Tech Question

[The Lens]

Some of the accounts I followed on various social media platforms are no longer there.  Any thoughts on this?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

https://twitter.com/JohnSmithChgo/status/1347711178328444928

"To anyone complaining about a private media company kicking Trump off their platform:

Think of Twitter as a Christian bakery and Trump as a gay wedding cake."

[The Lens]

I'm just so embarrassed by the number of people who don't understand what protections exactly the 1st Amendment provides.   

[naginiF]

I'm just so embarrassed by the number of people who don't understand what protections exactly the 1st Amendment provides.   

especially those who are elected officials. there should be a test you have to pass after you get elected in order to serve

[ZiggysFryBoy]

IBTL.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Anyone can make a movie, but the movie theater is under no obligation to show it.

[GooooMarquette]

I'm just so embarrassed by the number of people who don't understand what protections exactly the 1st Amendment provides.   

Yep. It's like HIPAA.

If I had a dime for every time someone tried to argue First Amendment or HIPAA where they didn't apply, I'd build MU an on-campus arena.

[tower912]

I am sure it is a temporary glitch and a workaround will be figured out.

[Jockey]

I'm just so embarrassed by the number of people who don't understand what protections exactly the 1st Amendment provides.   

Yeah, but are you surprised?   

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I am sure it is a temporary glitch and a workaround will be figured out.

The current workaround is to use Pompeo's account.

[Skatastrophy]

I don't think the MUScoop mods should be able to ban anyone anymore. Posting here is protected by the 1st amendment.

[Lighthouse 84]

https://twitter.com/JohnSmithChgo/status/1347711178328444928

"To anyone complaining about a private media company kicking Trump off their platform:

Think of Twitter as a Christian bakery and Trump as a gay wedding cake."

I saw this earlier this morning.  If there were other "Twitters" in town, as there are other bakers, I'd agree with the analogy.   But it's not the same thing.

And that doesn't mean I'm a big Trumper, just that I think it's not a proper analogy! 

[Galway Eagle]

I saw this earlier this morning.  If there were other "Twitters" in town, as there are other bakers, I'd agree with the analogy.   But it's not the same thing.

And that doesn't mean I'm a big Trumper, just that I think it's not a proper analogy!

There are. Parlor, Facebook, YouTube, etc etc

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I saw this earlier this morning.  If there were other "Twitters" in town, as there are other bakers, I'd agree with the analogy.   But it's not the same thing.

And that doesn't mean I'm a big Trumper, just that I think it's not a proper analogy!

1. Its a private company
2. Trump broke the TOS. He broke the TOS about one million times, but Twitter made the business decision to allow him to continue to use the platform each time...
...3. Until he incited insurrection. As a sitting President. After attempting to get the military to intervene, if you believe Fiona Hill (which explains the letter from 10 former SecDefs).
4. Private companies aren't required to aid or assist in a coup against the U.S. Government

[jesmu84]

It's a private company who can do things however they want.

But I don't agree that tech companies should have that much unregulated power.

They need to be regulated.

Glen greenwald has the best view on this situation.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1347687795373072385?s=19

[GooooMarquette]

There are. Parlor, Facebook, YouTube, etc etc

Yep. And he could even go old school, and send an email or text to his very full address book. Or really old school, and hold (gasp!) a press conference in the WH briefing room. If he chose any of those alternate avenues, the whole world would hear his message very quickly.

Twitter seems like the only option to some people, but that's simply because Trump has chosen that particular platform.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

NM

[warriorchick]

It's a private company who can do things however they want.

But I don't agree that tech companies should have that much unregulated power.

They need to be regulated.

Glen greenwald has the best view on this situation.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1347687795373072385?s=19

Sounds like the new administration needs to  start using the antitrust laws that have not been enforced in the last 30 years. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

It's a private company who can do things however they want.

But I don't agree that tech companies should have that much unregulated power.

They need to be regulated.

Glen greenwald has the best view on this situation.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1347687795373072385?s=19

Google is problematic. But I find it hard to argue that Twitter or Facebook are monopolies.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Sounds like the new administration needs to  start using the antitrust laws that have not been enforced in the last 30 years.

I agree with this analysis.

