by Dennis Crouch
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the major internet-law case of Gonzalez v. Google, focusing on Section 230(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That provision creates a wide safe harbor for internet service providers; shielding them from liability associated with publishing third-party content. Section 230 fostered the dominant social media business model where almost all of the major internet media services rely primarily upon user-provided content. Think YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc. Likewise, search engines like Google and Bing are essentially providing a concierge recommendation service for user-developed content and data. The new AI models also work by using a large corpus of user-created data. But, AI may be different since it is more content-generative than most social-media.
The safe-harbor statute particularly states that the service provider will not be treated as the “publisher” of information content provided by someone else (“another information content provider.”) 47 U.S.C. 203(c). At common law, a publisher could be held liable for publishing and distributing defamatory material, and the safe-harbor eliminates that potential liability. Thus, if someone posts a defamatory YouTube video, YouTube (Google) won’t be held liable for publishing the video. (The person who posted the video could be held liable, if you can find him).
Liability for Recommending: In addition to publishing videos, all of the social media companies use somewhat sophisticated algorithms to recommend content to users. For YouTube, the basic idea is to keep users engaged for longer and thus increase advertising revenue. The case before the Supreme Court asks whether the Section 230(c) safe harbor protects social media companies from liability when their recommendations cause harm. If you have ever wasted an hour death-scrolling on TikTok, you can recognize that the the service provided was a steady stream of curated content designed to keep you watching. Each individual vid is something, but really you were latched-into the stream. The question then is whether the safe-harbor statute excuses that entire interaction, or is it limited to each individual posting.
For me, in some ways it is akin to the Supreme Court’s struggle over 4th Amendment privacy interests related to cell-phone location information. While a single point of information might not be constitutionally protected; 127 days of information is an entirely different matter. See Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018). Here, the safe harbor applies to a single video or posting by a user, but the sites compile and curate those into a steady stream that might also be seen as an entirely different matter.
Gonzalez’ child, Nohemi Gonzalez, was killed in the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks coordinated by ISIS. In the lawsuit, Gonzales allege that YouTube is partially responsible because its algorithms provided tailor made recommendations of pro-ISIS videos to susceptible individuals who then participated in and supported the terrorist attacks that killed their child. You may be thinking that Gonzales may have difficulty proving causation. I think that is right, but the case was cut-short on Section 230 grounds before really reaching that issue.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Google, and the Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case on the following question:
Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?
80+ briefs were filed with the Supreme Court arguing various positions. This is a very large number for a Supreme Court case. Many of the briefs argue that shrinking the scope of Section 230 would radically diminish the pluralism and generativity that we see online. I might be OK with that if it gets TikTok out of my house.
As noted above, the plaintiffs case seems to lack some causal links, and in my view there is a very good chance that the court will decide the case on that grounds (via the sister case involving Twitter). Justice Alito’s early question for petitioner highlights the problem.
Justice Alito: I’m afraid I’m completely confused by whatever argument you’re making at the present time.
I also appreciated Justice Sotomayor’s humility on behalf of the court.
Justice Sotomayor: We’re a court. We really don’t know about these things. These are not the nine greatest experts on the internet.
Congress passed a separate safe-harbor in the copyright context as part of the DMCA. A key difference there was that copyright holders were able to lobby for more limits on the safe harbor. For instance, a social media company needs to take down infringing content once it is on notice. DCMA notice-and-takedown-provision. Section 230 does not include any takedown requirements. Thus, even after YouTube is notified of defamatory or otherwise harmful content, it can keep the content up without risk of liability until specifically ordered to take it down by a court. Oral arguments had some discussion about whether the algorithms were “neutral,” but the plaintiff’s counsel provided a compelling closing statement: “You can’t call it neutral once the defendant knows its algorithm is doing it.”
[Note – I apologize, I started writing this and accidentally hit publish too early. A garbled post was up for about an hour while I was getting my haircut and eating breakfast.]
link to nypost.com
Here is another reason 230 has to go! Section 230 was used by the social media corporations and the government (all of whom made massive billions from Covid) to shadow ban and ban people from speaking about all the evidence that Covid-19 came from the Wuhan lab.
We need the First Amendment to continue as a country. We need the FBI/DOJ/DHS/Congress/President to be held accountable for their role in violating the Constitution.
The Woke are neo-Marxists.
link to youtube.com
Fauci needs to be prosecuted. We are living in a dystopia.
