Dorsey Stepping Down from Twitter

[iceberg]

Of course they can. One company can decide that a different company using there services/sites/locations is bad for their reputation and boot them.

Nothing illegal about it at all.

and I shared my real world experience at Microsoft to show they can't.

I give you facts you don't like them so you. speak in generic terms.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

yes you did which was the entire point of my rebuttle you eventually ran away from.

so you are saying it's pointless to discuss issues with you

Yes, it is pointless if you are going to lie about what is said

 

[Harpy Eagle]

and I shared my real world experience at Microsoft to show they can't.

Yet they did, and did not get in trouble for it, as they should not have

 

[iceberg]

Yes, it is pointless if you are going to lie about what is said

The future of Facebook...

Also, it is not really the political part that I think is the biggest problem. FB knows it is used for human trafficking and does not really try all that hard to fix it. They are known to be used to promote violence in parts of the world and they let it happen. To me these are the things...

www.usmessageboard.com

when you speak of making things "publicly known" - to me this is a first time it has been said or it was already public somewhere else.

here i address "first time known" - which support my saying i took this to mean what you are calling "publicly known"

The future of Facebook...

Also, it is not really the political part that I think is the biggest problem. FB knows it is used for human trafficking and does not really try all that hard to fix it. They are known to be used to promote violence in parts of the world and they let it happen. To me these are the things...

www.usmessageboard.com

here we continue under the "first time known" premise of which you never corrected me for.

The future of Facebook...

Also, it is not really the political part that I think is the biggest problem. FB knows it is used for human trafficking and does not really try all that hard to fix it. They are known to be used to promote violence in parts of the world and they let it happen. To me these are the things...

www.usmessageboard.com

you still come back to FB having to approve every post OF WHICH is 100% counter to what Sect 230 does - meaning they do not HAVE TO because they are not libel for what people put on their platform.

you continue to insist that publishing means they must approve it which isn't the case. when they fact check it and provide their own information, where did that come from?

their own sites / support sites.

so making something "publicly known" to me is saying "first time" or it would have already been out there and someone else made i "publicly known"

since you never corrected my saying "first time use (of which i said several times in this thread) then i took that as the premise of what you were trying to say.

 

[iceberg]

Yet they did, and did not get in trouble for it, as they should not have

they were prevented from using their place in the market to keep out the competition. they had to give desktop space to said competition as well.

United States v. Microsoft Corp. - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

this shows how MS had to provide the internal API's to other companies who may wish to integrate say a browser into the OS as MS had done.

now this is funny because netscape was out to make the browser the platform and they were going to make windows more or less a "buggy driver".

Complaint : U.S. V. Microsoft Corp.

www.justice.gov

15. Having failed simply to stop competition by agreement, Microsoft set about to exclude Netscape and other browser rivals from access to the distribution, promotion, and resources they needed to offer their browser products to OEMs and PC users pervasively enough to facilitate the widespread distribution of Java or to facilitate their browsers becoming an attractive programming platform in their own right.

wow. microsoft out to stop the competition and was told NO. but you're saying Amazon and Google and Apple can do it. you're being simplistically emotional and i'm providing facts and precedence with my point.

the base crux was that MS dominated the field and was restricting competition and had to open up the system and help competition gain the same advantages as they enjoyed. these included having to provide the code for others to integrate if they wished as well as creating an OS that didn't include things like a browser, media player, and other base programs found in windows.

so yes, MS got in trouble for it and was held to DOJ oversight for at least 5 years.

 

[colfax_m]

Yet they did, and did not get in trouble for it, as they should not have

Microsoft got in trouble because they used their power in one space (operating system) to increase their power in another space (web browsers). Amazon kicking Parler off AWS doesn't help other Amazon products. They don't have a competing product. In fact, AWS loses revenue as a result.

It's a really shitty argument. These are not analogous at all.

 

[iceberg]

Microsoft got in trouble because they used their power in one space (operating system) to increase their power in another space (web browsers). Amazon kicking Parler off AWS doesn't help other Amazon products. They don't have a competing product. In fact, AWS loses revenue as a result.

It's a really shitty argument. These are not analogous at all.

as usual you miss the point.

you can and do get to a point where laws change. Amazon had no valid reason to kick off parler. the argument they had of violence being there simply didn't pan out.

my argument is more that private corps are ow becoming judge and jury and can't break agreements for bullshit reasons, but they are.

they decide you did something illegal, they exact punishment. fuck courts.

this isn't where we want to go.

 

[colfax_m]

as usual you miss the point.

you can and do get to a point where laws change. Amazon had no valid reason to kick off parler. the argument they had of violence being there simply didn't pan out.

my argument is more that private corps are ow becoming judge and jury and can't break agreements for bullshit reasons, but they are.

they decide you did something illegal, they exact punishment. fuck courts.

this isn't where we want to go.

There is no point in bringing up Microsoft’s anti-trust suit. It has no relevance.

Parler is welcome to bring breach of contract lawsuit against Amazon. They did. Last I heard they withdrew their complaint. Unsurprisingly, the AWS service agreement is highly favorable to Amazon so I don’t think the lawsuit is likely to succeed if they ever do pursue it.

 

[iceberg]

There is no point in bringing up Microsoft’s anti-trust suit. It has no relevance.

Parler is welcome to bring breach of contract lawsuit against Amazon. They did. Last I heard they withdrew their complaint. Unsurprisingly, the AWS service agreement is highly favorable to Amazon so I don’t think the lawsuit is likely to succeed if they ever do pursue it.

there is a point to say gov can and will go after monopolies.

goodbye.

 

[colfax_m]

there is a point to say gov can and will go after monopolies.

goodbye.

You’ve yet to give a basis by which the government could go after Twitter or Amazon based on monopolies.

