United States Justice Department Launching Antitrust Review of Major Tech Companies

[Tech198]

While we're at it why not also give 'on-site' visit permission to all ALP's who rock up to ABC's headquarters to sift through their email as well *rolls eyes*

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06...r-approach-to-national-security-laws/11191626

 

[ksnell]

I did. And I repeat myself. Are they a government entity?



If you make an ass of yourself on here, you have your posts removed and you're possibly banned. MacRumors "violated" your freedom of speech. Will you be suing them? Would you complain to your local representatives? If MacRumors sees fit, they can screen your posts indefinitely, choosing what to allow to be seen by other users and what cannot be seen by other users. This is a form of censorship. Will you being suing MacRumors or any other forum for violating your so-called freedom of speech when they're not a government entity?


Free speech laws protect you from government actions. It's what allows me to call certain politicians "dumbasses" without being tazed, thrown into prison, or fined. It allows me to be highly critical in a respectable manner of government without fearing retribution. You're free to say whatever you want on any other platform or intended target, but don't presume you won't be punished by a non-government entity.



You could go up to Cory Booker and call him the 'N' word or something equally racially charged like "monkey" and he won't have you arrested or fined because he can't.Because as a government official he'd be violating your freedom of speech laws. Now, if you get your ass knocked out by a Black person, they're not violating your freedom of speech. They're wanting to beat the **** out of a racist. Or if you get your house set alight. Lose your job because your employer heard about it or was forced to rid themselves of a vile and despicable human being.


Not suggesting you'd do this, but I needed an example. In the same manner you could go up to Buttigieg and drop the F word in front of him and his husband. They can't do much about it apart ask you to leave, nicely, or invite you to stay which is more likely since they're mid-westerners. But you might be named and shamed in the press, you may lose your job, standing in your community, and so forth. Those don't violate your rights. Kindly asking you to leave also wouldn't. If you were forcefully removed, you could sue for violation of freedom of speech.

That was quite a presumptuous tangent out into left field. Give the below a read.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html
[doublepost=1564092161][/doublepost]

I'm pretty sure this information is incorrect.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is what gives "interactive computer service" providers immunity from the content of posts made by their users. If you're thinking of some other law, then please specify exactly what it is.

Section 230 is fairly brief, and quite clearly written.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Subsection (c)(1) makes it clear that an "interactive computer service" provider (or user) is not a publisher. (c)(2) says that restricting access or availability of information (i.e. limiting what appears on the service) cannot result in civil liability. (d) says what the obligations are.

There are more provisions, which can be read at the above link.

The definitions used in Section 230 are listed under (f). The distinction between "information content provider" and "interactive service provider" is an important one, when it comes to who is responsible for what under the law.

I don't see "platform" defined in (f), so unless you're using it as a synonym for a defined term in the legislation, you'll have to explain what you mean by "platform", using the definitions that are used.

Telephone lines are covered by different statutes. One of the main distinctions is point-to-point (telephone) vs. general access (interactive service provider).

The link in my last post helps to add some color here.

 

[0388631]

That was quite a presumptuous tangent out into left field. Give the below a read.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

Op-ed piece about another op-ed. I implore you to sue MacRumors as they're considered a publisher, too. I implore anyone offended by Google to sue. Do you honestly think lawyers wouldn't take up a case if they knew it would be a grandslam pay day for them?

When you use a service like YouTube, Twitter, etc. you agree to terms outlined, and those terms may change at any time or if your material is deemed a risk. These companies are under ZERO obligation to let everyone and their grandmother say whatever they want or use their service platform as a method of attacking or bullying others.

If you don't understand that concept, then I'm at a loss at how further I can dumb something down for you or anyone else. I know you've had posts edited on here and even removed. Why aren't you suing MacRumors? They're censoring you and changing what you said without your express permission. Why aren't you suing?

It's open season for all politicians who block people on services like Twitter from contacting them. The courts have decided. It violates the individual's ability to practice their 1st amendment rights. There is no right violating when a regular person blocks, attempt to censor or reports and has the provider close the account of someone clearly violating the ToS.


If private services and non-government citizens are not exempt, then you wouldn't mind me calling you everything under the sun, right? Then if you attempted to censor me by reporting my post, I can turn around and sue you for violating my freedom of speech, right? Because that's the kind of precedent such a decision could establish. It is a very, very dangerous slippery slope. This is why we keep these laws to the bare minimum and keep them in place against the government. We're afforded these rights by the government to protect us, the people, from an over-zealous government.

Freedom of speech can easily sway towards libel and slander, depending on the medium, but it's perfectly easy to avoid those two depending on the medium and consistently attack a person for as long as they live. You're suggesting that should be okay, and that any form of response would and should be deemed as a violation of someone's free speech.

