SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
McConnell introduces bill tying $2K stimulus checks to Section 230 repeal:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has thrown a wrench into Congressional approval of an increase in government stimulus relief checks from $600 to $2,000. The House voted overwhelmingly on Monday to increase the payments, as President Trump had advocated for. Instead of voting on the House bill, however, McConnell blocked it and instead introduced a new bill tying higher stimulus payments to Section 230's full repeal, according to Verge, which obtained a copy of the bill's text.
It's a tangled web, but the move is tied to Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes $740 billion in defense spending for the upcoming government fiscal year. "No one has worked harder, or approved more money for the military, than I have," Trump said in a statement about the veto, claiming falsely that the military "was totally depleted" when he took office in 2017. "Your failure to terminate the very dangerous national security risk of Section 230 will make our intelligence virtually impossible to conduct without everyone knowing what we are doing at every step."
Section 230 has nothing to do with military intelligence; it's a 1996 law designed to protect Internet platforms. At its highest level, the short snippet of law basically does two things. First, it grants Internet service providers, including online platforms, broad immunity from being held legally liable for content third-party users share. Second, it grants those same services legal immunity from the decisions they make around content moderation—no matter how much or how little they choose to do.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @04:08PM (83 children)
You're all missing the other side of the argument, which the TV show "60 Minutes" covered 2 nights ago. I think the protections for social media companies are good, warranted, and necessary, but there's nothing to stop them from editing, deleting, censoring, banning, anyone and/or anything they feel like.
And, that would be okay except they're essentially monopoly, and have far too much control over the public's beliefs. Facebork is probably the worst offender.
Think about it. What do you really know about the world? You know what you read and hear in the news, social media, etc.
The show properly talked about the truly horrible things people post and fairly obviously need to be censored. Even this quite open site will censor some things.
So the question is: what should be censored, and by whom, and by what standards?
The righties are appropriately unhappy because they've seen the social media companies censoring conservatives and being more permissive toward the left.
I think the solution is to break up the giants, esp. Facebork.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @04:18PM
> censoring conservatives
The facts are that Republicans (not necessarily conservatives) have built-in advantages in the Senate and have pushed the boundaries of decency with gerrymandering, voter suppression and stripping incoming (D) governors of powers. Now add losing Presidential elections to the list.
They then cry bloody murder when this gets reported in then news (it's all fake, right?) or social media. Mitch wants conservatives to wield their unearned government powers to suppress news. Tell me it ain't so .
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday January 05 2021, @04:18PM (47 children)
If you don't like another platform runs things, then start your own.
SN is able to exist even though the green site still exists.
Parler seems to have a base of users, from what I hear.
That's the beauty of the internet. Unlike physical news papers, or limited broadcast spectrum, anyone can get a server and an IP address and start their own platform.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @04:43PM (10 children)
The problem is that with larger sites like YouTube and FaceBook there's basically no way of competing to any meaningful extent due to the way they run their businesses. There are alternatives, but without a critical mass of people, few add content there and because people aren't adding content there, it's unlikely that they'll reach the critical mass needed to compete.
Creating a competitor to Slashdot wasn't really that hard in comparison. All the site operators needed was a source of news articles and the ability to comment on them. With even a handful of people that could build up and let's be honest, Slashdot hasn't been about having a lot of people in ages. You simply just need a few dozen people that are posting comments that people want to read and respond to in order to start growing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @05:09PM
I stopped going to Slashdot when they wouldn't let me post without a bunch of rigamarole. Plus their stories seem to be puff pieces half the time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @06:25PM (3 children)
Then use anti-monopoly powers we already have in place, don't go allowing the dystopian thought-crime that Republicans want to club their opponents with.
Always projection with Republicans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:10PM (2 children)
Liberal = hypocrite
It's always okay for the libs to do these things, but never when a conservative tries to even the score, or thwart media bias.
I agree- someone needs to use anti-monopoly powers. And I wish it could work. Gee, what happened when a huge number of states tried to break up Microsoft's monopoly 20+ years ago...