[rocky_warrior]

Google is problematic. But I find it hard to argue that Twitter or Facebook are monopolies.

This is why I encourage everyone to occasionally stop by Dodd's board.  We need him to stick around otherwise we might not be able to ban people because we have a monopoly on Marquette Hoops  forums...

[Jockey]

It's a private company who can do things however they want.

But I don't agree that tech companies should have that much unregulated power.

They need to be regulated.

Glen greenwald has the best view on this situation.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1347687795373072385?s=19

I agree with the first 3 sentences.

Greenwald is the worst - unless you are a trumper.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

AWS kicking Parler off their servers. So unfair! Where are white supremacists supposed to post their threats off assassination and coordinate their attempt to overthrow the government now???

[tower912]

Underground.  And more dangerously.

[GooooMarquette]

Underground.  And more dangerously.

Dunno if it's more dangerous or not. The FBI, Capitol Police, National Guard, etc. all knew about the Twitter threats, and I suspect they'll know about any 'dark web' threats too. The more important question is whether they act on them.

[cheebs09]

Underground.  And more dangerously.

The Underboard?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Not sure I’ve seen this verified but hope y’all not using Parler

https://twitter.com/birdrespecter/status/1348557067351519234?s=21

[dgies9156]

Sounds like the new administration needs to  start using the antitrust laws that have not been enforced in the last 30 years.

Do you really believe Facebook and Twitter are monopolies?

They manage content. So long as there are television and radio stations, cable networks, newspapers and the ability to print and mail anything your heart desires (except porn and national security matters), Facebook and Twitter are NOT monopolies. Some methods make it harder than others to communicate, but neither social media is a monopoly.

As to the question of whether Facebook, Twitter or any other social media can ban President Trump, of course they can. There's no first amendment issue here. Now if it were the other way around, and Trump was banning Facebook or Twitter, of course there would be. The First Amendment controls the government's ability to regulate speech.

Near versus Minnesota (SCOTUS, 1941) limits governmental prior restraint to issues of national security, public safety (i.e, no screaming fire in a crowded theater when none exists) and pornography.

[naginiF]

^^^this guy gets it^^^

[tower912]

Same concept as scoop banning (X).   Just much more public.

[GooooMarquette]

Not sure I’ve seen this verified but hope y’all not using Parler

https://twitter.com/birdrespecter/status/1348557067351519234?s=21

Signing up for Parler automatically gets you on the no-fly list and FBI's radar screen?

Natural selection at work.

[cheebs09]

Not sure I’ve seen this verified but hope y’all not using Parler

https://twitter.com/birdrespecter/status/1348557067351519234?s=21

Was Parler the one requiring a Social Security number for sign up?

[Skatastrophy]

Signing up for Parler automatically gets you on the no-fly list and FBI's radar screen?

Natural selection at work.

There's a Parler thread where people are signing up for presidential pardons. They're listing their name, address, and crimes committed:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1347991059616444421/photo/1

[tower912]

Interesting that the rest of the business community is choosing to not do business with them right now.   I think this will be a temporary thing, as eventually other vendors will step up.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

There's a Parler thread where people are signing up for presidential pardons. They're listing their name, address, and crimes committed:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1347991059616444421/photo/1

I saw a news report this Parler went dark yesterday and will probably never "reopen".

[forgetful]

Do you really believe Facebook and Twitter are monopolies?

They manage content. So long as there are television and radio stations, cable networks, newspapers and the ability to print and mail anything your heart desires (except porn and national security matters), Facebook and Twitter are NOT monopolies. Some methods make it harder than others to communicate, but neither social media is a monopoly.

As to the question of whether Facebook, Twitter or any other social media can ban President Trump, of course they can. There's no first amendment issue here. Now if it were the other way around, and Trump was banning Facebook or Twitter, of course there would be. The First Amendment controls the government's ability to regulate speech.

Near versus Minnesota (SCOTUS, 1941) limits governmental prior restraint to issues of national security, public safety (i.e, no screaming fire in a crowded theater when none exists) and pornography.

To be fair, this is a terrible analogy. Just because they all deliver content does not make them comparable markets.

For instance, was US Steel not a monopoly, because they just made building materials and you could use wood instead?

