Tech Question

[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.