There's also a reason why states have gone further and introduced abuse of process laws that prevent people from suing others into debt just because they can as a method to silence them. These are an extension to SLAPP laws. Our more liberal friends across the big pond have such laws that allow people to censor each other. We as Americans find that strange and even laugh at the concept because we're the ones deemed sue-happy. Clearly not the case.

The UK does, ironically, have freedom of speech laws pursuant to certain criteria. Their law is more concrete than ours and less open to vague interpretation several hundred years after the fact. The suggestions you propose are viable in the UK and make it infinitely easier to go after a platform than it is in the US. Is that the kind of America you want? Freedom of speech, but with legal restrictions?

 

[chown33]

That was quite a presumptuous tangent out into left field. Give the below a read.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html
[doublepost=1564092161][/doublepost]

The link in my last post helps to add some color here.

Some of that opinion piece reads to me like ex post facto reasoning, or just wishful thinking. Section 230 says nothing about "neutral public forums". In my view, it would be weird if it did, because compulsory neutrality means the Government is abridging the freedom of the press, by telling them they can't omit certain voices. If that was actually present in the CDA when it passed, it would quickly have been challenged in the courts like the anti-indecency parts were.

What Section 230 does say is that providers can make a "good faith effort". This effort explicitly allows filtering, even going so far as to define a term ("access software provider"). If I were to consider "neutral public forum" as being the intent of Congress, I'd need to see some citations of the law's legislative history, and not just an opinion piece.


I can't think of any publisher, broadcaster, network, or anything else that I would unequivocally call a "neutral public forum", short of the internet at large, or "The Press" taken in its entirety. But then Google, Facebook, etc. are just "interactive service providers" operating in that larger public forum. Furthermore, other such providers are free to enter that larger forum, and provide whatever voice or voices they wish to the larger whole.

The closest thing I can think of to a neutral public forum, outside the internet or The Press, might be local municipal council meetings, but that doesn't mean every voice or every issue is up for consideration at every meeting. There are typically rules for who gets to speak, on what subjects, and for how long. It's neutral in the sense that anyone can speak, as long as they stay on topic and on time. It's not neutral (it's censored) in the sense that you can't just say whatever you want for as long as you want.

I'd ask you to think of an example of something that exists in the USA that you'd consider a fully neutral public forum.


At this point, changes to Section 230 will need to pass both Houses of Congress, which I honestly don't see happening any time soon. An alternative might be to challenge it in court somehow, but I think it would take a novel new approach to do that effectively, given its case history.

 

[ksnell]

that exists in the USA that you'd consider a fully neutral public forum.

Town square.
[doublepost=1564099701][/doublepost]

Op-ed piece about another op-ed. I implore you to sue MacRumors as they're considered a publisher, too. I implore anyone offended by Google to sue. Do you honestly think lawyers wouldn't take up a case if they knew it would be a grandslam pay day for them?

When you use a service like YouTube, Twitter, etc. you agree to terms outlined, and those terms may change at any time or if your material is deemed a risk. These companies are under ZERO obligation to let everyone and their grandmother say whatever they want or use their service platform as a method of attacking or bullying others.

If you don't understand that concept, then I'm at a loss at how further I can dumb something down for you or anyone else. I know you've had posts edited on here and even removed. Why aren't you suing MacRumors? They're censoring you and changing what you said without your express permission. Why aren't you suing?

It's open season for all politicians who block people on services like Twitter from contacting them. The courts have decided. It violates the individual's ability to practice their 1st amendment rights. There is no right violating when a regular person blocks, attempt to censor or reports and has the provider close the account of someone clearly violating the ToS.


If private services and non-government citizens are not exempt, then you wouldn't mind me calling you everything under the sun, right? Then if you attempted to censor me by reporting my post, I can turn around and sue you for violating my freedom of speech, right? Because that's the kind of precedent such a decision could establish. It is a very, very dangerous slippery slope. This is why we keep these laws to the bare minimum and keep them in place against the government. We're afforded these rights by the government to protect us, the people, from an over-zealous government.

Freedom of speech can easily sway towards libel and slander, depending on the medium, but it's perfectly easy to avoid those two depending on the medium and consistently attack a person for as long as they live. You're suggesting that should be okay, and that any form of response would and should be deemed as a violation of someone's free speech.

There's also a reason why states have gone further and introduced abuse of process laws that prevent people from suing others into debt just because they can as a method to silence them. These are an extension to SLAPP laws. Our more liberal friends across the big pond have such laws that allow people to censor each other. We as Americans find that strange and even laugh at the concept because we're the ones deemed sue-happy. Clearly not the case.