Were the railroads not monopolies, because it was just a means of transportation and delivery, and you could use stagecoach instead?

What about international harvester? Not a monopoly, because they just produced farm equipment, and you could always buy an ox?

Facebook and twitter are closer to a standard oil. Where they are natural monopolies because the there is a rarity of their product content, and because when competitors came up, they often squashed them, or bought them, and froze others out of the market.

I understand your point, but it is incomplete. The bigger question is, are these monopolies a problem? And are their products actually a rarity in terms of content or are twitter/facebook actually competitors?

[Galway Eagle]

To be fair, this is a terrible analogy. Just because they all deliver content does not make them comparable markets.

For instance, was US Steel not a monopoly, because they just made building materials and you could use wood instead?

Were the railroads not monopolies, because it was just a means of transportation and delivery, and you could use stagecoach instead?

What about international harvester? Not a monopoly, because they just produced farm equipment, and you could always by an ox?

Facebook and twitter are closer to a standard oil. Where they are natural monopolies because the there is a rarity of their product content, and because when competitors came up, they often squashed them, or bought them, and froze others out of the market.

I understand your point, but it is incomplete. The bigger question is, are these monopolies a problem? And are their products actually a rarity in terms of content or are twitter/facebook actually competitors?

You do have a point about the comparisons. But for the record one can always go back to MySpace or Friendster if they don't want Facebook

[JWags85]

I'm conflicted on this.  Not about banning Trump, but rather the large scale discussion.  I detest both Jack Dorsey and Zuckerberg, FWIW.  Zuckerberg at least doesnt even pretend to be anything but a power and revenue hungry megalomaniac.  Dorsey postures as some super aware and woke crusader but refused to take a stand until the 25th hour.

FWIW, if anyone on the left had as large of a following and audience as Trump and was saying dumb inflammatory stuff, they'd be banned as well.  I know of two different associates of mine (friend would be a past tense term) who were banned, one temporarily, one permanently, for overly aggressive stuff on Twitter.  And one would absolutely be quite left.  Its no secret that the social media providers by and large skew left, but I struggle to see it as a partisan thing here.

[MUfan12]

I'm with ya, Wags. Really uncomfortable with the outsized (and largely unchecked) power they have over public discourse.

While I think it was the right call, I just hope they go back to their previous distaste for being free speech police.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I'm with ya, Wags. Really uncomfortable with the outsized (and largely unchecked) power they have over public discourse.

While I think it was the right call, I just hope they go back to their previous distaste for being free speech police.

But they were getting criticized for NOT policing what was being said on their forums.  They really are in a no win situation.

[tower912]

It really is scoop writ large.   Moderators criticized for being too lax.   Then, when something hugely, obviously, most wrong ever is done and they drop the banhammer, they are again criticized.

I don't think the social media platforms should have banned people before.   Let them hang themselves with their own words.   But the big lie led to insurrection, violence, and a coup attempt.    There are lines that can't be uncrossed.

[MUBurrow]

What's tough is that while this is really about the role of dominant social media platforms on our political discourse, we are contorting outselves into an antitrust framework to try to discern if regulation is appropriate.  Whether myspace is a legitmate economic competitor to facebook to prevent application of antitrust law really has nothing to do with whether or not we think facebook should have increased corporate responsibilities with regard to moderating political speech on its platform.  I'm not sure what legal framework we use to get there, but this is really more akin to a campaign finance reform-styled question than an antitrust question.

[Pakuni]

I'm with ya, Wags. Really uncomfortable with the outsized (and largely unchecked) power they have over public discourse.

While I think it was the right call, I just hope they go back to their previous distaste for being free speech police.

Admittedly it's a fine and difficult line to tread, but there is indeed a line between allowing "free speech" and serving as medium for encouraging and planning violence.
Nobody is being banned from any platform for simply "being conservative."

That said, there are definitely issues with Twitter, Facebook and Google having monopolistic or near-monopolistic control over their mediums. It's just that those problems aren't related to who they choose to ban from their platforms.

[Jockey]

It really is scoop writ large.   Moderators criticized for being too lax.   Then, when something hugely, obviously, most wrong ever is done and they drop the banhammer, they are again criticized.

