Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Bandwagon]

Social media companies aren’t publishers. This is how they avoid liability under Section 230, for example. They are platforms, and therefore expect special treatment under the law.

Yes I understand that the law works that way, however in practical terms where is the actual difference?

 

[Gronk]

I'm not sure how you need it to be phrased in order to answer it. I'm guessing that nothing would be good enough.

Are you saying that my response is wrong ?

 

[Gronk]

Social media companies aren’t publishers.

At the moment in the USA.

Meanwhile ...

Friendlyjordies: John Barilaro to be paid $715,000 by Google over YouTube videos

Tech giant and comedian Jordan Shanks may face contempt of court charges over videos published during trial

www.theguardian.com

However, Rares said in his judgement that the comedian continued to post on YouTube about Barilaro, including videos containing “slurs” that he had lied to the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (Icac) and conducted an extramarital affair.

The videos also made what Rares called “allegations of professional impropriety” against Barilaro’s lawyers which had no “factual or intelligible basis”.

The videos, and Google’s decision to leave them online, amounted to what the judge called “improper pressure” on Barilaro during the case.

“The intimidatory purpose of the [video] hit its mark,” Rares found, pointing to evidence given by Barilaro during the trial that he had at one point instructed his lawyers to settle the case because “the hell continued”.

In a scathing judgement, Rares said Shanks had run a “relentless cyberbullying” campaign against Barilaro which “caused him to leave public office prematurely”.

 

[strider]

Of course it's a bias, just as it is if Twitter decides on balance through it's biased lens that they'll remove the story.

How is it any different from traditional media refusing to run a story, or reporting it with a slant that changes it's meaning?

Because twitter is a platform, pretending to be unbiased, allowing others to push their views.

Media push you what they want you to know/think.

 

[Bandwagon]

Because twitter is a platform, pretending to be unbiased, allowing others to push their views.

Media push you what they want you to know/think.

Media also are a platform, and pretend to lack bias.

 

[strider]

Media also are a platform, and pretend to lack bias.

The difference is who creates the content.

I agree, both have influence and both are biased. But one is a producer of bias and the other is a host.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yes I understand that the law works that way, however in practical terms where is the actual difference?

Well if there's no actual difference then they should be treated as publishers under the law. But this should've happened before Musk bought Twitter. If it's only something that merkins think should happen now they are hypocrites.

 

[Bandwagon]

The difference is who creates the content.

I agree, both have influence and both are biased. But one is a producer of bias and the other is a host.

Well, not in this case exactly, as the content is the same, as it's the story by the NYP that's being discussed. The difference is obviously how people engage with that content, but really how does that matter?

It amounts to the same thing, albeit delivered in a different manner.

The difference here is the attempt to hold Twitter to a higher standard, for which there's really no basis other than because social media or some such.

 

[Gronk]

Well if there's no actual difference then they should be treated as publishers under the law. But this should've happened before Musk bought Twitter. If it's only something that merkins think should happen now they are hypocrites.

In 2018 Zuckerberg faced a senate hearing following the 2016 election.

Is Facebook a tech company or a publisher? Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) asked Zuckerberg whether he considered his company to be a tech giant or a publisher, noting that the answer to this question would frame the sort of regulation to which Facebook would be subjected.

“I view us as a tech company because we build technology and product,” Zuckerberg said. And while Facebook does publish content, as Sullivan noted, the platform does not, itself, produce the content. “When people ask us if we’re a media company or a publisher, my understanding is — what the heart of what they’re really getting at is — do we feel responsibility for the content on our platform?” he added. “The answer to that, I think, is clearly yes, but I don’t think that’s incompatible with fundamentally, at our core, being a technology company where the main thing we do is have engineers and build products.”

Zuckerberg tossed out a few broad suggestions for government oversight of Facebook and other social media that have historically dodged federal regulation. He suggested “a simple and practical set of ways that you explain what you are doing with data” — in other words, requirements to simplify the lengthy privacy agreement documents that users typically agree to without reading.

Key moments from Mark Zuckerberg’s Senate testimony

The 33-year-old tech titan faced an onslaught of 44 senators eager to maximize their allotted five minutes for grilling the witness.

www.politico.eu

 

[Poupou Escobar]

At the moment in the USA.

Meanwhile ...

Friendlyjordies: John Barilaro to be paid $715,000 by Google over YouTube videos

Tech giant and comedian Jordan Shanks may face contempt of court charges over videos published during trial

www.theguardian.com

However, Rares said in his judgement that the comedian continued to post on YouTube about Barilaro, including videos containing “slurs” that he had lied to the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (Icac) and conducted an extramarital affair.