Something along the lines of complacency, defeatism, "it's too late now"...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @08:41PM
Yes, but that is because conservatives are stupid, and attempt to do so rather badly. I bet right now, you want to censor me for stating the truth. But, you cannot, because this is not Parler. See how it works? Your ignorance is not the same thing as media bias. Your deplorable delusions are not the same thing as reality. There is no "score", there is just rationality and reality versus right-wing fantasies of repression and victimhood. So, as I lib, I demand you shut up, and go away, and learn to be properly deferential to those who are more intelligent than you, m'kay?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:29PM
George W. Bush won the 2000 election and effectively shut down the anti-trust case against Microsoft started by the Clinton administration at the Federal level.
But only because GW Bush was *so* much more liberal than Clinton, right?
Please.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 05 2021, @06:29PM (2 children)
Parler seems to be an alternative to Twitter and Facebook that embraces free speech, as long as it is only right wing speech. This is because, as its website says, it has a higher ethical standard.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @11:01PM (1 child)
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @04:30AM
DannyB doesn't need sarcasm tags, he needs tags.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @10:58PM (1 child)
It seems that your complaint is essentially that your views aren't all that popular and that others are not allowing you to use their platform to broadcast them. I got news for you: while the first amendment allows you to say anything you want it doesn't mean that others have to aid you in broadcasting your views. And I would also add that, while you are free to say what you want, the rest of us are under no obligation to listen.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:42AM
Is this what happened when Twitter suspended the New York Post [thefederalist.com] over the Hunter Biden story? If the problem was Twitter policy on "hacking" why was the recently leaked Trump audio allowed to trend?
Is it what happened when Zerohedge was suspended [culttture.com] for suggesting SARS-CoV-2 may have leaked from a lab? If this is the problem why are recent stories from other outlets now making the same assertion not being treated similarly? Well they tell us outright... [nymag.com]
We're under no obligation to give unaccountable corporations rights over the public square either. It seems you misunderstand the arguments -- but you're actually deliberately misrepresenting them. Why are you doing that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @05:00PM (6 children)
No clue what you're trying to say. Long ago the US government, representing We the People, came to realize and understand a thing called "monopoly", and passed "Anti-Trust" laws to quell monopolies. Where monopoly is all but necessary, like "The Bell Telephone Company", electric utilities, etc., the govt. passed strong regulation laws, set up agencies (FCC, FTC, ICC, PUC, for example), to try to keep things in balance. (I don't think it's working very well, but that's another topic regarding govt. laws and agency effectiveness...)
The whole point of stopping monopolies is that people did try to start their own, and got almost no market share. There's a thing called "herd mentality" where human nature is to look at what other people are doing, and do what they do, regardless of good reasons.
Why don't you start your own version of Amazon? Or google? Why don't you get lots of great ideas and VC and make it happen? Why doesn't someone, anyone? Because Amazon has huge momentum, advertising $, and like google, has become as common as "Kleenex" or any other societally mainstream thing.
You're a more independent thinker, like some others here, but sadly most people just follow the tail of the sheep (cow, buffalo, etc.) in front of them.
Learn about human nature, herd mentality, monopolies, etc., and you'll have a better grasp on life.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 05 2021, @05:39PM (5 children)
That alone should be enough reason to repeal 230.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @06:13PM (3 children)
It is my distinct pleasure (given how much you talk out of your ass) that you are quite wrong about section 230 [techdirt.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:36PM (2 children)
Your linked article is interesting, but philosophical. Down here on earth, where reality is a thing, the very fact that many people want 230 repealed should be enough for you and others to open your vice-grip minds and look what actually happens, versus ideals of legal philosophy.
Like I commented elsewhere here, Microsoft should have been broken up long ago by anti-trust (anti-monopoly) laws. Much time, effort, and $ was spent, and it fizzled. IMHO, Microsoft OS had and has become so pervasive and necessary that nobody has the courage to break them up (for fear of disrupting absolutely everything).
Many of us fear, rightly, that the social media companies, Facebook in particular, have far too much influence on people, and at the very least need to be regulated.
Mainstream media is somewhat regulated; there's no reason to allow Facebook, et al, to do whatever they feel like doing. Zuck has been called in to testify before congress and congressional committees enough times that it's time to regulate them.
Just because almost everyone does a thing, or buys a service, doesn't make it good. Monopolies exist because of human herding nature, and governments exist because humans realize we need someone to establish and enforce rules and limits. Right?