I don't think the social media platforms should have banned people before.   Let them hang themselves with their own words.   But the big lie led to insurrection, violence, and a coup attempt.    There are lines that can't be uncrossed.

I agree with most of this. Shine light on the darkness.

But this is not what it is about with Amazon no longer hosting Parler. That is strictly Amazon looking at their own liability and future. They hosted a service that called for the violent overthrow of our country - both last Wednesday and in the weeks ahead.

This was 95% CYA and 5% doing what is right.

[GooooMarquette]

There's a Parler thread where people are signing up for presidential pardons. They're listing their name, address, and crimes committed:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1347991059616444421/photo/1

"In the case of The United States vs [admitted insurrectionist], the People would like to introduce Exhibit A, the defendant's admission of guilt."

 

[Pakuni]

There's a Parler thread where people are signing up for presidential pardons. They're listing their name, address, and crimes committed:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1347991059616444421/photo/1

So, this is the 2020s version of the TV giveaway sting to get the criminals to come to the cops, right?

[Lighthouse 84]

There's a fake Parler thread where people are signing up for presidential pardons. They're listing their name, address, and crimes committed:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1347991059616444421/photo/1

FIFY.

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/01/fact-check-white-house-pardon-office-not-offering-pardons-to-patriots-in-capitol-insurrection.html

[Galway Eagle]

FIFY.

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/01/fact-check-white-house-pardon-office-not-offering-pardons-to-patriots-in-capitol-insurrection.html

You placed fake in the wrong spot. Where you put it implies the thread isn't real, the thread is real. what is fake is the office of presidential pardons.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Whether myspace is a legitmate economic competitor to facebook to prevent application of antitrust law really has nothing to do with whether or not we think facebook should have increased corporate responsibilities with regard to moderating political speech on its platform.  I'm not sure what legal framework we use to get there, but this is really more akin to a campaign finance reform-styled question than an antitrust question.

Thanks for that perspective. Beyond just political speech, the platforms have been weaponized against us across many areas. The Russians, for example, were pumping out disinformation about the COVID vaccine to sow mistrust.

I'm a little confused as to why Trump and his allies what to overturn Section 230. It seem to me overturning Section 230 would lead to exactly what we've seen the last couple of days already: a spectrum of platforms purging members whose content would open them up to liability.

I do think platforms need to regulate content. QAnon was incredibly successful in radicalizing millions of people even spewing transparently ridiculous conspiracy theories. Here is a really interesting read on how Ashli Babbitt was rapidly radicalized until the point she got herself killed thinking she was going to "save the children". https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/01/08/the-journey-of-ashli-babbitt/

[dgies9156]

To be fair, this is a terrible analogy. Just because they all deliver content does not make them comparable markets.

For instance, was US Steel not a monopoly, because they just made building materials and you could use wood instead?

Were the railroads not monopolies, because it was just a means of transportation and delivery, and you could use stagecoach instead?

What about international harvester? Not a monopoly, because they just produced farm equipment, and you could always buy an ox?

Facebook and twitter are closer to a standard oil. Where they are natural monopolies because the there is a rarity of their product content, and because when competitors came up, they often squashed them, or bought them, and froze others out of the market.

I understand your point, but it is incomplete. The bigger question is, are these monopolies a problem? And are their products actually a rarity in terms of content or are twitter/facebook actually competitors?

Brother Forgetful, I respectfully disagree.

1) USS had considerable competition, both domestic and foreign. Bethlehem Steel, for one, Republic Steel for another. The Chinese and Japanese for a third.

2) International Harvester -- I assume you have heard of Deere & Co., JI Case, Ford Tractor, Kubota etc. They all are direct competitors. Deere, in fact, is the largest farm equipment manufacturer in the world.

3) Railroads -- There may have been city pairs with only one railroad, but nationally, there was competition on most every major transcontinental and north-south route. And, the concept of alternative goods, in the form of trucking and air freight, holds.

4) Digital -- You get banned from Twitter and Facebook, there's Linkedin as well as other social networks. I'm sure you can find one.

From a legal perspective, the anti-trust law requires that you consider substitute goods and the capability to carry on a function with multiple channels and providers. The product is communication and the ability to manage technology, control its use and access is an outgrowth of intellectual capital. In today's world, if you don't like it, go get some venture capital or an Angel Investor and start your own network.