The depth of the dystopia will forever be denied.
And if even a fraction of the linked discussion comes to pass, the dead of the COVID millions will be a drop in the bucket:
link to youtu.be
He bends his knee to the Woke. But interesting stuff overall. Frankly, I don’t trust people that bend their knee to the Woke.
I think his reference to ESG was sardonic.
Not while Garland is AG. Or any dem, and some republicans.
Regardless of what one may think of the machinations related to his SC nominate nomination, everyone should agree that Garland has shown an extremely low sense of legal judgment in his role as AG.
Even worse than Buttigieg for legal effects.
Reality:
What happens to me now is that defamatory statements about me are left up by the social media sites and my posts are removed that merely state a position contrary to the status quo opinion. This is a direct result of Section 230. It is not about a private corporation who can permit or deny membership as they are acting as a publisher and defaming me.
I literally have literally cut and pasted portions of essays from famous scholars and social media sites delete the posts and say I have violated their terms of service. The portions of the essays are in no way offensive and merely state opinions contrary to the Woke. And other people write horrible defamatory responses about me and the social media sites leave these comments up.
Section 230 has to go.
… or not – and just be more appropriately applied to those that ARE mere conduits (or differently phrased: public town squares).
You don’t want that?
You want instead to have a First Amendment position?
Sure, no problem, have at it (you just don’t fall into the protection of Section 230).
No one (really) is saying that any entity cannot have a First Amendment position if that entity so desires.
The legal point is that you can’t have both First Amendment protection AND have the special treatment for mere conduit of a public town square.
(See OC’s post below)
“ other people write horrible defamatory responses about me”
Good because cr ee ps like you really need to e f f off and die.
Really MM? What opinion do I hold that justifies you or someone else destroying my life or attempting to m ur der me?
See? This is why Section 230 has to go. The Woke Guard use Section 230. Those of us that are still Americans who believe in the Enlightenment want debate and the marketplace of ideas. The Extreme Woke Democrats want authoritarian rule and suppression of free speech.
Reality.
MM, I haven’t changed my political views in decades. The Extreme Woke Democrats are neo-Marxists and at this point some are openly advocating for a form of government like CCP.
I hope this is one of your defamation claims I posted. Why don’t you call me again from MD breaking two laws. You are not licensed in TN, and you were never my lawyer… Ethics Atty. Really……… LOLOLOLOL
Oh excuse my faux pas you were in GA. You were just claiming you were at the DC Bar
What this case comes down to is whether a person has a right to defend themselves against defamation.
The social media platforms put their finger on the scale and chose which comments to delete and which to keep based on their personal political beliefs.
We need to overturn Section 230. A person’s right to defend themselves against defamation is a cornerstone of our country and English Common law.
defamation is a cornerstone of our country
No. Defamation claims have always taken a back seat to the 1st Amendment in this country.
If you read the case law, there is an obvious tension between the government permitting lawsuits against speech (i.e., the form of defamation suits) and the 1st Amendment. However, in most instances, the 1st Amendment prevails.
I can still can’t believe he’s a lawyer.
Wiper gets his talking points from the same to il et bowl that tells him to drink ivermectin and avoid toothpaste with fluoride.
Funny how you view ivermectin denial and fluoride denial.
Fluoride denial is as much Far Right denialism as ivermectin denial is Far Left.
Neither are very smart.
Wt,
As noted, IF the conduit WANTS to have a First Amendment position, then they lose the purpose of why Section 230 was put in place.
You just cannot have it both ways.
+1
As noted, IF the conduit WANTS to have a First Amendment position, then they lose the purpose of why Section 230 was put in place.
You need to explain that position. What do you mean by “lose the purpose”? What is this purpose? How would Twitter (for example) lose this purpose?
You just cannot have it both ways.
Says who? You?
Twitter, Facebook, Truth Social have 1st Amendment rights, on their private servers, to promote whatever speech they want. If they want to be pro-Left, that is their right. If they want to be pro-Right, that is their right as well. If they want to be anti-religion or pro-guns, that is their right as well. The government has no say in the decisions made by these private companies (internet-based or otherwise) to promote whatever viewpoint of their choosing. This is straight-forward Constitutional Law 101 type stuff, and the Supreme Court isn’t going to change this.