And I have to add a paradoxical observation: the righties should be in favor of 230 because it deregulates big corporations. But interestingly the libs want it in place. Gotta make you think, no?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @08:47PM (1 child)
If specifically detailing what a law requires or does not require, along with concrete examples of litigation around that law is "philosophical," then call me a philosopher.
Because section 230 applies as much to *you*, me, everyone else in the US, SoylentNews and everything else with an IP address within the confines of the United States, as much it does to Facebook or Twitter.
And that's not philosophy, either. Section 230 was passed to address rulings in Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy [wikipedia.org] which would have required that *any* site that does *any* moderation (including moderation like we have here) or removes *any* content, no matter how egregious (say child porn, links to child porn on torrent sites, snuff/torture videos, Goatse and/or gay, midget furry porn on your daughter's homework review site, knitting websites, recipe websites, your open-source git repo, etc., etc., .etc.), that site may then be sued for *any* other third-party content they do not remove.
As such, without section 230, pretty much *every site* or individual on the 'net would either need to completely block *all third-party content*, let every place be a complete free-for-all or shut down.
In fact, the only folks who have any chance of surviving in a such an environment are the companies with billions in the bank to fight all the lawsuits. That would be Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. So repealing section 230 would kill off most of the free speech on the 'net, except for the very platforms you're bitching about.
As such, that you want Section 230 repealed means that you're either anti free speech or don't understand section 230.
As I'm an optimist, I'll assume it's the latter. If it is, I suggest you read the law [cornell.edu], especially section (c)(1).
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:25AM
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
― Anatole France
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @06:27PM
Anti-open source shill Barbara Hudson agrees with repealing 230? My how DO you find the time and energy to shill it up with those non-functioning eyes that ony have a tiny bit of endurance each day? Shouldn't you conserve your eyeball time for your real work? Thankfully even shills like you sometimes have actual contributions to make, and your narratives are often debunked which is just so fun to see!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @06:59PM (11 children)
And then like Gab and others, Visa and Mastercard will yank your ability to take payments. Oh, you're scraping by on bitcoin and cash via a P.O. box? Then your hosting will suddenly cancel your account. Manage to find another host? That one will be cancelled too. Set up your own host? You don't have that much money most likely, and even if you pull that one off, oops all those peering sources will bail on you and even the tier 1 networks won't do business with you.
This goes far beyond deleted posts and shadowbanned tweets. It's the leveraging of the entire business system to deny dissenters any method (above putting fliers under windshield wipers in a parking lot) of getting out their point of view.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:10PM (3 children)
That's the playbook.
Don't like it? Start your own platform!
Don't like it? Start your own web host!
Don't like it? Start your own payment processor!
Don't like it? Start your own country!
Don't like it? Just die!
The amount of people forced to go down this trail will only increase in the coming decades.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:27AM (2 children)
"Don't like it? Start your own payment processor!"
What I don't like is the fact that banks and, by extension, the payment processors they work with or the payment processing services they provide benefit from FDIC insurance. The FDIC is a government entity.
Laws should be passed that require that if a Bank wants to be FDIC insured (and what bank wouldn't want to be) the payment processing services they provide or the payment processors they work with must be speech neutral. If the banks and payment processors want to argue free market capitalism then that's fine, they don't need the government giving them FDIC insurance. They can just provide their services without FDIC insurance (good luck getting customers then but there are such things as corporate backed and insured assets and bonds but they're more risky).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:33AM
When the banks and any payment processors that work with the banks block payment to speech they don't like they are essentially using the weight of a government body, the FDIC, to block speech they don't like. It's the FDIC that insures their assets and gives consumers the confidence they need to use their services and put their money in the bank.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:35AM
If the banks and payment processors want to argue free market capitalism then that's fine, they don't need the government giving them FDIC insurance. Free market capitalism all the way down and not just when it's convenient to them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @08:52PM (5 children)
Oh, I see. It's your view that private organizations of which you are not the owner are *required* to provide you with the tools to make money?
Please, do tell what law or constitutional amendment *requires* this?
Take your time. I'll wait.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:47PM (1 child)
Is it your view that private bakeries of which you are not the owner are required to bake you a cake?
It is not a problem for any individual company to decline to provide service to someone. When every company in that industry declines to provide service to someone, that is illegal collusion in restraint of trade. Of course, we'd have to have an operating non-corrupt court system for that to matter a tinker's damn; too bad we're fresh out of that, too.
