So much tech money goes into Dems and Rep reelection campaigns. They play both sides. Both houses are bought and paid for. Nothing will happen until campaign finance reform becomes an issue.
Why don't you give your congress critter a call ? Use your time for that instead of typing out your doomsday comments meant to keep us all feeling helpless.
We need to take over Tiktok and make it a conservative social media platform. That way, we can shape the next generation. (Most Tiktok users are young)
Facebook is now for old folks (though for how long until they leave in disgust is anyone's guess.) Twatter only really exists because GEOTUS uses it (otherwise it'd be about as relevant as MySpace - 'member them?) Instagram and Snapchat are on the downturn as well. There's also the somewhat-still-used Disqus, though 90% of that is nothing more than a dumping ground for sex-spam bots and shitposting.
The new sweet hotness vehicles? Twitch, Discord, shit like that.
Meanwhile, I'm old enough to have used USENET and IRC on the regular... (USENET and NNTP still exist, but mostly as a subscription service these days, since no ISP really bothers with providing USENET service anymore. IRC is a crap-shoot, but I hadn't tried in years).
We had them, still have them as valid protocols, and to some extent they still exist and get used today: NNTP/USENET, IRC, Archie, Gophernet...
Seriously, all were decentralized (especially USENET), didn't rely on any one vendor or network (any routable protocol could use it), and nobody owned it. Slap a web interface on any of those, and * poof *, there's yer decentralized social tech.
The CCP would never let anyone control their algorithm. Social media platforms choose what content to send to who and in what pattern. That is what is really happening with all these "media" systems.
It's actually a much more effective platform than you might think. They have done several things with it that are pretty different than what's been done before. It's very possible for a complete unknown to go super viral - and that's an amazingly strong draw. Also the way that you can have memes to respond to memes is pretty impressive.
I'm not saying I'm a fan - or even a user - but it is worth understanding what makes it so attractive to so many.
Okay, just read it. Not exactly a legal expert but to my unprofessional eye the most important section is the final section titled "Good Faith". which seem to boil down to...
Subsection A: ToS needs to explain what the criteria is for bans
Subsection B: Restrictions need to be consistent with the ToS (ie: "Borderline Content" can't just be made up out of thin air)
Subsection C: Restictions have to be applied uniformly (can't ignore BLM & Islamic groups while going over Crowder with a fine-toothed comb)
Subsection D: Must tell people why they are being banned and give them a "meaningful opportunity to respond"
Now I just wish I understood what it means when the DOJ proposes secion 230 Reform. Who has to approve that? Congress? Executive branch? This is why regulations are so frustrating.
Today, on behalf of the Trump Administration, the Department of Justice sent draft legislation to Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
(bold mine)
Since Congress won't act, the DOJ went ahead and sent a draft bill to Congress. Which may get to committee, but don't hold your breath, because Congress doesn't like when other people do their job for them. But it lights a fire under them, if some powerful GOP Congress members adopt it and put their names on it.
You know lobbyists are screaming down the phone lines to their pet legislators to make sure this is blocked.
That's about what I got from it. A platform has to define what is and is not allowed, then follow those guidelines. They also have to provide a reporting mechanism.
It's about as effective as a "strongly worded letter".
What I didn't like is the earlier sections which make it a crime to allow publishing of content you know is illegal. Normally that sounds good, but then you consider Wikileaks or Snowden. Now the Feds have a stronger case for going after platforms which publish classified information which details illegal govt activity.
Easy to subvert. Just make right-wing content as the ones that bannable in the TOS. Instead of it being an open secret, make it into writing. What can these (((politicians))) do anyways?
A hugely important additional edit is striking the "otherwise objectionable" language which has allowed safe space SJWs to define anything even slightly contrasting against their views to be objectionable and thus fair game to censor.
Hey, you’re supposed to be a jingo on this forum, not think for yourself and be objective.
Here’s what Gab has to say about your freedom of speech....
The Justice Department asked Congress today to adopt a new law that would water down Section 230 of the CDA, a cornerstone for protecting free speech online. This is a horrible idea and will inevitably harm alternative technology startups like Gab in the long run while solidifying Big Tech's control over the flow of information online. This is precisely why both establishment Democrats and Republicans are pushing for this effort together. There is very little that the left and right agree on these days, yet they both seem to agree on destroying Section 230 in order to retain their control over the narrative online.