This leaves us with the protections provided by Congress under 47 USC 230(c). Assuming you don’t like those provisions, what arguments can you present to somehow invalidate that law. If you are going to argue that it is unconstitutional, what is the basis for that. MW’a assertion that “[a] person’s right to defend themselves against defamation is a cornerstone of our country” is complete hogwash. This is no Constitutional right to defend oneself from defamation.
For those of us who took Constitutional law in law school, the concept of “chilling effect” is one that is frequently associated with the 1st Amendment. As it is used, the term “chilling effect” refers to government laws/actions that have the potential to deter free speech. This is an important concept when it comes to defamation/libel cases, because these kind of cases can be used to chill speech. Consequently, this is why in NY Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that libel laws (where are state claims) are subject to the 1st Amendment.
Getting back to Section 230, what is the argument for defeating it? To help you out, I’ll give a snippet from “The American Conservative” which calls for the repeal of this case:
New York Times v. Sullivan is also inconsistent with the nation’s commitment to the security of individual rights. … Libel is not just an imposition on someone else’s interests but an attack on the rights of another person—specifically, on the right to one’s reputation.
At a very high level, this sounds very reasonable. However, what concerned the Court was the chilling impact of libel laws. This is from Black’s concurrence in NY Times v. Sullivan:
The half-million-dollar verdict does give dramatic proof, however, that state libel laws threaten the very existence of an American press virile enough to publish unpopular views on public affairs and bold enough to criticize the conduct of public officials. The factual background of this case emphasizes the imminence and enormity of that threat.
…
Viewed realistically, this record lends support to an inference that, instead of being damaged, Commissioner Sullivan’s political, social, and financial prestige has likely been enhanced by the Times’ publication. Moreover, a second half-million-dollar libel verdict against the Times based on the same advertisement has already been awarded to another Commissioner. There, a jury again gave the full amount claimed. There is no reason to believe that there are not more such huge verdicts lurking just around the corner for the Times or any other newspaper or broadcaster which might dare to criticize public officials. In fact, briefs before us show that, in Alabama, there are now pending eleven libel suits by local and state officials against the Times seeking $5,600,000, and five such suits against the Columbia Broadcasting System seeking $1,700,000. Moreover, this technique for harassing and punishing a free press — now that it has been shown to be possible — is by no means limited to cases with racial overtones; it can be used in other fields where public feelings may make, local as well as out-of-state, newspapers easy prey for libel verdict seekers.
The issue being addressed by the Court was how to protect the press from being deluged with libel lawsuits. As has been shown in countries not as free as our own — shutting down an independent press is one of first steps in changing a democracy into an autocracy. This is why defamation/libel claims take a back seat to 1st Amendment rights.
Seriously, WT, I just don’t get how people like you can think like this.
I wonder how communist principles can be so deeply entrenched in your thinking.
I am old enough to have been around for the passing of the CDA. The whole principle was that the sites were merely offering people a forum to post content and were unable to curate due to the volume. A big part of this was copyrighted music and photos.
A big part of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is individual rights. That is the cornerstone of what has made this country great.
A large site now wants to curate content and suppress speech by terrifying people they will be canceled by the Woke. A person needs their individual liberty to sue for defamation.
Just look at this site. The anti-patent judicial activists constantly write defamatory comments about me. The only reason they aren’t worse is that I have and will sue them for defamation.
The game of sites like Twitter was to suppress all speech that didn’t conform to their Woke ideology. And many of these sites are like monopolies.
We need 230 gone and we need some type of common carrier law for social media. Do you want the government deciding what you can say or text on your phone?
Anyway, if you haven’t followed the Twitter Files, then you are not informed and biased. You should read what Taibbi says about the media in this country and Twitter.
At its core it is about individuals being able to say what they want (short of defamation) and defend themselves against defamation.
You are ridiculous since you haven’t followed the Twitter files.
I just don’t understand how so many educated people in the USA have become communists. All I can tell you is go visit China. I stayed in the USSR for a while. Nightmare. Everything I said and did was monitored. Anyway….talking to the wind.
“Just look at this site. The anti-patent judicial activists constantly write defamatory comments about me. The only reason they aren’t worse is that I have and will sue them for defamation.”
Please provide a link or any other evidence on even one lawsuit for defamation you have filed against anybody posting comments on this site about you. If you do not, then STEFU.
The purpose of a defamation suit is to compensate you for damages you suffered as a result of defamatory statements about you. You are anonymous on this site. You have suffered zero damages. You could not prove even one cent in damages in a defamation suit.