To resolve disputes requires communications. Shutting down all but the most minor of methods of communications means disputes can't be resolved. Historically speaking, when the communication stops, the killing starts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @11:02PM
Nope.
Where did I say it was?
I merely pointed out that private organizations exist and that they have wide latitude in who they associate themselves with. That's part of the First Amendment here in the US, in case you were confused about that.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. To which industry are you referring?
If there is some sort of anti-competitive activity going on, there are multiple avenues that are available, including civil actions and, if you can convince an appropriate LEA/Attorney General/regulatory agency, criminal actions as well.
These aren't arcane, shadowy or unprecedented activities either. In fact, they're part of the normal legal and commercial fabric of the US and most of the rest of the world.
Not sure why you're confused about that. Nor am I entirely clear whose constitutional or legal rights you believe have been infringed. Would you mind sharing?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:42AM (2 children)
"It's your view that private organizations of which you are not the owner are *required* to provide you with the tools to make money?"
I think organizations that directly or indirectly benefit from the government should be speech neutral. Banks benefit from FDIC insurance. So if they want that FDIC insurance they need to ensure that any payment processing services they provide or any payment processors they work with are speech neutral. If they want to argue free market capitalism then that's fine, free market capitalism all the way down. No FDIC insurance for them. They don't get to throw the weight of the FDIC, a government body, around to control speech they don't like. The government is supposed to be speech neutral.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:44AM
The government is supposed to be speech neutral. The government shouldn't provide services, like FDIC insurance, to entities that directly or indirectly abuse those services to suppress speech they don't like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @09:37AM
Well, get right on it, then. I'm sure you'll have lots of support from your congressperson/senators.
Good luck, friend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @11:33PM
And not at all obligatory:
https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:05PM (6 children)
Unfortunately we allow the ISPs to regulate that activity on our connections. We have to demand they supply a dumb pipe so that we can compete
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 05 2021, @08:19PM (1 child)
Places like Linode or Digital Ocean offer small servers for as little as $5 / month. Bigger ones for $10 or $15. These are not at your residence or office, and not on your ISP.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:28PM
Yes, but you have to rent a service that is easily controlled and taken down. They won't fight your fights for you. The service provider is our biggest obstacle. If we can't get the dumb pipe, then we need a way to "tap the line" with mobile scud servers.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @08:56PM (3 children)
You mean like was required by the FCC in 2015 and then summarily rolled back before implementation, after certain folks took control of the FCC?
If you're serious about what you said, and live in Georgia, you better have voted today. Because there's only one set of folks (the folks who *actually* did it) that will make that happen.
But that doesn't fit your childish narrative, so I'm sure we'll have some lame attempt at false equivalence. Grow up, sonny.
(Score: 1, Troll) by fustakrakich on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:32PM (2 children)
I fart in your general direction... Screw the FCC. Congress is suppose to write legislation for things like this to make it more difficult to reverse. Congress had that chance between 2009 and 2011, but obviously they had no intention of actually doing anything. So, save your breath about who had control of what.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @10:40PM (1 child)
ahahhaahahahahahahahhaha
wow, fusty's rightwing feelings laid bare
bbbbbut whatabout TEH DEMS!
always some excuse with you to never address the GOP's corruption and blame the DNC
and no i ain't no democrat so i don't wanna hear that old whingey "muh democrat downmods" excsue either
go fuck yourself you steaming pile of garbage
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @11:16PM
:-) If you think the DNC is better than or even different from the GOP, then obviously you are a democrat, full of partisan poop like all the rest. They are one, a cooperative, a coalition. Now, it's not my fault that you take professional wrestling seriously. I can only advise you to stop, and look at yourself.
thankyouverymuch
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @05:34AM (9 children)
Pakistan and China took over the SWIFT banking system while Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Russia run the UN's counterterrorism office. If you try to start another platform, you lose access to payment processing and your upstream gets a nastygram that you are hosting illegal content and which comes from an office that has the authority to shut them down. If you have a way to survive that, they will destroy your business with negative press. Just look at what happened to 8chan, #Gamergate, and Milo Yiannopoulos, and what the same people have been doing to Donald Trump for four years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:59AM (8 children)
"If you try to start another platform, you lose access to payment processing"
The government is supposed to be speech neutral. It provides banks with FDIC insurance. The banks benefit from this insurance and use it to provide us with banking and payment processing services. So those banking and payment processing services should be speech neutral.