The railroads are a good example of necessity and opportunity, which applies here. With the interstate highway system and more freight moving to trucks in the 1960s and 1970s, Class 1 railroads began abandoning thousands of miles of right-of-way that was expensive, duplicative and not profitable. Short Line railroads found a way to fill the gap and, in many cases, make significant profit.

Likewise, if Facebook, Twitter and Google become too restrictive, some techno-genius will step in and fill the void. Thus we will have the Fox News of Social Networking and further stratify our nation away from a community discussion

There is no governmental requirement to assure you have 100 percent access to the lowest cost form of electronic delivery of your musings, whether you're Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi. If you want guaranteed access, then have the government legislate it and, oh by the way, be prepared to pay Facebook, Twitter and others for the effective seizure of their intellectual property.

[jesmu84]

1. Tech companies and now other corporate entities are only condemning Trump so as to save themselves from any potential legal problems. And they're also only doing it to gain favor with Biden/left so they don't get regulated in the next 4 years.
2. Regardless of the anti-trust situation, we have to decide if we want tech oligarchs like jack or zuckerberg to determine what is allowed in our public discourse

[Jockey]

1. Tech companies and now other corporate entities are only condemning Trump so as to save themselves from any potential legal problems. And they're also only doing it to gain favor with Biden/left so they don't get regulated in the next 4 years.
2. Regardless of the anti-trust situation, we have to decide if we want tech oligarchs like jack or zuckerberg to determine what is allowed in our public discourse

You hit it perfect.

As I said, Amazon's action were CYA. Any actions involving censorship by Bezos, Zuckerberg, Pichai, Page, etc., are only concerned with the bottom line. These guys have never accepted any moral responsibility for their actions.

I left Gates out of the discussion because he has taken strong moral stances - especially with his philanthropic actions.

[GooooMarquette]

1. Tech companies and now other corporate entities are only condemning Trump so as to save themselves from any potential legal problems. And they're also only doing it to gain favor with Biden/left so they don't get regulated in the next 4 years.
2. Regardless of the anti-trust situation, we have to decide if we want tech oligarchs like jack or zuckerberg to determine what is allowed in our public discourse

Totally agree on number 1. Money always drives their decisions.

Regarding number 2, I am not too worried. As long as there is money involved with increasing the number of users and ability to post (and there always is), censorship will be minimal.

[Hards Alumni]

I'm conflicted on this.  Not about banning Trump, but rather the large scale discussion.  I detest both Jack Dorsey and Zuckerberg, FWIW.  Zuckerberg at least doesnt even pretend to be anything but a power and revenue hungry megalomaniac.  Dorsey postures as some super aware and woke crusader but refused to take a stand until the 25th hour.

FWIW, if anyone on the left had as large of a following and audience as Trump and was saying dumb inflammatory stuff, they'd be banned as well.  I know of two different associates of mine (friend would be a past tense term) who were banned, one temporarily, one permanently, for overly aggressive stuff on Twitter.  And one would absolutely be quite left.  Its no secret that the social media providers by and large skew left, but I struggle to see it as a partisan thing here.

You were close until you implied that Zuck is a lefty.  He's not. 

[dgies9156]

1. Tech companies and now other corporate entities are only condemning Trump so as to save themselves from any potential legal problems. And they're also only doing it to gain favor with Biden/left so they don't get regulated in the next 4 years.
2. Regardless of the anti-trust situation, we have to decide if we want tech oligarchs like jack or zuckerberg to determine what is allowed in our public discourse

On Item 1, I am sure there is some truth to that. But the federal government can't regulate content based on political disposition, which is the apparent motive behind what is being done on Facebook and Twitter. The private sector, of course, can and does. The private sector does so by such things as firing people who diminish the brand by their political activism or by regulating content on the air and in publications. The closest thing the government has done in recent times to regulate content in media has been the Fairness Doctrine, which was regulated by the Federal Communications Commission and required a broad-based series of interests be given time to communicate on public airways.

The Fairness Doctrine went by the boards when cable, the internet and social networking essentially made it obsolete.