In a free country a corporation should be free to be biased. For example Apple censors music to comply with Chinese Communists. Twitter lets Pakistan tell it what users around the world, including Americans, can and can’t say. Gab is biased towards American law and freedom.
Section 230 says nothing about political neutrality, and for good reason. Who defines “neutrality” and better yet who enforces it? Any proposal to add a “neutrality” clause to Section 230 would be unconstitutional. It would require the government to police the speech of corporations and infringe on their first amendment rights.
Section 230 protects technology companies, including Gab, from being held liable for the speech others. It does NOT prevent them from exercising their own free speech rights, nor should it. The text of Section 230 is very clear: companies that act in good faith to remove content that they themselves find “objectionable” or that their users find “objectionable” whether or not that content is constitutionally protected, are shielded from being held liable for the speech of their users.
When Big Tech platforms “fact-check” posts or “editorialize” content Section 230 does not apply to that speech. That speech is them speaking, not a user. Section 230 does not prevent them from being held liable for their own speech.
Meaning if they defame someone using their speech legal action can be taken against them. If someone else defames a person on their platform, Section 230 protects the technology company from being held liable for the speech of that other person. This isn’t complicate if you read the text. Many of you may not like the way that Big Tech is exercising their free speech. I know I don’t. Which is why we started Gab back in 2016 as an alternative to Big Tech tyranny.
If you don’t like what Big Tech has to say, if you don’t like their “Community Guidelines,” and if you don’t like their moderation choices the solution is to get on Gab.com and other alternative technology platforms that support and share your values. Period.
Gab is thriving because we don’t patrol legal speech which is protected by American speech laws, particularly the first amendment and rulings on it. Gab is a threat because we violate the unspoken rule, shared by all big tech companies, media elites, and members of Congress, that every user of the Internet must be subject to aggressive content moderation, which in our experience, users hate.
From our standpoint, the mobile app ecosystems are the biggest choke point, particularly with Apple which does not permit iPhone users to direct-download third party applications to their phones. Apple and Google have an unquestionable duopoly on mobile app distribution with 98% marketshare. This where the DOJ's focus should be.
We believe the big tech companies have sufficiently close connections between them that they can and do collude to remove competitors. Gab is the perfect example of this abuse of market power in action, being banned by both Apple and Google app stores for refusing to censor “offensive” speech. Of course anyone who has ever visited Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit knows that there is plenty of “offensive” speech on those websites, yet they are allowed to remain on both app stores due to their close partnerships with Apple and Google.
Apple should lose its stranglehold over what apps users can download on iPhones, Google should be broken up, and the individual corporate officers responsible for these anticompetitive practices should be individually punished.
Google is a vast repository of private information and we believe that their App Store dominance is only one small part of their anticompetitive activity across the wider economy – which includes dominance over SEO, advertising and the flow of dollars to online publishers, as evidenced by a recent $1.7 billion antitrust fine levied against Google by European regulators.
We believe that an antitrust investigation of these companies will reveal all manner of anticompetitive conduct in areas as diverse as search ranking, advertising, mobile app distribution, browser bundling, and even browser performance.
If the Republicans, President Trump, and the DOJ want to stop Big Tech bias, watering down Section 230 of the CDA is not the answer. Taking antitrust action against the anticompetitive and monopolistic behavior of Silicon Valley while joining and supporting alternative technology platforms like Gab.com and others is.
Draft Leglislation: https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download
OMG. ITS HAPPENING!
She wouldn't be bad looking if she grew her hair out.
"Breaking Special Report Update" - Larry King
But why won't they. Don't most republicans understand the crazy bias going on? I guess they don't care since they are paid off?
Congress is democrat.
Congress voted for every tyrannical law we now have in place.
Something tells me they don't really give a fuck.
So much tech money goes into Dems and Rep reelection campaigns. They play both sides. Both houses are bought and paid for. Nothing will happen until campaign finance reform becomes an issue.
1-202-224-3121
Why don't you give your congress critter a call ? Use your time for that instead of typing out your doomsday comments meant to keep us all feeling helpless.