Any bank that benefits from FDIC insurance should be required, by law, to ensure that all payment processing services they provide and all payment processors they work with are speech neutral. If they don't like it and they want to argue free market capitalism then that's fine. They are free to forego their FDIC insurance. Free market capitalism all the way down.
By providing banks with FDIC insurance and allowing those banks the ability to directly or indirectly cut funds to speech they don't like the government is not being speech neutral. The government is supposed to be speech neutral.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @09:46AM (7 children)
Actually, payment processing services are generally provided by Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover, etc. None of those are owned by the banks, they're separate entities.
Visa and Mastercard *used* to be owned by member banks, but Visa IPO'd in 2008 and Mastercard in 2006, so they're not banks, don't take deposits and don't need or want FDIC.
So...you're really just broadcasting your ignorance rather than making any sort of reasonable argument.
What's more, the First Amendment (yes, that old chestnut) says, among other things:
"Congress shall make no law abridging...freedom of speech..."
As such, any law that required anything approaching what you're talking about would violate the First Amendment and would be unconstitutional.
It's too bad that Trump's black shirts storming the capitol didn't make him president for life like it was supposed to. He's no friend to the First Amendment, so after he put all the demorats and RINOs up against the wall, you'd be good to go.
More's the pity, eh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:06PM (4 children)
I know that Visa is separate from the banks. They are traded separately as well, I've followed Wells Fago, Bank of America, and Visa stocks so I know.
That misses the point. Let's say I have a Well Fargo bank account, for instance. The debit card that my bank gives me could be a Visa debit card. So if I want to contribute to Soylentnews the money must still originate from my FDIC insured bank. So the whole process is still benefiting from the fact that my bank is FDIC insured.
If my bank wants FDIC insurance any payment processing services they provide or any payment processors they work with anywhere down the chain (such as Paypal, VISA, etc...) should be REQUIRED to be speech neutral. Or else my bank loses its government provided FDIC insurance. That's the way it should be.
If the banks want free market capitalism then fine, they lose their FDIC insurance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:15PM (3 children)
How many levels of indirection would that cover? Please.
The First Amendment. Full stop [xkcd.com]. Go read it. If you still don't get it, write your congressperson and see how far you get.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:23PM
"How many levels of indirection would that cover? Please."
Anyone between me and Soylentnews for instance. My money starts at my FDIC insured bank account. I want to send it to Soylentnews. Anyone down the chain that prevents it from getting there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:25PM (1 child)
"The First Amendment. Full stop [xkcd.com]. Go read it. If you still don't get it, write your congressperson and see how far you get."
Agreed one hundred percent. FDIC insurance is a government provided service. Government provided services should have FREE SPEECH strings attached so that private entities can't use the weight of the government to regulate speech. If a bank doesn't like it then it can simply forego its FDIC insurance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2021, @06:43AM
Are you being *deliberately* obtuse?
The First Amendment *specifically* forbids the government from doing this.
Because a law that says "you must allow all speech" abridges the First Amendment free speech rights of those affected by such a law.
Free speech means not only that I can say what I want without government interference, it also means that I or anyone else can't be forced to repeat, host or support any particular speech by the government.
As such, what you're suggesting is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:18PM (1 child)
"So...you're really just broadcasting your ignorance rather than making any sort of reasonable argument."
No, you're really just broadcasting your inability to read. I also said
"Any bank that benefits from FDIC insurance should be required, by law, to ensure that all payment processing services they provide and all payment processors they work with are speech neutral."
The key phrase here is any payment processors they work with. You can't read.
"As such, any law that required anything approaching what you're talking about would violate the First Amendment and would be unconstitutional."
Absolutely not. It's the exact opposite. The government shouldn't require payment processing to be speech neutral if the banks don't want FDIC insurance. The government should only require it if the banks want FDIC insurance because the use of government services should be speech neutral. To give the banks FDIC insurance and to allow them to regulate speech or to work with payment processors that regulate speech essentially gives these banks and payment processing services the green light to throw the weight of the government around to regulate speech.