It is impossible for me to believe you are an actual lawyer.
^^^ someone WAY too hung up on ‘defamation’ as to one person and quite missing the bigger picture.
Not surprisingly, this person is also of a certain political ideology.
It’s as if those of that ideology turn off their cognitive functioning when anything disagreeable to that ideology is discussed.
I’m still waiting for ANY evidence of these lawsuits he claims he’s filed, and is willing to file. Until he puts up, you can STEFU too.
^^^ wait all you want as you continue to miss the point.
You want to exclaim that you cannot believe that he is an attorney, even as YOU act like you are not an attorney.
As I stated: there is an apparent affliction of turning off cognitive power when a particular politically ideology is involved.
And it is as if those afflicted cannot care that they are afflicted.
… and YOU can STFU too…
Lol – nice attempt at one-bucketing.
But a big No Thank You to that attempt. My position is not what Night Writer says, and need not be.
You would be better off clenching tight your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting, “Na na na na.”
Breeze, you have the affliction of the Woke that you think that others must prove things to you. I don’t care what you think Breeze. You obviously are part of the Woke.
Please run the Woke anti-virus on your brain.
So you got nothing? Just like I thought. Ly!ng p#ssy a$$ b!tch.
I await your awesome lawsuit.
In the meantime, you and Q can GFY.
That is a charming show of your legal acumen.
(and here I thought the Liberal Left “loved everyone” — leastwise per Wt; is that the 1984 version, or the Woke redefinition that is “inclusive” of only those in the select group?)
Breeze, are you like 12? I know the Extreme Woke Democrats (the Woke Guard) recruit at a young age.
Smelly Breeze emulates P00py Diaper when the topic is politics.
Test.
I guess I am allowed to comment again on this thread.
I keep trying to figure out why I was blocked, especially after reading Breeze’s comment here.
There are a number of different filters, PM:
Count filter:
This one can sneak up on you, especially when there are several conversations engaged. This is typically a timed filter. So waiting 24 hours by itself will suffice (using the Report feature only works on occasion).
George Carlin filter:
This one is often even more hit and miss (I have been nabbed in portions that I have directly copied from someone whose post went through unimpeded – as noticeable by direct conversation flow and timing).
This filter thus may have a global component and an individual component.
Numbers for letters, spacing (even sometimes single letters per lines) often can avoid this filter, but sometimes it is very difficult to identify the trip point.
Link filter:
If one is embedding multiple links (even as low as merely more than two), the post can be snagged.
And really WT try to think about this from other people’s perspective.
Consider someone like me. I am a liberal D but not a Marxist like the current D party. Look at Covid-19 and its origins. There is evidence that it was created in the Wuhan lab. But do you know what the best evidence is that China created the virus is? I bet you don’t because of Section 230.
The best evidence is that the Wuhan lab will not turn over an Excel spreadsheet of the viruses that were in the lab at the time of the start of the pandemic.
Consider that the government doesn’t have the right to suppress speech and that websites don’t have the right to defame people that take positions they don’t like.
And it is not about a private corporation and they can let who they want use it. It is about the private corporation acting as a publisher and defaming and destroying poeple’s lives who take positions they don’t like.
All I can tell you WT is that your education was lacking. You are not an American in the sense of how I was raised. You are neo-Marxists.
And just try a thought experiment. Imagine you had a free mind like mind. That you wanted to express contrary opinions to the mainstream like I do. What happens to me know is that defamatory statements about me are left up by the social media sites and my posts are removed that merely state a position contrary to the status quo opinion.
Think about that.
I wonder how communist principles can be so deeply entrenched in your thinking.
I have zero clue as to what you are talking about. The freedom of speech is part of the bedrock supporting the freedoms in this country.
A big part of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is individual rights. That is the cornerstone of what has made this country great.
That’s nice. Why don’t you wrap the star-spangled banner around yourself as you type. Does it make you feel better? However, it doesn’t make your arguments any stronger.
A large site now wants to curate content and suppress speech by terrifying people they will be canceled by the Woke.
Still confused about the difference between government suppressing speech (bad) and individual actors curating content to their own liking (protected by the 1st amendment)?
A person needs their individual liberty to sue for defamation.