The UK does, ironically, have freedom of speech laws pursuant to certain criteria. Their law is more concrete than ours and less open to vague interpretation several hundred years after the fact. The suggestions you propose are viable in the UK and make it infinitely easier to go after a platform than it is in the US. Is that the kind of America you want? Freedom of speech, but with legal restrictions?

All I suggest is that one not be able to shelter themselves with both protections as a publisher and a platform. I do not care which side these companies take, but I do suggest it would be proper for them to pick a side and stick to it.

 

[0388631]

All I suggest is that one not be able to shelter themselves with both protections as a publisher and a platform. I do not care which side these companies take, but I do suggest it would be proper for them to pick a side and stick to it.

Your opinion holds no value.

 

[chown33]

Town square.

That seems more theoretical than practical.

Exactly where would that be in cities like Salt Lake City, Tacoma, or Phoenix?

 

[ksnell]

Your opinion holds no value.

Lol that response is the equivalent of this.
[doublepost=1564106699][/doublepost]

That seems more theoretical than practical.

Exactly where would that be in cities like Salt Lake City, Tacoma, or Phoenix?

You're moving the goal posts. You asked for an example and I gave one.

 

[0388631]

Lol that response is the equivalent of this.

The law says it clearly. You're offering up conjecture. It isn't my fault you can't understand simple principles.

 

[Aloft085]

They should just ban Facebook so that conservatives can't spread anymore fake news!

Like the media falsely telling us that Trump was colluding with Russians for two years?

 

[chown33]

You're moving the goal posts. You asked for an example and I gave one.

So if a city or town doesn't have an actual town square, then it apparently completely lacks a neutral public forum. Because one would hope that it's something a person could use in actual practice.

That's the sense I meant for theoretical vs. practical. If being able to use it in a meaningful sense means "moving the goal posts", I'll plead guilty.

 

[jlc1978]

Once deployed, an e-commerce system can be static, until the "Mom and Pop" retailer can afford to upgrade. Rack space is cheap.

Again, this is about small businesses having their needs served fairly by tech, something that big tech actively stifles.

There are plenty of eCommerce systems available to small retailers that allow them to be on the web. It's not Amazon's duty to give them a way to be online separate from listing on Amazon.

Quite frankly, once WalMart figures out ecommerce Amazon will be in trouble.

Search engines and Video sites can diversify around industries/themes/specialties/themes - Google prevents this.
For example (and a very good one): The gun industry can support both a specialized search, and video sites for gun industry topics. The gun industry will have their needs met, and Google can get out of the business of policing the gun industry based on Google's politics. And the "Mom and Pop" gun shop mentioned above can get proper visibility on both the search and video sites.

Hope someone at the FTC is reading my posts.

The gun industry, or any for that matter, can setup their own search site customized to their needs. Google will even license them the technology. They can host all the streaming videos they want. Google is also free to decide how to present results, since they are a private company; and have no obligation to ensure anyone gets on the front page. I may not agree with their choices; but I do not want governments to decide how they should be run and what they must or must not show.
[doublepost=1564154894][/doublepost]

It's open season for all politicians who block people on services like Twitter from contacting them. The courts have decided. It violates the individual's ability to practice their 1st amendment rights. There is no right violating when a regular person blocks, attempt to censor or reports and has the provider close the account of someone clearly violating the ToS.

Which is quite reasonable. A politician is speaking for their office when they use Twitter in an official capacity and make political statements; vs. an individual who is not. Even a politician's private account should be allowed to block people provided they make no official statements using it.

Is that the kind of America you want? Freedom of speech, but with legal restrictions?

To quote Nate Hentoff: Free speech for me but not for thee...

 

[jlc1978]

Town square.

Not really, there are still limits placed on the right to speak, including when - you can't yell at 3 AM in some places; nor can you incite people to illegal actions. There may be no prior restraint but the government can legitimately prevent you from speaking further.

 

[ksnell]

The law says it clearly. You're offering up conjecture. It isn't my fault you can't understand simple principles.

We are speaking of ideas. I already provided you a source that specifically references law.

So let me ask you about this simple principle. If one of these "platforms" was effectively having news curated in a way that shaped opinion enough to throw the election of a country (like a certain political party is convinced of), would that be okay? To clarify, you are arguing exactly that point - that these companies are allowed to shape the discourse in anyway they choose, curating the information like a publisher, all the while not being liable for the content by hiding under the guise that they are a platform.
[doublepost=1564190680][/doublepost]

Not really, there are still limits placed on the right to speak, including when - you can't yell at 3 AM in some places; nor can you incite people to illegal actions. There may be no prior restraint but the government can legitimately prevent you from speaking further.

How is this relevant?