Think publicly funded research. Publicly funded research should be publicly and freely available. The fruits of such research should be publicly and freely available. No drugs developed with public funding should be patented. No research conducted with public funding should be under copy'rights'. It should be public domain. If you want government money there should be strings attached.
Likewise if you want government services like FDIC insurance for your private business then there should be strings attached (ie: speech neutrality). You don't get to throw the weight of the government around to regulate speech and use the services they provide you with to regulate speech.
It's the same with broadcasting monopolies. When the FCC provides broadcasting monopolies to private entities and those entities use/abuse those monopolies to regulate speech on broadcasting spectra (and they do) that should be unconstitutional. Broadcasting monopolies originate from the government.
Likewise FDIC insurance originates from the government. You don't get to throw the weight of the government around to regulate speech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2021, @06:51AM
And the government is forbidden by the First Amendment [wikipedia.org] to do what you are suggesting:
The government may not make *any* law that prescribes what speech a person or private entity *must* support, host, allow or expend resources on, just as it may not make any law that prescribes what speech a person or private entity must *not* support, host, allow or expend resources on.
There are exceptions [wikipedia.org] to those prohibitions, but your example is not among them.
As such, should Congress enact a law such as you're suggesting, it would be struck down (not that such a law would ever be passed) because it's a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Ignorance is not a good look, friend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @04:28PM (5 children)
The law doesn't just protect media companies. And just because you are too lazy to put up a proper site and use facebook instead doesn't make them a monopoly. I've never used facebook. Ever. Because I saw what they were when they first started up. Any economic power they have over you is power that YOU have conceded to them. Stop conflating your life, with other peoples.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @04:42PM (4 children)
Hey Moron, not sure what you're on about, other than to make yourself look stupid. Just because I'm able to think and communicate from a variety of standpoints doesn't mean I hold those opinions. You wrote: "Stop conflating your life, with other peoples." and you have NO idea what my life is or who I am. In fact, I have NO social media accounts and never have. I'm able to watch the fray from up on a hilltop and see the masses being manipulated, mostly by Facebook. Go watch the 60 Minutes segment and learn something, mr. ff39 moron.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:05PM (3 children)
Not the AC you replied to, but you're absolutely correct. I have no idea about you. And as I don't care who you are or what your life is, let's keep it that way, okay?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:46PM (2 children)
Oh, I get it, it's okay for you to post whatever you want, but I have to somehow anticipate what you want, then conform to your rules? Fuck you.
Read previous AC's comment that I responded to. He characterized me as being a slave to Facebook.
"Any economic power they have over you is power that YOU have conceded to them. Stop conflating your life, with other peoples.".
Try to read in context, okay? Or not your thing I suppose.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @08:18PM
You ref 60 minutes. That is really all that needs to be said about you nutter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:04PM
This *is* the same AC you replied with the above to.
No. You don't have to anticipate anything. Post whatever you want. Or don't. That has nothing to do with me.
You don't *have* to conform to anything. At least not as far as I'm concerned.
Nor do I care. Which was *my* point. I don't know you. I'm not interested in you or your life. I don't care to get to know you either.
Which is what I said. And it's a really long way to go from "I don't know or care who you are or what you say or think" to "I insist that you conform to my rules." In fact, they don't intersect *at all*.
You seem to have a big problem with reading comprehension. Not that I care. Nor do I request, insist or otherwise make *any* demand upon you.
Although I will observe that you appear to be both dumb *and* nasty. A wonderful combination! You go, girlfriend!
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 05 2021, @05:00PM (18 children)
Which one is the monopoly?
Facebook
Twitter
WeChat
TikTok
Tumblr
Reddit
SlashDot
Soylent News
4chan
Stormfront
Parler
Building your own damn website
Seems to me like there is plenty of opportunity and competition in the post-shit-on-the-internet space
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @05:03PM (8 children)
You conveniently forgot the metrics. They tell the story. Nobody is talking absolutes here, and your examples are borderline whataboutism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @06:31PM (6 children)
So? Last I heard users are allowed to choose what platform they want to use. If Twitter, Youtube and Facebook are somehow undermining their competition with monopolisitic practices then your shitty narrative would have more substance.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:16PM (3 children)
For these folks it doesn't count as freedom of speech unless they can force people to listen.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:42AM (2 children)
Say I post a video to my own website. What's the expected way to inform other people that my video exists?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @05:33AM
RSS feeds, word of mouth, advertising, SEO. How much is it worth it to you for other people to know?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2021, @06:57AM
Good question. I'm sure there are even some answers.