1st Amendment > individual liberty to sue for defamation. Sorry, that’s the law – that’s also part of what protects this country from authoritarian rule. What you exalt as the “individual liberty to sue for defamation” is the quick and easy way to bring down freedom of the press. One is enshrined in the US Constitution the other is not. Let me give you a hint, the right to sue for defamation is not.
Just look at this site. The anti-patent judicial activists constantly write defamatory comments about me. The only reason they aren’t worse is that I have and will sue them for defamation.
Good luck with that. What are the damages associated with libeling an anonymous figure? My guess is it is pretty miniscule.
The game of sites like Twitter was to suppress all speech that didn’t conform to their Woke ideology. And many of these sites are like monopolies.
Twitters actions are protected under the 1st amendment.
We need 230 gone and we need some type of common carrier law for social media. Do you want the government deciding what you can say or text on your phone?
The government doesn’t decide. The government may ask to have something taken down, but that’s all they can do.
You are ridiculous since you haven’t followed the Twitter files.
LOL. I’m ridiculous because I haven’t followed Musk’s propaganda campaign? Next, you’ll be accusing me of not supporting Putin’s special military operation in Ukraine because I believe the “leftwing media” who are reporting that that Russia actually invaded Ukraine.
I just don’t understand how so many educated people in the USA have become communists.
Because like most of your pals on the right, you don’t know the difference between authoritarianism, communism, and socialism. I would expect educated people would know the difference – bad assumption on my part.
Consider someone like me. I am a liberal D but not a Marxist like the current D party.
You are not a liberal D. You and Q are repeating rightwing talking points all the time.
The best evidence is that the Wuhan lab will not turn over an Excel spreadsheet of the viruses that were in the lab at the time of the start of the pandemic.
Let’s just assume, for a second, that the Wuhan lab created COVID-19 and it escaped. What of it? COVID screwed China just as much as the rest of the world. And if that’s the “best evidence” you’ve got, then that isn’t much evidence to go with. Regardless, what does this have to do with defamation/libel and Section 230?
websites don’t have the right to defame people that take positions they don’t like
A website’s algorithm (or policy) that filters out the “positions” that people take isn’t defamation.
It is about the private corporation acting as a publisher and defaming and destroying poeple’s lives who take positions they don’t like
Can you give me an example of someone who was defamed by Twitter/Facebook/Etc.? Can you explain to me how they were defamed and how their lives were destroyed?
You are not an American in the sense of how I was raised. You are neo-Marxists.
Attack the other. One of the most dangerous political tools around. The Russians are using the same tactics in explaining their “special military operation” in Ukraine. It is much easier to commit atrocities against people after they have been dehumanized. For example, you calling me a “neo-Marxist” is laughable on its face. If you and I were to meet at a bar, you and I would probably agree on 90% of things – far more than if you were to meet someone from another country. However, because you and I disagree on these political issues, you feel a need to make me less of an American in your eyes to justify your position. You see this tactic used all the time. It isn’t hard to find those on the extreme right talking about taking matters into their own hands (using their firearms) to get rid of liberals and those that think like them. You can find those in Congress as well (MTG and Boebert are a couple of good examples).
What happens to me know is that defamatory statements about me are left up by the social media sites and my posts are removed that merely state a position contrary to the status quo opinion.
Then sue the person making the defamatory statements. Twitter isn’t making those statements. Facebook isn’t making those statements. And if you don’t want your posts removed, then go to Truth Social or Gettr. This isn’t hard. You are also free to start your own social media website. Perhaps you’ve read about the Counterspeech Doctrine in Constitutional Law. This derives from the following statement by Justic Brandeis in Whitney v. California (US 1927):
“If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
This relates back to aversion to chilling speech I have written about previously. As such, rather than chill bad speech, the proper remedy is more speech. The same principle was cited by Clarence Thomas in Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly (US 2011), in which he wrote:
if the state of Massachusetts’ “concern is that tobacco advertising communicates a message with which it disagrees, it could seek to counteract that message with ‘more speech, not enforced silence.’”
For someone who accuses me of having a lacking educations, I would highly recommend that you finding your old Constitutional Law text book, open up the section on the 1st Amendment, and start re-reading the case law that you have apparently forgotten.
Now let’s see if Dennis will allow this to be published ….
“ I am a liberal D ”
You are so full of s h – t that it’s coming out of your eye sockets.
MM, it is sad that you have been afflicted with the Woke virus.
You remind me of a Moonie but with poor manners and a tendency to violence. More like the Red Guard than a Moonie in those respects.
