If the Facebook monopoly wants to be a publisher, they can give up their section 230 protections.
Well, you're lying. Section 230 says that pretty much no matter what they do, they're not to be treated as a publisher. That is the Section 230 protection.
And the government is not only demanding that tech companies engage in more censorship, they are also telling tech companies who to censor
Unlikely they're doing either, ass.
Thanks for the picture.
However, there's a critical failure in this system, which is "ASK app to..."
Yes, it's slightly better than absolutely nothing, but seriously - on what planet is this a competent or appropriate response to the massive spyware problems of the modern tech industry?
VMS had permissions bits *30+ years ago*, and that's the model that iOS and Android need to be using. Not this braindead "All or nothing" approach, and especially not that combined with a *trust-based* permissions model.
God, save us from these dipshits.
Online communications == public square.
Well, here's what the Supreme Court said about this the other year. I dunno, maybe you're some random dipshit on the Internet that is a higher legal authority, and your posts overrule the Supreme Court, but I suspect their opinion is the law and yours isn't worth two cents.
[T]he Free Speech Clause prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech. The Free Speech Clause does not prohibit private abridgment of speech.
[The] Court's state-action doctrine distinguishes the government from individuals and private entities. By enforcing that constitutional boundary between the governmental and the private, the state-action doctrine protects a robust sphere of individual liberty.
[A] private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances -- including, for example, (i) when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function; (ii) when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action; or (iii) when the government acts jointly with the private entity.
[A] private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises "powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State." It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function.
"[V]ery few" functions fall into that category
[W]hen a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine.
The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it "is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment."
In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.
If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. "The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use." Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as "a stagecoach, with seats for everyone." That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be "to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country." The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property.
The public also paid for the internet in the first place so your argument is invalid.
The Internet is not some blue box with a blinking red light on it, dipshit! The government paid for people to invent the protocols by which it operates, and to build some prototype routers and to lease lines from the phone company to connect with. The actual equipment and lines are overwhelmingly privately owned. Your own personal computer, (which you are able to operate, astonishingly, despite having all the intelligence God gave a popsicle stick) when it connects to the Internet is a part of the network. Does that mean that I, a taxpaying member of the public can use it? Of course not, dipshit!
Read the much longer list of cases of SCOTUS ruling that threats from government officials are 1st Amendment violations even in the absence of new laws or regulations.
Fucking hell. Nothing has risen to that point yet. If it had, it would be a lot more than Trump.
Facebook is either a publisher in charge of content, or they're an open platform who cannot be held liable for what's posted on their site. Pick one.
Not what the law says, dipshit. 47 USC 230(c)(1):
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
So it doesn't matter what they do, they generally aren't a publisher of third party content. You're thinking of what the law was in the early 90s. Welcome to the 2020s.
These tech companies have monopolies that either need to be broken up or regulated like public utilities.
Maybe. But not for this reason.
How much would you like it if your power company suddenly shut off power to your house because they didn't like your politics?
Facebook is not a utility. ISPs probably ought to be, but not companies that simply run sites on the net.
Anyway, fuck off until you get a clue.
Everybody loved the social media deplatforming superpowers when they were being used against Trump and his followers. What's going to happen if Biden gets uppity and proposes something like a tax on global corporate income that reaches into those hyperspatial wormholes where Big Tech has been stashing its money?
The White House may already be prepared to fall back to specialty political comment sites if it loses Twitface access, but what if Slate.com and Salon.com suddenly find whole sections of the Internet infrastructure closed off to them?
Much of our physics, without which you cannot even make a transistor, comes from astronomy. Newton, for example, developed calculus and the laws of motion/gravity trying to explain Galileo observations of Jupiter. Einstein developed the general theory of relativity trying to explain the precession of the planet Mercury. Semiconductor device physics utilize the Laplace transform and also Poisson equations
There is no question whatsoever; they are
FTFY. Online communications == public square. The public also paid for the internet in the first place so your argument is invalid.
If you'd like to see more on why you're very wrong if you think Facebook is in danger for even one second of being restricted by the First Amendment rather than empowered by it, read the recent Supreme Court opinion in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck.
Read the much longer list of cases of SCOTUS ruling that threats from government officials are 1st Amendment violations even in the absence of new laws or regulations. Then read how the government is specifically telling tech companies who needs to be deplaformed via government funded think tanks.
If they want to get Section 230 protections then yes, they are supposed to be pro-free speech
Yes, that's correct
FTFY2. Facebook is either a publisher in charge of content, or they're an open platform who cannot be held liable for what's posted on their site. Pick one. These tech companies have monopolies that either need to be broken up or regulated like public utilities. How much would you like it if your power company suddenly shut off power to your house because they didn't like your politics?
The government has spent more than a year threatening tech companies with regulation if they don't engage in censorship, and threats from government officials have long been ruled by the Supreme Court to be a 1st Amendment violation. Not only that, the government is telling FaceTwitOogle whom to censor via government-funded think tanks:
The most underreported story in tech for the last couple of years is the failure of Intel to get to a new process node. They just can't get the manufacturing to work. The only company that can do it is TSMC, and Samsung, at low yields. This is not a software problem. This is a physics, chemistry and material science problem. We have talented physicists getting billions to look for dark matter on the other side of the universe, or do string theory or whatever, and they should be working at semiconductor companies getting these new process technologies going. I doubt there are a lot of people in Korea or China who are spending their whole careers on things going on at the other end of the galaxy.
We have been in a golden age where software can improve every business and many easy gains have been made here. What's happening now though is that we're running up against the hard problems that don't happen inside a computer and you can't just throw software at it.