Good point doc.
OMG. IT’S NEVER HAPPENING!
-FTFY
X to doubt
TWITTER WILL BE GONE OR IT WILL BECOME BLUE 4CHAN
We need to take over Tiktok and make it a conservative social media platform. That way, we can shape the next generation. (Most Tiktok users are young)
That's what everyone said about snapchat, instagram, facebook twitter
And very few people use snapchat now compared to 2 years ago. I personally have never used instagram and got rid of Facebook years ago.
So yeah, things move very quickly now.
snapchat and facebook are dead.
Facebook is now for old folks (though for how long until they leave in disgust is anyone's guess.) Twatter only really exists because GEOTUS uses it (otherwise it'd be about as relevant as MySpace - 'member them?) Instagram and Snapchat are on the downturn as well. There's also the somewhat-still-used Disqus, though 90% of that is nothing more than a dumping ground for sex-spam bots and shitposting.
The new sweet hotness vehicles? Twitch, Discord, shit like that.
Meanwhile, I'm old enough to have used USENET and IRC on the regular... (USENET and NNTP still exist, but mostly as a subscription service these days, since no ISP really bothers with providing USENET service anymore. IRC is a crap-shoot, but I hadn't tried in years).
Remember Vine?
There’s no way to ensure TikTok will ever be safe from Commie interference. It should be banned and a new platform developed in the US.
We need decentralized technologies that are resistant to takeover and censorship.
We had them, still have them as valid protocols, and to some extent they still exist and get used today: NNTP/USENET, IRC, Archie, Gophernet...
Seriously, all were decentralized (especially USENET), didn't rely on any one vendor or network (any routable protocol could use it), and nobody owned it. Slap a web interface on any of those, and * poof *, there's yer decentralized social tech.
Everyone chases the new shiny, after all.
The CCP would never let anyone control their algorithm. Social media platforms choose what content to send to who and in what pattern. That is what is really happening with all these "media" systems.
Have you seen Tiktok? They can keep that one.
It's actually a much more effective platform than you might think. They have done several things with it that are pretty different than what's been done before. It's very possible for a complete unknown to go super viral - and that's an amazingly strong draw. Also the way that you can have memes to respond to memes is pretty impressive.
I'm not saying I'm a fan - or even a user - but it is worth understanding what makes it so attractive to so many.
TrumpTok is a thing. There's plenty of us over there!
Okay, just read it. Not exactly a legal expert but to my unprofessional eye the most important section is the final section titled "Good Faith". which seem to boil down to...
Subsection A: ToS needs to explain what the criteria is for bans
Subsection B: Restrictions need to be consistent with the ToS (ie: "Borderline Content" can't just be made up out of thin air)
Subsection C: Restictions have to be applied uniformly (can't ignore BLM & Islamic groups while going over Crowder with a fine-toothed comb)
Subsection D: Must tell people why they are being banned and give them a "meaningful opportunity to respond"
Now I just wish I understood what it means when the DOJ proposes secion 230 Reform. Who has to approve that? Congress? Executive branch? This is why regulations are so frustrating.
Read the article. First sentence:
Since Congress won't act, the DOJ went ahead and sent a draft bill to Congress. Which may get to committee, but don't hold your breath, because Congress doesn't like when other people do their job for them. But it lights a fire under them, if some powerful GOP Congress members adopt it and put their names on it.
You know lobbyists are screaming down the phone lines to their pet legislators to make sure this is blocked.
It sounds like it has to come from congress meaning it will never pass.
That's about what I got from it. A platform has to define what is and is not allowed, then follow those guidelines. They also have to provide a reporting mechanism.
It's about as effective as a "strongly worded letter".
What I didn't like is the earlier sections which make it a crime to allow publishing of content you know is illegal. Normally that sounds good, but then you consider Wikileaks or Snowden. Now the Feds have a stronger case for going after platforms which publish classified information which details illegal govt activity.
Easy to subvert. Just make right-wing content as the ones that bannable in the TOS. Instead of it being an open secret, make it into writing. What can these (((politicians))) do anyways?
Putting it into writing is important. Being an open secret to only the people posting attention doesn’t help you convince political newcomers
A hugely important additional edit is striking the "otherwise objectionable" language which has allowed safe space SJWs to define anything even slightly contrasting against their views to be objectionable and thus fair game to censor.