On Item 2, we already have decided this on several fronts. First, we use Facebook, Twitter and other social media conduits owned by private industry. If we did not like their product, we would not use it. Second, our laws are structured to allow capitalists the opportunity to innovate, create and prosper. No matter what you think of Zuckerberg, you can't argue with his innovation and prosperity.

Again, we're a free country. If you don't like Zuckerberg's boards, start another one. Or find one more to your liking.   

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Not sure I’ve seen this verified but hope y’all not using Parler

https://twitter.com/birdrespecter/status/1348557067351519234?s=21

Sounds like this hack got everything—posts deleted post capital attack, geolocation data, account info...

70TB of data

[forgetful]

I'm a little confused as to why Trump and his allies what to overturn Section 230. It seem to me overturning Section 230 would lead to exactly what we've seen the last couple of days already: a spectrum of platforms purging members whose content would open them up to liability.

I may be wrong, as I'm a bit out of my element on this, but I think I understand why they want it overturned. It has a bit to do with prior legal precedent.

Right now, these entities cannot be sued for any liability related to their content because of section 230. If it is removed they could be sued for such content, which upon first instinct would seem to suggest that platforms would purge questionable members.

I can't remember the exact court case, but there is prior case law that suggests an alternative scenario is more likely. Namely, that providers of such content would not police ANY of their content.

The case law held an entity responsible for liability related to content posted on the internet. They had claimed they could not be held liable as it would be impossible to moderate all content. The courts ruled against that decision, because the publishers did moderate some content, but did not apply it equally. They ruled that if you moderate some content, you lose your liability protection, because you have recognized an inherent risk in liability.

If section 230 is removed, that case law would hold as the real only case law, meaning if facebook, twitter, youtube, moderated any content, they would be liable to moderate all content.

Personally, I think that caselaw would be overturned very very quickly, because of its wide ranging ramifications (think questionable content in adult film business; which couldn't be moderated anymore, and many many others). But as I understand it, that case law would hold if section 230 is removed.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

They want Section 230 overturned because it is a symbolic gesture of something they can do to supposedly harm the tech companies.  There is no deeper thought here.

[JWags85]

You were close until you implied that Zuck is a lefty.  He's not.

That’s why I said by and large.  I know he’s not. But Sandberg is.  I meant more the general political tenor of Silicon Valley and that space as a whole.

[dgies9156]

That’s why I said by and large.  I know he’s not. But Sandberg is.  I meant more the general political tenor of Silicon Valley and that space as a whole.

What does this have to do with anything? If you don't like the network, don't post on it. Otherwise, quit complaining...!

The fact that Mr. Zuckerberg is conservative or Ms. Sandberg a liberal is meaningless in terms of what and how you regulate. You can take your time and computer and go to another social network if you don't like them.

[jesmu84]

Tech companies want to be treated like book stores while acting like publishers.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Tech companies want to be treated like book stores while acting like publishers.

But they're neither.  That's essentially the problem.

[jesmu84]

But they're neither.  That's essentially the problem.

Yup. And, big surprise here, but our government continues to be way behind on regulating emerging tech.

And a large reason for that is because our federal reps are too old.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

The fact that Mr. Zuckerberg is conservative

Suckerberg isn't a conservative. He is apolitical and completely amoral. If the little prick could sell his grandmother's kidneys for an extra nickel he wouldn't think twice.

[JWags85]

What does this have to do with anything? If you don't like the network, don't post on it. Otherwise, quit complaining...!

The fact that Mr. Zuckerberg is conservative or Ms. Sandberg a liberal is meaningless in terms of what and how you regulate. You can take your time and computer and go to another social network if you don't like them.

You’re taking my statement for something it’s not. I was never complaining. My original statement was about the duality of the argument and even if there is political slant to management, this wasn’t a partisan issue. I never complained about anything.

[Galway Eagle]

Suckerberg isn't a conservative. He is apolitical and completely amoral. If the little prick could sell his grandmother's kidneys for an extra nickel he wouldn't think twice.

Then he'd sue her for having an undisclosed kidney stone

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Suckerberg isn't a conservative. He is apolitical and completely amoral. If the little prick could sell his grandmother's kidneys for an extra nickel he wouldn't think twice.

I don't believe in the lizard people rule the world conspiracy, but if I did, Zuckerberg would be the starting point for my thesis.