If the Facebook monopoly wants to be a publisher, they can give up their section 230 protections. And the government is not only demanding that tech companies engage in more censorship, they are also telling tech companies who to censor via government funded think tanks like the Atlantic Council. Straight from the horses ass:
US military, and is designed for a war with another high-tech superpower that is incredibly unlikely to ever happen
This is going to be the new norm for the foreseeable future. In the old days it was mutual assured destruction that kept the peace between the two super powers. But now we live in such a high-tech age that MUD can't be assured any more.
So what is going to be the new norm is high tech arms race. You can't be sure how advanced your adversary's actual military is so you will never be sure if you can actually beat them in a war.
The F35's not a bad design, it's just too expensive and complex to be practical, even for the US military, and is designed for a war with another high-tech superpower that is incredibly unlikely to ever happen. For some alternate history where the US military has an even more gargantuan budget and is likely to get into a war with Russia or China, it would be brilliant.
Sounds like the industry could benefit from remote-controlled excavation tech that only uses analog electronics - and possibly optical (i.e. mirrors) and can operate unaffected by the radiation - then be encased in concrete in the same pit that the core will need to be retrieved from.
The Russians charges $80 million per launch and the Chinese $70 million.
For how much payload to where? What are you quoting?
ISS resupply missions do not contain any military or classified requirements. It was politics that excluded them from the bidding process. Not to mention Russians had to resupply the ISS anyways for their part of the station so they had all the tech already.
Why would the contract go to someone who was already supplying the station? The purpose of the program was to diversify.
There's also the recent broadband subsidy of $800 million, when the service is nowhere near ready for use.
They have not received a dime of that subsidy at this point. When that award was announced they had already launched 15 times placing 900 production satellites in orbit. Now they are up to 25 times and 1,500 satellites. Whether they get the money or not, they are clearly not dependent on it.
Note that I'm not arguing whether it's right to subsidize SpaceX or space development in general, the latter of which I think is very important. I would like to see it done in plain sight though.
What is being hidden again?
You should switch to "looking for US military tech?"!
Seems to work better than your shtick.
but remarked that the schematics were commercially available worldwide
The summary is very contradictory, if something is commercially available worldwide, then it can't be a national security issue, so they shouldn't be in trouble, should they? But if they did share tech they were not supposed to and it is a matter of national security, how do they get away with it so easily? Maybe someone who cares to RTFA can fill in the details...
2011 was quite a long time ago when it comes to declassifying documents and programs. I suspect a lot of things have become commercially available in the last decade regarding the F35. I'm guessing these documents were at minimum controlled and under ITAR restrictions, and quite possibly classified at the time of the violation.
Also, from TFA:
"Since Honeywell voluntarily self-reported these disclosures, we have taken several actions to ensure there are no repeat incidents,"
That doesn't exactly sound like the expected company action that would logically align with a what's the big deal everyone's got them excuse.
but remarked that the schematics were commercially available worldwide
The summary is very contradictory, if something is commercially available worldwide, then it can't be a national security issue, so they shouldn't be in trouble, should they? But if they did share tech they were not supposed to and it is a matter of national security, how do they get away with it so easily?
Maybe someone who cares to RTFA can fill in the details...
Musk has been predicting FSD is just around the corner for years. He either doesn't understand the difficulty of the task (and how far they have to go) or he's deliberately misrepresenting the tech they have to keep the hype going.
I am pretty sure he does not understand what he is talking about. Despite what many people believe, Musk is not actually an engineer has has no understanding of the complexities involved.
> HOW CAN THEY NOT WANT THAT!?
YouTube without ads is $10/mo. Imagine asking your Facebook Friend to pay that. Even when tracking is made explicit to them they'd rather no pay $10.
Crypto is an option but it's decentralized so the surveillance-tech companies are entirely against it. Chromium especially goes to lengths to defeat crypto ad replacements.
This would have been a good excuse to fund remotely-operated mechas or even just heavy equipment to start, with VR piloting.
I know Ukraine is broke and Russia doesn't own the mistakes of the USSR, but the US has some of this tech on the shelf for drone-bombing weddings so maybe they could ITAR the visual part to a Ukrainian engineering school and have them hook up an old-school excavator (no electronics) to start.
One supposes a memo went out at all the Silicon Valley surveillance-tech companies. That might be 3% of iPhone users. Some Valley people don't know any Android users despite the overwhelming market disparity.
SV RDF Bingo! writes itself.
> CLM is one of many TLAs that exist in tech, government, and military culture.
I should change my initials! I have a habit of telling people to fuck off and quit when they tell me the lawsuits will be cheaper to settle than doing the software right to prevent avoidable deaths.
The Russians charges $80 million per launch and the Chinese $70 million. ISS resupply missions do not contain any military or classified requirements. It was politics that excluded them from the bidding process. Not to mention Russians had to resupply the ISS anyways for their part of the station so they had all the tech already.
There's also the recent broadband subsidy of $800 million, when the service is nowhere near ready for use.
Note that I'm not arguing whether it's right to subsidize SpaceX or space development in general, the latter of which I think is very important. I would like to see it done in plain sight though.
Musk has been predicting FSD is just around the corner for years. He either doesn't understand the difficulty of the task (and how far they have to go) or he's deliberately misrepresenting the tech they have to keep the hype going.
Or... he's just doing what the CEO of every company in the world is supposed to be doing - making people dream of owning his company's product.
If a level 2 capable Tesla is "full self driving", what do you call a level 3 Honda?
You can buy self driving Honda's in Japan now. Tesla have been leapfrogged by the traditional car makers, the ones who test and certify their tech before selling to customers.
It's not going to be long until Mercedes starts selling theirs and other manufacturers licence Honda's system
We are not a clone.