But why should that be the my problem? Or the government's? Or some corporation's?
You seem to be under the misapprehension that other people *owe* you something.
If some corporation (Google/YouTube, for example) doesn't want to host your video, why do you think you have the right to *force* them to do so?
Centralization *is* a problem, but forcing others to host your content isn't the solution.
Creating decentralized platforms is the solution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:49PM (1 child)
In your hyper-omniscient astral plane that would be correct.
"Shitty narrative"? So you're okay with most people using google, using the word "google" as a common verb, and not having a clue that there are alternatives?
Monopoly is not NECESSARILY defined by intentional anti-competitive practices, Einstein.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:58PM
Ok smooth-brain, doesn't change the fact that we already have anti-monopoly laws. Repealing 230 would have not curb the "monopolies" in any way.
It is indeed a shitty narrative undermined by all the clamoring rightwing morons did about the baker not having to bake a gay cake.
Anyway, it is becoming clear that this whinging about monopolies and censorship is just a bunch of bullshit and the real goal is getting 230 repealed so the fascists can gain more control over the flow of information. Exactly the opposite of what you claim. Burn in hell you shitty person.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 07 2021, @04:14PM
A list of competing services is *exactly* the counter-argument to a claim of a monopoly.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @05:10PM (1 child)
Are the top 2 (probably more) owned by the same company?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:14PM
No.
And I specifically excluded the ones I was aware of being owned by a company already in the list (e.g. Instagram, Whats App who are owned by Facebook)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:08PM (4 children)
There is no monopoly in content. The real problem is service. We permit too many restrictions and too little competition
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @08:05PM (3 children)
Ah there is the real fusty. Libertarian (small r) that takes ideological purity to a stupidly new level.
Permit restrictions? Explain how a service should not be allowed to enact rules? Do you agree with the spam and karma moderation here on SN? Should a kid-friendy service NOT be allowed to censor curse words?
Too little competition? Is someone stopping Parler from existing? Did Voat [voat.co] shut down due to the monopoly powers of Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter? Did the government somehow ruin their business model? Did their hosting provider refuse service based on their shitty user base? Are you being prohibited from running your own site? Please explain, how are "we" permitting too little competition (how does that phrasing even make sense?)
Might want to get your water tested.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:40PM (2 children)
You're just talking your usual partisan gibberish. As already stated, we should demand a dumb pipe from the service providers, by law if need be, so that we can compete. You have no business meddling with content provision.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @10:30PM (1 child)
You HAVE dumb pipes you moron! What you are asking for is "dumb service" because you're a lazy bum that demands others do the heavy lifting for you. Running a website in 2021 is not difficult you babboon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @11:02PM
Heh, learn to read, then make your entrance. Ad libbing is not your forte
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Common Joe on Wednesday January 06 2021, @09:37AM (1 child)
Many of these entities in your list are monopolies by my definition.
The term "monopoly" currently has several definitions because the term is evolving. Many people (like me) use it to mean that more than one monopolistic entity can exist in the same arena because there is no other word to use.
However, I think a very strong case can be made to define any company with 50% or more of a certain population using its services as a monopoly. I would argue it could get much lower in some circumstances -- down in the 10% - 20% range because the goal is to encourage competition between many companies, not just 2 or 3.
For instance, by my definition Facebook would be a monopoly because they reach more than 50% of the U.S. population. (Source: 190 Million Facebook users [statista.com] in the U.S.).
Twitter? Only 20%. (Source one in five [omnicoreagency.com].) In my opinion, 20% is a huge number. I would really like to see that percentage come down.
Additionally, a company can have a city-wide monopoly, but not a state or national monopoly. Demographics also need to be taken into account.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 07 2021, @04:32PM
Duopoly, oligopoly, cartel?
But in all these cases none of the members of the group are monopolistic, by definition, the group is monopolistic, and the word to describe the group tells you how it's composed. So what you've said is *definitionally* nonsense.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @05:46PM (3 children)
The Sixty Minutes Piece is Wrong Too [techdirt.com]:
Read the rest of the article too. It's quite informative. And so yes, Sixty Minutes is *also* wrong about section 230 [techdirt.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:56PM (2 children)
Again, your techdirt article is written from the stance that 230 is absolutely universally correct, and then goes on to argue why objections to 230 are invalid.