[Lighthouse 84]

Yup. And, big surprise here, but our government continues to be way behind on regulating emerging tech.

And a large reason for that is because our federal reps are too old.

Agreed, but if they are going to act like a publisher, they shouldn't be treated as a bookstore, regardless of whether they are either.  It's one thing to moderate porn, obscenity or harassment, but to moderate based on any standard that the moderator objects to gives the moderator far greater power than was ever contemplated when Section 230 was enacted.  And you couldn't be more right about government being behind on this. 

Allowing platforms to moderate content based on politics or other standard that is objectionable to the moderator does nothing other than to inhibit free speech when the purpose of Section 230 was to protect free speech.  I completely agree that people can stop posting on social media sites or go elsewhere.  But then the social media sites shouldn't get the protections of 230.

[Pakuni]

Allowing platforms to moderate content based on politics or other standard that is objectionable to the moderator does nothing other than to inhibit free speech when the purpose of Section 230 was to protect free speech.  I completely agree that people can stop posting on social media sites or go elsewhere.  But then the social media sites shouldn't get the protections of 230.

First, every user agrees to submit to moderation when they sign up for an account. It's part of the user agreement.
Second, this isn't a free speech issue. Nobody has a right to express speech on someone else's platform - whether that be the sign outside a McDonald's or a social media site.
Third, Section 230 wasn't about protecting free speech. It was about protecting big corporations.

If you think the moderation suppresses speech now, just wait and see what happens if Section 230 goes away. I guarantee, it won't get better for the people complaining about bias now.

[Jockey]

I will throw this question to other techies here.

Why is there little security on the PCs of leaders in Congress? Obviously they deal with important matters often involving national security. Yet, when the terrorist broke into Pelosi’s office, her computer was unlocked with email open.

At my last job, I had some work to do on a PC in Human Resources. When I sat down there was a file onscreen with personal information on company executives. The employee had left it on the screen.

When I got back to my desk, I called my boss and we set up an emergency meeting with the network team and a couple is Executive VPs to discuss this. Within a week, network settings were change to automatically lock screens after 5 minutes of inactivity.

My question, as anyone can guess is WHERE is the security on U.S. government computers? I guess we could also ask why trump was allowed to use an unsecured Blackberry for his communications.

[Skatastrophy]

I will throw this question to other techies here.

Why is there little security on the PCs of leaders in Congress? Obviously they deal with important matters often involving national security. Yet, when the terrorist broke into Pelosi’s office, her computer was unlocked with email open.

At my last job, I had some work to do on a PC in Human Resources. When I sat down there was a file onscreen with personal information on company executives. The employee had left it on the screen.

When I got back to my desk, I called my boss and we set up an emergency meeting with the network team and a couple is Executive VPs to discuss this. Within a week, network settings were change to automatically lock screens after 5 minutes of inactivity.

My question, as anyone can guess is WHERE is the security on U.S. government computers? I guess we could also ask why trump was allowed to use an unsecured Blackberry for his communications.

Man, it's so hard to enforce security rules on powerful people. $10 says that every underling has their computer auto-lock after a couple of minutes and password resets every 30 days, but powerful people get BYOD and anything else they want. People on both sides of the aisle keep using personal email addresses for sensitive information (Hillary, Ivanka, Collin Powell).

[Jockey]

Man, it's so hard to enforce security rules on powerful people. $10 says that every underling has their computer auto-lock after a couple of minutes and password resets every 30 days, but powerful people get BYOD and anything else they want. People on both sides of the aisle keep using personal email addresses for sensitive information (Hillary, Ivanka, Collin Powell).

I think you are misunderstanding. It is not on the user. These are network wide settings that are pushed down to PCs when a person logs on. The user cannot override them.

[dgies9156]

Agreed, but if they are going to act like a publisher, they shouldn't be treated as a bookstore, regardless of whether they are either.  It's one thing to moderate porn, obscenity or harassment, but to moderate based on any standard that the moderator objects to gives the moderator far greater power than was ever contemplated when Section 230 was enacted.  And you couldn't be more right about government being behind on this. 

