment rights of association of those sites.
There is no constitutional requirement that absolutely everyone has to host your speech. That would be absurd.
Twitter, Facebook, etc don't explain how they decide that some speech is OK and other speech is not.
Yes, actually, they do. They have terms of service and clearly written out policies on what violates them.
Who on their staff is doing this? Are the applying their rules equally?
Yes, these companies have trust & safety teams and hired moderators.
I think both things can be true: the questions from Congress can be lame, and the answers from the tech companies are... not particularly enlightening, and clearly designed not to explain anything useful. Both are for show.
The bill would tax just links. But even if it was links and snippets, if the snippets alone mean there's no value to clicking through and reading the entire article, then again the problem is on the news providers who apparently provide so little value in their writeups, that they can be summarized effectively in a "snippet."
Eh... I'm not so sure about that. Does it really take a team of 7 at up to $1150/hour (wtf?!) to point out that an opinion commentator's comments are opinion?
If you want to do it and increase your chances of winning significantly? Then, yeah, pretty much. These lawsuits are freaking expensive, because there's a lot that goes into them, and just walking in and saying "but that's my opinion!" isn't generally going to cut it. In fact, cheapening out on lawyers is a good way to make life more expensive in the long run, as you don't get out of court so quickly.
So, yes, defending a SLAPP suit in most cases will cost a minimum of $100k. And it can easily go up from there.
It's a little more complicated than that. There are what's known as "choice of law" principles that can differ depending on which circuit a court is in. Judges are supposed to apply those principles in deciding which law should apply when there's a dispute. So, to some extent, the judge does get to decide, but there are certain principles that are supposed to bind them (in our case, we felt that the judge applied those principles incorrectly regarding our anti-SLAPP claim).
It is a journalistic practice to seek a position where you're granted classified information, then publicly release classified information without permission in spite of all the agreements you willingly made to get access to it and flee to a foreign power to avoid the results of violating said agreements?
You can dislike and distrust someone who is not a criminal. I am sorry you don't seem to understand that. And I'm sorry that you feel the need to attack people baselessly for being able to both not trust Assange and still feel that the prosecution of him is wrong.
This is a dumb comment Koby. It has no basis in reality.
If Twitter did say it only followed the 1st Amendment that would be totally meaningless in India which (shocker) is not controlled by the US Constitution.
On the post: Yet Another Story Shows How Facebook Bent Over Backwards To Put In Place Different Rules For Conservatives
Re: Thanks for not being the Gestapo, I guess?
Koby: a difference of opinion is where people can hold different viewpoints. That's fair.
Misinformation and hate is where you deliberately lie -- such as claiming that Sandy Hook was a false flag information -- or where you deliberately push for violence or dangerous actions against people as a show of power. I am against "hate speech" laws for the ability of the government to misuse them, but what we're talking about here is NOT a "disagreement" over "viewpoints."
And if you can't understand the difference, the problem is on your end and I'd kindly ask you to fuck off.
On the post: Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating
Re:
Wut?
On the post: Facebook Caves To Australia: Will Restore Links After Government Gives It More Time To Negotiate Paying For News Links
Re: Question about Australian Law
This is a good question and from the unclear statements it sounds like the amendment would allow FB to hit the nuclear option at a later date, rather than being locked in to a bad arbitrator decision. But the details are still not totally clear yet.
On the post: Australian News Sites Shocked & Upset To Learn They Don't Need To Rely On Facebook For Traffic!
Re: What's the total traffic?
If total traffic is down then those news sites are going have to figure out a way to replace the Facebook traffic.
These are not one-to-one comparisons. Trust me, from experience, I can tell you that direct traffic is worth WAY WAY MORE than drive-by social media traffic. When people come to Techdirt via social media, they tend do quick drive-bys, staying for a very short period of time. When people come to Techdirt directly, they tend to stick around and view multiple pages.
I'd much prefer a smaller number of direct visitors than a larger number of social media traffic.
On the post: Australian News Sites Shocked & Upset To Learn They Don't Need To Rely On Facebook For Traffic!
Re: Can a User Post a Link
Nope. The way the bill is written, if ANY news links are posted to FB, including those by users, then FB is forced to negotiate a "fee" with the news orgs, and if they can't agree, than an arbitrator will set the fee for them.
On the post: The Bizarre Reaction To Facebook's Decision To Get Out Of The News Business In Australia
Re:
It's not a link tax. It's a requirement to enter arbitration.
"It's not a link tax, it's a requirement to negotiate how much you'll be taxed, and if you fail to agree, then we just tell you how much to pay."
It's a tax, mate.
On the post: North Dakota's New Anti-230 Bill Would Let Nazis Sue You For Reporting Their Content To Twitter
Re: Section 230
Actually, moderation is the cruelest form of abridging freedom of speech and limits our constitutional rights.
No. It's not. It's a private company deciding what speech it wishes to host and be associated with. It's a clear showing of the 1st Amendment rights of association of those sites.