230 protects the social media companies from modifying what you post. How would you feel if SN did that to you? They have the right to. They could simply delete posts that don't conform to their political ideals. Think about it, and on the scale of Facebook. Do you even KNOW how big Facebook is? 2.7 BILLION users. That's almost 10 times the size of the US. Think about it, if you can wrap your tiny brain around that kind of power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:16PM
That's wrong. It does no such thing. You keep spouting off with no apparent knowledge of the subject. Read the fucking law [cornell.edu].
Yes, they do. They are a private entity and can do whatever they want. That's true for most private entities -- including you. And be glad it's that way too. Because if it wasn't, I could come over to your street and project Goatse on your house while blaring Justin Bieber 24/7/365 and you'd have to let me.
But we have this thing called *private property*. Maybe you've heard about it?
If SoylentNews was censoring folks (which they are entirely within their rights to do), I would leave. But section 230 has *nothing* to do with any of that.
It just means that NCommander can't be sued for what *I* say on SoylentNews. You can still sue me if you want, but not NCommander. That example covers the sharp end of section 230. That's it. All of it. Full stop.
You are wrong about section 230. It is not what you think it is. And the more you spout off, the more of a moron you reveal yourself to be.
Perhaps you might take this unsolicited advice: "'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2021, @07:29AM
It does no such thing. Rather, it points out that the 60 Minutes piece calls out a bunch of bad behavior that has nothing to do with section 230 and then blames section 230 for it.
Are you trolling or are you just really that bad with reading comprehension?
(Score: 2) by helel on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:47PM
If "social media companies are moderating too much" is the problem repealing 230 is not that answer. All 230 says is that you can't be sued for something somebody else said. Making every AC who quotes a comment in their replay libel for any part of that quote doesn't stop censorship. If anything it increases the risk of censorship as motivated parties can file huge numbers of SLAPP suits against anyone who retweets a comment they don't like. It'll be the same as the RIAA lawsuits again, average people losing their houses because they simply can't afford to fight corporate law firms.
If "social media companies are moderating too much" is really the problem then what we need is new legislation along the lines of insuring freedom of speech in digital spaces. What exact form that should take I don't claim to know.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 05 2021, @10:02PM
I mean, philosophers have been debating that one for a long long time. Solipsism being one of the more extreme takes on the problem: If you don't physically perceive it, right now, it's not happening as far as you're concerned.
As far as what you get in news sources and social media: There should be a step between "you read / hear X in the news and social media" and "you immediately accept X as The Unquestionable Truth". And that's true whether the X in question is "the president asked Georgia's secretary of state to commit election fraud and threatened him with prosecution if he didn't comply" or "Karen's ex-husband was a total jerk to her". Now, both of those statements could very well be true, but you should have some level of BS detection between "you hear this" and "it must be true".
There's an already-existing solution, one the righties are in fact using: Going to a different website for their social media dose. Do that, and Facebork isn't a monopoly anymore (and it arguably isn't one now too, for the same reason).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @10:52PM
Oh, good grief! If you are so unhappy with facefuck then hie thyself on over to parler. I'm sure you'll find the atmosphere much more genial there. Problem solved. See how easy that was?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @09:44PM (1 child)
It's a really simple fix. Keep section 230 AS IT IS; but, add to it this... You enter the realm of publisher if user generated content is, 'processed,' before being served. Say you have a site with 100 users and they are all submitting opinions and such of various kinds; but, you use an AI, or a human, to find the users that post content about tomato soup and push their content to the forefront. At that point you have, 'processed,' user content (which based on the terms of service of these sights, they have an irrovocable world wide license too anyway).
That fixes the problem, easy. It gives protection where protection is needed, and restores accountability where accountability is needed. I'm sure the gray area of, 'processed,' submissions will be a battle ground; but, that's how I see it. This will not happen though; because nobody wants a solution the problem. They want a solution to, 'their,' problem. And they are government and corporations, and we are little nobody trash people..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @09:50AM
Section 230 doesn't say *anything* about "publishers." It protects *everyone*. Full stop.
Read the law [cornell.edu]. No. Really. Because you're wrong about section 230 [techdirt.com].