The videos also made what Rares called “allegations of professional impropriety” against Barilaro’s lawyers which had no “factual or intelligible basis”.

The videos, and Google’s decision to leave them online, amounted to what the judge called “improper pressure” on Barilaro during the case.

“The intimidatory purpose of the [video] hit its mark,” Rares found, pointing to evidence given by Barilaro during the trial that he had at one point instructed his lawyers to settle the case because “the hell continued”.

In a scathing judgement, Rares said Shanks had run a “relentless cyberbullying” campaign against Barilaro which “caused him to leave public office prematurely”.

Good. Tech giants should have to be accountable to the states in which they make money. China has held them accountable for a long time while Western governments have felt the need to tread lightly through fear of the editorial power they hold.

 

[Bandwagon]

Well if there's no actual difference then they should be treated as publishers under the law. But this should've happened before Musk bought Twitter. If it's only something that merkins think should happen now they are hypocrites.

In some jurisdictions they are, their treatment under US law isn't the same as it is here for example, or the EU.

As for hypocrites, who the f**k cares, If you want to you'll find hypocrisy everywhere you look, big deal, merkins are hypocrites, this is not news.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Because twitter is a platform, pretending to be unbiased, allowing others to push their views.

Media push you what they want you to know/think.

Exactly. Twitter has been selling advertising to people while actively (and until recently, secretly) working against them politically.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The difference here is the attempt to hold Twitter to a higher standard, for which there's really no basis other than because social media or some such.

It's because Twitter is a genuine monopoly. There is no legitimate alternative.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

In 2018 Zuckerberg faced a senate hearing following the 2016 election.

Is Facebook a tech company or a publisher? Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) asked Zuckerberg whether he considered his company to be a tech giant or a publisher, noting that the answer to this question would frame the sort of regulation to which Facebook would be subjected.

“I view us as a tech company because we build technology and product,” Zuckerberg said. And while Facebook does publish content, as Sullivan noted, the platform does not, itself, produce the content. “When people ask us if we’re a media company or a publisher, my understanding is — what the heart of what they’re really getting at is — do we feel responsibility for the content on our platform?” he added. “The answer to that, I think, is clearly yes, but I don’t think that’s incompatible with fundamentally, at our core, being a technology company where the main thing we do is have engineers and build products.”

Zuckerberg tossed out a few broad suggestions for government oversight of Facebook and other social media that have historically dodged federal regulation. He suggested “a simple and practical set of ways that you explain what you are doing with data” — in other words, requirements to simplify the lengthy privacy agreement documents that users typically agree to without reading.

Key moments from Mark Zuckerberg’s Senate testimony

The 33-year-old tech titan faced an onslaught of 44 senators eager to maximize their allotted five minutes for grilling the witness.

www.politico.eu

This was four years ago and what has changed since then?

 

[Gronk]

This was four years ago and what has changed since then?

Nuffin

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

So the FBI lawyer that became the Twitter lawyer was apparently vetting the stuff given to Matt Taibbi and has now been fired.

 

[Bandwagon]

Have you got an instance of the feds favouring one side of politics so heavily as is alleged here?

Mate, the three letter agencies have been running protection for the right for f**king decades, think McCarthyism for a start.

It's f**king hilarious how now that so called conservatives are seeing themselves as the victims of these agencies, rather than the beneficiaries that it's this huge f**king deal like never before seen.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Nuffin

I bet it changes now the Democrats have lost control of their biggest platform. That is unless the Republicans now see an opportunity to get Twitter onside.

But whether it’s in support of the current government or the next one (because Twitter can skew perceptions of the two parties and thus influence elections), there are absolutely free speech violations occurring on the platform. Any denial of this is a semantic game.

 

[Bandwagon]

It's because Twitter is a genuine monopoly. There is no legitimate alternative.

That's a nonsense, and I suspect you well know it.

Because in this instance what we're talking about is the dissemination and consumption of a news story , or news in general if you prefer. In which space there is plenty of competition, across all forms of media. Twitter may well be a behemoth, it may well be incredibly influential, but then so is the Likes of News Corp, you know, the owners of the NYP.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Mate, the three letter agencies have been running protection for the right for f**king decades, think McCarthyism for a start.

It's f**king hilarious how now that so called conservatives are seeing themselves as the victims of these agencies, rather than the beneficiaries that it's this huge f**king deal like never before seen.

When did you stop thinking it’s a problem?