It truly makes me sad that people like you have been so misled.
You err Night Writer.
By that I mean that given that being Woke occurs across a spectrum, those like Malcolm and Greg are NOT on the spectrum of being (simply) misled, but are further to the Left and are doing the misleading.
This is beyond sad.
It is culpable.
Wt,
Obtuse? Is it deliberate?
You continue to peddle logical fallacies (including moving goalposts and attempting to insert other people’s arguments into my mouth while entirely ignoring points already given to you with your questions already having been answered.
I have to wonder if you even understand what Section 230 is about, as you seem fixated on this red herring of “Must have First Amendment.”
A couple of easy points for you to dwell on:
I have never implicated that First Amendment is lost.
An entity wanting First Amendment is entirely ok with me.
An entity wanting First Amendment is simply different than the public forum – mere conduit entity that Section 230 was drafted to protect.
You seem really confused on these basics.
Sadly, this appears directly related to your wanting to ‘protect’ your political views: your cognitive shutdown is unmistakable.
… by the way, First Amendment protection AND defamation co-exist NOW.
You seem to be insisting on one or the other.
You continue to peddle logical fallacies (including moving goalposts and attempting to insert other people’s arguments into my mouth while entirely ignoring points already given to you with your questions already having been answered.
Generalized assertions without the backing of facts. Sounds like an Examiner. Next …
I have to wonder if you even understand what Section 230 is about, as you seem fixated on this red herring of “Must have First Amendment.”
You are the one who wrote “IF the conduit WANTS to have a First Amendment position, then they lose the purpose of why Section 230 was put in place” — not me. You are the one who put them side by side.
I have never implicated that First Amendment is lost.
Then what did you mean by the statement that I reproduced immediately above? I read it to mean, ‘if one wants 1st amendment rights, then they lose 230.’ The obvious corollary to that is if one wants 230, then they lose 1st amendment rights — otherwise, your statement doesn’t make sense.
public forum – mere conduit entity that Section 230 was drafted to protect
Not a public forum — it is a private forum with stated policies that the participants agree to abide by. Arguments based upon NOT THE FACTS are bad arguments.
You seem really confused on these basics.
You seem really confused on the facts.
Sadly, this appears directly related to your wanting to ‘protect’ your political views: your cognitive shutdown is unmistakable.
My political views have nothing to do with it. My positions apply equally well to the policies employed by Truth Social and Gettr — or are you claiming that they are just “moderate” forums expressing viewpoints like yourself?
… by the way, First Amendment protection AND defamation co-exist NOW.
Yet they are in tension — see the limits placed on defamation lawsuits by NY Times v. Sullivan. Again, this is Constitutional Law 101. I’m not breaking new ground here.
You seem to be insisting on one or the other.
You seem to have reading comprehension problems. I’ve NEVER written “one or the other.”
That is a lot of rambling from you which boils down to:
Wt does not understand the issues involved in the Section 230 cases.
You are insisting on seeing a “Must First Amendment” scenario that is just not there.
Come back when you figure out that the issue is Section 230, and not the First Amendment.
You missed another one, genius. For 30 Yuan I’ll show you where it is.
Thank$$ Shifty — Spring special nets me double on your choice of “whack-a-m0le” posts.
Ok 60.
Whack$$$$-a-million…?
Ok genius. They decided 90 Yuan is the final offer. Take it or leave it. It’s out of my hands.
How can it be out of your hands when you are they?
Now you’re talking gibberish . They say the offer is off the table.
You are doing that projection thing again.
But thank$& anyway for your choice of how you post.
Repeat yourself much, Snowflake? Nobody is fooled.
Have you noticed just how much YOU repeat yourself, Shifty?
ANY repeat from me in regards to you is merely an artifact of your own gamesmanship and the fact that a prior statement of mine very much remains applicable to YOUR repeats.
And yes – your choice here obtains for me additional coin because of the enterprise that I have set up that functions from YOUR CHOICE of your gamesmanship posts.
Keep playing friend!
Nobody is fooled, Snowflake.
Your statement is true, Shifty — just not how you may be intending to have it applied.
(stop projecting – now THAT is a proper application of your statement. You just are not very good at this).
Again with the gibberish. How many Yuan did you get for that one?
Thank$ for the game$
You’ve descended into your (rather b0r1ng) tactics — let me know if you want to advance a conversation.