Kicking Parler off AWS had nothing to do with monopoly power.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The future of Facebook...

Also, it is not really the political part that I think is the biggest problem. FB knows it is used for human trafficking and does not really try all that hard to fix it. They are known to be used to promote violence in parts of the world and they let it happen. To me these are the things...

www.usmessageboard.com

when you speak of making things "publicly known" - to me this is a first time it has been said or it was already public somewhere else.

here i address "first time known" - which support my saying i took this to mean what you are calling "publicly known"

The future of Facebook...

Also, it is not really the political part that I think is the biggest problem. FB knows it is used for human trafficking and does not really try all that hard to fix it. They are known to be used to promote violence in parts of the world and they let it happen. To me these are the things...

www.usmessageboard.com

here we continue under the "first time known" premise of which you never corrected me for.

The future of Facebook...

Also, it is not really the political part that I think is the biggest problem. FB knows it is used for human trafficking and does not really try all that hard to fix it. They are known to be used to promote violence in parts of the world and they let it happen. To me these are the things...

www.usmessageboard.com

you still come back to FB having to approve every post OF WHICH is 100% counter to what Sect 230 does - meaning they do not HAVE TO because they are not libel for what people put on their platform.

you continue to insist that publishing means they must approve it which isn't the case. when they fact check it and provide their own information, where did that come from?

their own sites / support sites.

so making something "publicly known" to me is saying "first time" or it would have already been out there and someone else made i "publicly known"

since you never corrected my saying "first time use (of which i said several times in this thread) then i took that as the premise of what you were trying to say.

You try to make it all so hard and confusing, but it does not need to be.

The NY Times is a publisher, nothing enters their paper or website without prior approval. The same holds true for WAPO and the like.

Twitter and FB are nothing like those, everything is seen publicly before FB or Twitter knows it is there.

 

[iceberg]

You try to make it all so hard and confusing, but it does not need to be.

The NY Times is a publisher, nothing enters their paper or website without prior approval. The same holds true for WAPO and the like.

Twitter and FB are nothing like those, everything is seen publicly before FB or Twitter knows it is there.

and according to s230, they don't have to approve posts and won't be held accountable for them.

you seem to refuse this notion of the original intent of the rule.

s230 was there to prevent moderation as a requirement and let platforms not be accountable for what users post on it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

and according to s230, they don't have to approve posts and won't be held accountable for them.

Yet they are held accountable for them

 

[iceberg]

Yet they are held accountable for them

47 U.S.C. § 230 and the Publisher/Distributor/Platform Distinction

I'm still doing some research related to President Trump's "Preventing Online Censorship" draft Executive Order, and hope to post more…

reason.com

Section 230 makes Internet platforms and other Internet speakers immune from liability for material that's posted by others Congress enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230 (with some exceptions). That means, for instance, that

• I'm immune from liability for what is said in our comments.
• A newspaper is immune from liability for its comments.
• Yelp and similar sites are immune from liability for business reviews that users post.
• Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube (which is owned by Google) are immune from liability for what their users post.
• Google is generally immune from liability for its search engine results.

care to keep at this?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

47 U.S.C. § 230 and the Publisher/Distributor/Platform Distinction

I'm still doing some research related to President Trump's "Preventing Online Censorship" draft Executive Order, and hope to post more…

reason.com

Section 230 makes Internet platforms and other Internet speakers immune from liability for material that's posted by others Congress enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230 (with some exceptions). That means, for instance, that

• I'm immune from liability for what is said in our comments.
• A newspaper is immune from liability for its comments.
• Yelp and similar sites are immune from liability for business reviews that users post.
• Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube (which is owned by Google) are immune from liability for what their users post.
• Google is generally immune from liability for its search engine results.

care to keep at this?

And yet FB is responsible for child trafficking post on its platform.

Ruling Against Facebook In Sex Trafficking Case Threatens Key Legal Shield For Social Media Platforms

The ruling could weaken tech companies’ ability to defend themselves under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

www.forbes.com

 

[iceberg]

And yet FB is responsible for child trafficking post on its platform.

Ruling Against Facebook In Sex Trafficking Case Threatens Key Legal Shield For Social Media Platforms

The ruling could weaken tech companies’ ability to defend themselves under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

www.forbes.com

Pretty sure you can't post illegal activities regardless.

so you refuse to accept what section 230 is all about.

sigh.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Twitter is going from bad to worse.


A resurfaced tweet of Agrwawal's from 2010...

"If they are not gonna make a distinction between muslims and extremists, then why should I distinguish between white people and racists."

8:29 PM · Oct 26, 2010

You have to say he has a point!

 

[iceberg]

You have to say he has a point!

Yea, I don't like bypassing the 1st amendment, but this is just a vast generalization.

 

[iceberg]

Twitter is going from bad to worse.


A resurfaced tweet of Agrwawal's from 2010...

"If they are not gonna make a distinction between muslims and extremists, then why should I distinguish between white people and racists."

8:29 PM · Oct 26, 2010

I'd like to see context on this one.

 

[colfax_m]

and according to s230, they don't have to approve posts and won't be held accountable for them.

you seem to refuse this notion of the original intent of the rule.

s230 was there to prevent moderation as a requirement and let platforms not be accountable for what users post on it.

The last sentence is pretty confusing.

The original intent of the rule was to allow platforms (in that day essentially bulletin board forums like this) to engage in moderation without having to accept liability for everything on the platform. This came out of some wrongly decided court cases (in my mind) from the 1990s when no one really knew how to treat these platforms. Section 230 is specifically written to make it easier for platforms engage in the kind of activity you guys love to complain about.

Liability for certain activities such as prostitution and trafficking were carved out of that exemption later in a bill passed in 2018 called FOSTA. It's still pretty narrow.