There is no constitutional requirement that absolutely everyone has to host your speech. That would be absurd.
Twitter, Facebook, etc don't explain how they decide that some speech is OK and other speech is not.
Yes, actually, they do. They have terms of service and clearly written out policies on what violates them.
Who on their staff is doing this? Are the applying their rules equally?
Yes, these companies have trust & safety teams and hired moderators.
On the post: North Dakota's New Anti-230 Bill Would Let Nazis Sue You For Reporting Their Content To Twitter
Re: $50,000 not $50
Yikes. I dropped the "k" that was supposed to be in there. Fixed now.
Thanks.
On the post: The Bizarre Reaction To Facebook's Decision To Get Out Of The News Business In Australia
Re:
Nope. It was literally written to say that it would just apply to Google and Facebook. It's a true bill of attainder.
On the post: The Bizarre Reaction To Facebook's Decision To Get Out Of The News Business In Australia
Re: Re: Re: They should pay for content
Incorrect. Copying something can reduce the value of the original - that's why there are copyright laws.
They're not copying something -- they're LINKING. And at most a couple sentences are shown. This is why there are things like fair use/fair dealing.
The snippet-copying has been shown to reduce the value of the original content.
If it has, then that means that the writeups are worthless, and those publishers deserve to fail.
Blaming this degradation of value on the content creator is nonsense.
No, it's reality.
On the post: A Teenaged Tech CEO Tries To Sneak In After Curfew And Finds His Mom Waited Up For Him
Re:
I think both things can be true: the questions from Congress can be lame, and the answers from the tech companies are... not particularly enlightening, and clearly designed not to explain anything useful. Both are for show.
On the post: The Bizarre Reaction To Facebook's Decision To Get Out Of The News Business In Australia
Re: They should pay for content
The bill would tax just links. But even if it was links and snippets, if the snippets alone mean there's no value to clicking through and reading the entire article, then again the problem is on the news providers who apparently provide so little value in their writeups, that they can be summarized effectively in a "snippet."
On the post: Conservative News Outlet Ordered To Pay More Than $250,000 In Legal Fees To Rachel Maddow, MSNBC
Re:
Eh... I'm not so sure about that. Does it really take a team of 7 at up to $1150/hour (wtf?!) to point out that an opinion commentator's comments are opinion?
If you want to do it and increase your chances of winning significantly? Then, yeah, pretty much. These lawsuits are freaking expensive, because there's a lot that goes into them, and just walking in and saying "but that's my opinion!" isn't generally going to cut it. In fact, cheapening out on lawyers is a good way to make life more expensive in the long run, as you don't get out of court so quickly.
So, yes, defending a SLAPP suit in most cases will cost a minimum of $100k. And it can easily go up from there.
On the post: Conservative News Outlet Ordered To Pay More Than $250,000 In Legal Fees To Rachel Maddow, MSNBC
Re: HOLD IT!
It's a little more complicated than that. There are what's known as "choice of law" principles that can differ depending on which circuit a court is in. Judges are supposed to apply those principles in deciding which law should apply when there's a dispute. So, to some extent, the judge does get to decide, but there are certain principles that are supposed to bind them (in our case, we felt that the judge applied those principles incorrectly regarding our anti-SLAPP claim).
On the post: Civil Rights Groups Argue That Biden Should Drop Assange Prosecution; Noting That It Is An Attack On Journalism
Re: Assange didn't. Snowden did.
Fair enough. But none of this post or the letter are about Snowden.
The issue of journalistic practices is entirely about the charges against Assange.
On the post: Civil Rights Groups Argue That Biden Should Drop Assange Prosecution; Noting That It Is An Attack On Journalism
Re:
It is a journalistic practice to seek a position where you're granted classified information, then publicly release classified information without permission in spite of all the agreements you willingly made to get access to it and flee to a foreign power to avoid the results of violating said agreements?
When did Assange do any of that?
Learn something new everyday.
Tell me about it.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Stupid Opinion
Thanks for sharing.
On the post: Civil Rights Groups Argue That Biden Should Drop Assange Prosecution; Noting That It Is An Attack On Journalism
Re: A somewhat more critical take on this letter
I'm a fan of Marcy and her work. I think she's wrong on this one.
On the post: Civil Rights Groups Argue That Biden Should Drop Assange Prosecution; Noting That It Is An Attack On Journalism
Re:
You can dislike and distrust someone who is not a criminal. I am sorry you don't seem to understand that. And I'm sorry that you feel the need to attack people baselessly for being able to both not trust Assange and still feel that the prosecution of him is wrong.
On the post: Twitter & India Still Arguing Over Whether Or Not Twitter Accounts Supporting Farmer Protests Need To Be Removed
Re: If only...
This is a dumb comment Koby. It has no basis in reality.
If Twitter did say it only followed the 1st Amendment that would be totally meaningless in India which (shocker) is not controlled by the US Constitution.
Why do you always make clueless comments, Koby?
Next >>