How many Yuan you get for hitting return and repeating your script, Snowflake?
Another triple payout from your choices, my pal Shifty.
Let’s see if you can figure out why your choices provide a triple here.
I have a side bet on your next response, but if won’t tell you on which choice of yours this bet is on.
You missed another one, genius. For 30 Yuan I’ll show you where it Is. You’re only fooling yourself, Snowflake.
Back to back triple payouts from Your choices – thank$$$
To have some entertainment here, can you identify the payout points?
Let’s see if you are intentionally feeding my entrepreneurialship or just mindlessly flubbing about.
What is it with your gibberish, Snowflake? You get extra Yuan?
I think Snowflake said they got 30 Yuan for gobblygook but 60 Yuan for gibberish.
Tell me, do you have a “spin the wheel,” or do you write your rather bland snippets on pieces of paper and pick them from a hat?
So it’s gibberish! 60 Yuan!!
A double payout from your choices.
Sweet.
Your 0bsess10n does have its upside since i enterprised on your proclivities.
There’s a ton of confusion in these comments. I’ve been following the CDA since it was passed in 1996, so maybe this comment will help some understand the issues in this case. To be clear, the pending Supreme Court case is NOT about immunity for content moderation decisions, such as the allegedly politically-based removal of content on social media platforms. That is the subject of a separate provision of the CDA, 230(c)(2), which is not at issue here.
This case is about 230(c)(1), which is about an online service provider’s civil immunity for statements by its users. The statute was motivated in part by the famous case of Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. (Yup, the very same “Stratton Oakmont” that was the subject of Wolf of Wall Street). Basically Stratton sued Prodigy, a big on-line service provider in the early 1990s, because one of its users posted a message to a bulletin board on Prodigy saying (surprise surprise) that Stratton had engaged in fraudulent activity. A state court in New York held that Prodigy could potentially be liable for statements by its member, even though Prodigy was little more than a passive bulletin board relaying textual messages posted by members with not much in the way of content moderation controls.
Stratton was cited by several members of Congress as a key motivator behind 230(c)(1), with Congress worried that if an on-line service provider could potentially be liable for statements by a potentially countless number of its users, statements the service provider had no part in creating and no practical ability to verify or investigate, on-line services would never have been able to exist during those early days of the Internet. The language of Section 230(c)(1) is thus extremely broad, and the clarity that it provided to Internet companies ended up giving U.S.-based companies a huge competitive advantage in the 1990s and early 2000s in building and deploying large scale interactive on-line services. Other countries back in those days simply did not have Section 230 or anything equivalent, and that cloud of uncertainty chilled investment in Internet-based online services outside the U.S. for years. For example, it’s hard to get venture capital or investment in a business when the answer to the question, “can we be liable for user-posted content?” is “possibly,” “it depends,” or even “who knows,” which were the correct answers in Europe and many other jurisdictions at that time. The answer to that question in the U.S., for the most part, was an unequivocal “no.” And that certainty fueled not only the growth of on-line services themselves in the U.S., but all of the companies that provided the supporting infrastructure for the Internet.
The issue under Section 230(c)(1) here is a seeming straightforward one. Today’s on-line services have evolved quite a bit since the comparatively quaint Prodigy bulletin board at issue in Stratton Oakmont. A recommendation by a modern on-line service, according to the petitioner here, goes beyond providing a passive forum for relaying content by other users. The recommendation, it is argued, constitutes a further endorsement and encouragement by the service for the user to consume the recommended content which, according to the petitioner, goes beyond the protection of the statute.
The stakes are huge because modern on-line services could not simply remove recommendations if this case went against them. Today’s services see massive amounts of new content being added constantly, and without some type of targeted recommendation system, many users would get lost or lose interest in the service. Most users will simply not sift through an enormous volume of new content (most of it pretty awful) to find something interesting to read/watch.
>>Today’s services see massive amounts of new content being added constantly, and without some type of targeted recommendation system, many users would get lost or lose interest in the service.
Total mischaracterization. The issue is whether the online platforms can put their finger on the scale and help others defame a person and still be immune from prosecution. The issue is the recommendation engines are not neutral.
Please pardon potential repeat (count filter):
Completely agree.
This “oh noes too much volume” simply does not cut it.
You left off the part where the social media companies went from we are only a repository of other people’s comments to we will curate and recommend based on our private beliefs and based on what the government tells us to do.