Thanks for posting! Was just about to post it myself, haha.
Hey, you’re supposed to be a jingo on this forum, not think for yourself and be objective.
Here’s what Gab has to say about your freedom of speech....
The Justice Department asked Congress today to adopt a new law that would water down Section 230 of the CDA, a cornerstone for protecting free speech online. This is a horrible idea and will inevitably harm alternative technology startups like Gab in the long run while solidifying Big Tech's control over the flow of information online. This is precisely why both establishment Democrats and Republicans are pushing for this effort together. There is very little that the left and right agree on these days, yet they both seem to agree on destroying Section 230 in order to retain their control over the narrative online.
In a free country a corporation should be free to be biased. For example Apple censors music to comply with Chinese Communists. Twitter lets Pakistan tell it what users around the world, including Americans, can and can’t say. Gab is biased towards American law and freedom.
Section 230 says nothing about political neutrality, and for good reason. Who defines “neutrality” and better yet who enforces it? Any proposal to add a “neutrality” clause to Section 230 would be unconstitutional. It would require the government to police the speech of corporations and infringe on their first amendment rights.
Section 230 protects technology companies, including Gab, from being held liable for the speech others. It does NOT prevent them from exercising their own free speech rights, nor should it. The text of Section 230 is very clear: companies that act in good faith to remove content that they themselves find “objectionable” or that their users find “objectionable” whether or not that content is constitutionally protected, are shielded from being held liable for the speech of their users.
When Big Tech platforms “fact-check” posts or “editorialize” content Section 230 does not apply to that speech. That speech is them speaking, not a user. Section 230 does not prevent them from being held liable for their own speech.
Meaning if they defame someone using their speech legal action can be taken against them. If someone else defames a person on their platform, Section 230 protects the technology company from being held liable for the speech of that other person. This isn’t complicate if you read the text. Many of you may not like the way that Big Tech is exercising their free speech. I know I don’t. Which is why we started Gab back in 2016 as an alternative to Big Tech tyranny.
If you don’t like what Big Tech has to say, if you don’t like their “Community Guidelines,” and if you don’t like their moderation choices the solution is to get on Gab.com and other alternative technology platforms that support and share your values. Period.
Gab is thriving because we don’t patrol legal speech which is protected by American speech laws, particularly the first amendment and rulings on it. Gab is a threat because we violate the unspoken rule, shared by all big tech companies, media elites, and members of Congress, that every user of the Internet must be subject to aggressive content moderation, which in our experience, users hate.
From our standpoint, the mobile app ecosystems are the biggest choke point, particularly with Apple which does not permit iPhone users to direct-download third party applications to their phones. Apple and Google have an unquestionable duopoly on mobile app distribution with 98% marketshare. This where the DOJ's focus should be.
We believe the big tech companies have sufficiently close connections between them that they can and do collude to remove competitors. Gab is the perfect example of this abuse of market power in action, being banned by both Apple and Google app stores for refusing to censor “offensive” speech. Of course anyone who has ever visited Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit knows that there is plenty of “offensive” speech on those websites, yet they are allowed to remain on both app stores due to their close partnerships with Apple and Google.
Apple should lose its stranglehold over what apps users can download on iPhones, Google should be broken up, and the individual corporate officers responsible for these anticompetitive practices should be individually punished.
Google is a vast repository of private information and we believe that their App Store dominance is only one small part of their anticompetitive activity across the wider economy – which includes dominance over SEO, advertising and the flow of dollars to online publishers, as evidenced by a recent $1.7 billion antitrust fine levied against Google by European regulators.
We believe that an antitrust investigation of these companies will reveal all manner of anticompetitive conduct in areas as diverse as search ranking, advertising, mobile app distribution, browser bundling, and even browser performance.
If the Republicans, President Trump, and the DOJ want to stop Big Tech bias, watering down Section 230 of the CDA is not the answer. Taking antitrust action against the anticompetitive and monopolistic behavior of Silicon Valley while joining and supporting alternative technology platforms like Gab.com and others is.
Andrew Torba CEO, Gab.com September 23rd, 2020