 

[0388631]

We are speaking of ideas. I already provided you a source that specifically references law.

Ideas presented as opinion. What someone believes how things should work, sidestepping all current precedent and law.
[doublepost=1564196755][/doublepost]

So let me ask you about this simple principle. If one of these "platforms" was effectively having news curated in a way that shaped opinion enough to throw the election of a country (like a certain political party is convinced of), would that be okay? To clarify, you are arguing exactly that point - that these companies are allowed to shape the discourse in anyway they choose, curating the information like a publisher, all the while not being liable for the content by hiding under the guise that they are a platform.

Yes. I'd be perfectly fine with that. Because every service curates updates how they see fit. It is up to you, the private citizen, to go and read news yourself and establish your own opinion. Something reads sketchy? Do the research yourself. You're getting your news through a middleman.

Companies have been doing what you're complaining about for decades if not since the time this country was established. There is no law preventing companies from not shaping the political discourse of this country.

CNN and FOX curate their news and provide a slant to shape peoples opinion. Should that be outlawed, too? Then again, critical thinking isn't advocated enough anymore in this country.

 

[jlc1978]

How is this relevant?

It's not a neutral free speech area if certain types of speech are prohibited.

 

[ksnell]

Ideas presented as opinion. What someone believes how things should work, sidestepping all current precedent and law.
[doublepost=1564196755][/doublepost]
Yes. I'd be perfectly fine with that. Because every service curates updates how they see fit. It is up to you, the private citizen, to go and read news yourself and establish your own opinion. Something reads sketchy? Do the research yourself. You're getting your news through a middleman.

Companies have been doing what you're complaining about for decades if not since the time this country was established. There is no law preventing companies from not shaping the political discourse of this country.

CNN and FOX curate their news and provide a slant to shape peoples opinion. Should that be outlawed, too? Then again, critical thinking isn't advocated enough anymore in this country.

Exactly my point. No issues with CNN or Fox because they are publishers and do not hide from it. They are liable if they put out false information and must issue corrections. This is what many of these tech companies are hiding from. If they want to behave like CNN or Fox then be a publisher, if not, be a platform.

 

[0388631]

Exactly my point. No issues with CNN or Fox because they are publishers and do not hide from it. They are liable if they put out false information and must issue corrections. This is what many of these tech companies are hiding from. If they want to behave like CNN or Fox then be a publisher, if not, be a platform.

No. Social media companies provide links to the publisher. They themselves don't publish news. There's no similarity.

 

[ksnell]

No. Social media companies provide links to the publisher. They themselves don't publish news. There's no similarity.

But if they decide what CAN be published and what cannot, they are taking on an editor role which looks an awful lot like a publisher. This should come all the responsibilities a publisher has. Otherwise, how could it be considered fair when companies like CNN or Fox are not offered the same protections? CNN and Fox may as well just switch to a "platform" like YouTube/Twitter and have all the content creators paid via ad revenue. That is literally the only difference at this point.

 

[0388631]

But if they decide what CAN be published and what cannot, they are taking on an editor role which looks an awful lot like a publisher. This should come all the responsibilities a publisher has. Otherwise, how could it be considered fair when companies like CNN or Fox are not offered the same protections? CNN and Fox may as well just switch to a "platform" like YouTube/Twitter and have all the content creators paid via ad revenue. That is literally the only difference at this point.

Except they're not. They're not required by any law to provide links to both. And who is to say they're providing a slant? You'd have to prove without any shred of doubt that they are. Good luck.

And as I said earlier, if you're getting your news solely from social media, you're a dumbass. Not you specifically, but the millions of Americans who are incapable of critical thinking and just go on CNN or FOX or even Breitbart for their news.

This is a problem that affects both Liberals and Conservatives alike.

 

[ksnell]

Except they're not. They're not required by any law to provide links to both. And who is to say they're providing a slant? You'd have to prove without any shred of doubt that they are. Good luck.

And as I said earlier, if you're getting your news solely from social media, you're a dumbass. Not you specifically, but the millions of Americans who are incapable of critical thinking and just go on CNN or FOX or even Breitbart for their news.

This is a problem that affects both Liberals and Conservatives alike.

I 100% agree with you that individuals should be smarter and able to read between the lines of content that is published but unfortunately sometimes that is asking a little too much .

There absolutely without question is a slant in social media. Just do a quick look around and you will find a ton of information on it, from suppressed notifications of new content uploaded for some individuals, shadow banning individuals so their followers do not receive their tweets in their feeds, flexible Terms of Service being applied in different manners to different folks, etc.

While I can't say I fully agree with everything released by Project Veritas (just like any other news source), they did provide some pretty damning evidence of companies like Google working to suppress Conservative and Libertarian opinion.