Allowing platforms to moderate content based on politics or other standard that is objectionable to the moderator does nothing other than to inhibit free speech when the purpose of Section 230 was to protect free speech.  I completely agree that people can stop posting on social media sites or go elsewhere.  But then the social media sites shouldn't get the protections of 230.

The purpose of Section 230 as I understand it is to limit liability to social networks and other computer platforms for content that's passed through the network. That means the network is neither a bookstore nor a publisher, but rather a bulletin board.

Should I be liable if my unregulated, or limitedly regulated bulletin board in my community has a libelous notice?

If the answer is, "yes," then the bulletin boards come down or the cost of posting rises substantially to cover the cost of my assurance that no poster is libelous. That doesn't mean I don't regulate what I allow on my bulletin board. I could, but without the liability protection, the economics of my bulletin board change dramatically.

Same for social networks online. Most of us pay nothing for Facebook. Rather, the owners receive value for the network they created through advertising and "cookies" on your computer. They also mine data and gain insight into how best to market to you. If our government starts waiving Section 230 liability protection,  most of these social networking boards go away. The archives we love from Google and others goes away quickly.

Without Section 230 protection, how long would Scoop exist?

[jesmu84]

I will throw this question to other techies here.

Why is there little security on the PCs of leaders in Congress? Obviously they deal with important matters often involving national security. Yet, when the terrorist broke into Pelosi’s office, her computer was unlocked with email open.

At my last job, I had some work to do on a PC in Human Resources. When I sat down there was a file onscreen with personal information on company executives. The employee had left it on the screen.

When I got back to my desk, I called my boss and we set up an emergency meeting with the network team and a couple is Executive VPs to discuss this. Within a week, network settings were change to automatically lock screens after 5 minutes of inactivity.

My question, as anyone can guess is WHERE is the security on U.S. government computers? I guess we could also ask why trump was allowed to use an unsecured Blackberry for his communications.

I made a comment to some friends after the events on the 6th.

There should have been a national security emergency. Who knows who saw what on whose computer. Or whether they installed some software. Or left hidden cameras. Etc.

I would hope our intelligence agencies swept every square inch of the Capitol before allowing any work to be done.

[rocky_warrior]

Without Section 230 protection, how long would Scoop exist?

Until someone sued us

Interesting note, that for tax purposes, MUScoop is essentially the "bulletin board" category, although technically on the "internet publishing" spectrum, business code 519100 covers both publishers and libraries (perhaps you knew that and it's why you lumped them together) *

519100 - "Other Information Services (including news syndicates, libraries, Internet publishing, & broadcasting)". 

I don't know how twitter/facebook/etc are classified, but I assume it's similar.

* edit - I guess book store was the word thrown around, not library.

[Skatastrophy]

I think you are misunderstanding. It is not on the user. These are network wide settings that are pushed down to PCs when a person logs on. The user cannot override them.

I think you misunderstand how powerful people can create exceptions, large holes in security, for themselves by internal politicking. Maybe you've never had to manage IT at a large org before?

[Jockey]

I think you misunderstand how powerful people can create exceptions, large holes in security, for themselves by internal politicking. Maybe you've never had to manage IT at a large org before?

That’s not how security works.

[Skatastrophy]

That’s not how security works.

So I'm right, you've never worked in IT at a company. Go ahead and keep telling me how security works lol.

Edit: I'm not trying to pick a fight, I genuinely find this pretty funny. If you have questions just ask, I'll try to answer.

I have 5 minutes before my next meeting:

Security policies at companies cover a wide range of topics, but specific to this conversation you're talking about: Where data lives, how data rights are managed, what devices are allowed on the network, and who has rights to auth to one or many devices. You can have the best security policies in the world, up until you hire a new EVP that demands they be allowed to use their personal Macbook Pro for work and it gets approved by the CEO, and you don't have rights to manage that device because... politics. You have to allow them on the network, you don't have rights to set their device security settings. Does their wife and kids have logins to the machine? Do they have it set to an aggressive sleep timer and lock when the screen sleeps?

Even if Pelosi is using a government-owned desktop in her office (not going anywhere, managed by security policies) you have to imagine she has enough juice to say, "Hey make this thing never go to sleep I keep getting locked out and it's preventing me from doing my work." and changes are made for her.

Security is managed by exception at most organizations, sadly.