Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:
@SenMarkey A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.
@elonmusk Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?
Is that an Elon Musk parody account, or is Elon Musk beyond parody?
These websites need to decide if they are publishers or platforms. If they are publishers, they should be liable for information published on them. If they are platforms, they should be regulated as public utilities once they get above a certain size.
It's not that simple.
Firstly, it is not really possible for a website (even one as small as PB) to monitor all comments to ensure that they are nobody is posting stuff that is libelous (or worse). No website could profitably vet all comments.
And, ultimately, as a publisher, that's what you'd have to do.
Which means that everyone is a platform.
Which brings us to point two: platforms work because they surface stuff that keeps people coming back. It's why Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, Tiktok, etc. spend gazillions of dollars trying to optimize algorithms so you see stuff that keeps you coming back.
If they are platforms, then do they have the right to act in their own economic best interests by working on algorithms to ensure you see stuff that will keep you coming back?
That seems pretty fucking crazy: if lots of people come onto your platform, you're no longer allowed to run the service for shareholders, by algorithmically curating content.
"Firstly, it is not really possible for a website (even one as small as PB) to monitor all comments to ensure that they are nobody is posting stuff that is libelous (or worse). No website could profitably vet all comments."
AI says Hi! ?
If AI can understand libel can we make a few lawyers redundant?
We are in a completely new situation - like when writing, printing, mass media, telecomms etc were first invented. In each case society had to adjust.
What is not tolerable is that if the BBC, Mail or Grauniad libels person X they can be liable for zillions; but if the same number of readers see an anonymous libellous post on Facetwit (or a post by someone not worth powder and shot) the libelled person has no remedy.
It means among other things that Facetwit has a commercial advantage over the Mail - it can make billions by salacious libels without accountability.
It also means that Facetwit has no reason to value truth for its own sake or even for commercial reasons.
At the moment the Facetwits are saying (1) yes we can make billions by unaccountable libellous lies (2) we can't possibly afford to moderate our content. One side has to go.
What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander.
If we're holding Facebook/Twitter responsible for anonymous libels, then you need to hold Politicalbetting's owners responsible too. Because people are (broadly) anonymous on here. And they can post libel. And we probably won't get it taken down that quickly.
And what are you going to do about 4Chan/8Chan: they are nothing but anonymous libel. Should the FBI be allowed to seize the domains and shut them down?
What about this: users being anonymous unless and until they post something libellous, and then they lose their anonymity?
T20 cricket has the potential to be easily the world's biggest sport, after football
1. It is non-stop compulsive viewing, between competitive teams 2. It has an ENORMOUS fan base in the subcontinent - 1.6bn people 3. It is also worldwide, England to Oz to SA to the Windies 4. It is perfectly aimed at humans who nowadays have less patience with long form of anything 5. The Asian diaspora will spread it globally 6. It has a natural glamour, the nightgames, the personalities, plus the easiness of understanding
Cons:
It is not a flawless product (the advantage to toss winning teams is an example). It needs to recruit a couple more rich nations to take off? And more
But I can see it overtaking Basketball and NFL, which remain hard to export for the USA (esp the latter)
You could argue it's too reliant on India for success. If Indians get fed up with the game in favour of something else it could be in trouble.
Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:
@SenMarkey A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.
@elonmusk Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?
Is that an Elon Musk parody account, or is Elon Musk beyond parody?
These websites need to decide if they are publishers or platforms. If they are publishers, they should be liable for information published on them. If they are platforms, they should be regulated as public utilities once they get above a certain size.
It's not that simple.
Firstly, it is not really possible for a website (even one as small as PB) to monitor all comments to ensure that they are nobody is posting stuff that is libelous (or worse). No website could profitably vet all comments.
And, ultimately, as a publisher, that's what you'd have to do.
Which means that everyone is a platform.
Which brings us to point two: platforms work because they surface stuff that keeps people coming back. It's why Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, Tiktok, etc. spend gazillions of dollars trying to optimize algorithms so you see stuff that keeps you coming back.
If they are platforms, then do they have the right to act in their own economic best interests by working on algorithms to ensure you see stuff that will keep you coming back?
That seems pretty fucking crazy: if lots of people come onto your platform, you're no longer allowed to run the service for shareholders, by algorithmically curating content.
"Firstly, it is not really possible for a website (even one as small as PB) to monitor all comments to ensure that they are nobody is posting stuff that is libelous (or worse). No website could profitably vet all comments."
AI says Hi! ?
If AI can understand libel can we make a few lawyers redundant?
We are in a completely new situation - like when writing, printing, mass media, telecomms etc were first invented. In each case society had to adjust.
What is not tolerable is that if the BBC, Mail or Grauniad libels person X they can be liable for zillions; but if the same number of readers see an anonymous libellous post on Facetwit (or a post by someone not worth powder and shot) the libelled person has no remedy.
It means among other things that Facetwit has a commercial advantage over the Mail - it can make billions by salacious libels without accountability.
It also means that Facetwit has no reason to value truth for its own sake or even for commercial reasons.
At the moment the Facetwits are saying (1) yes we can make billions by unaccountable libellous lies (2) we can't possibly afford to moderate our content. One side has to go.
What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander.
If we're holding Facebook/Twitter responsible for anonymous libels, then you need to hold Politicalbetting's owners responsible too. Because people are (broadly) anonymous on here. And they can post libel. And we probably won't get it taken down that quickly.
And what are you going to do about 4Chan/8Chan: they are nothing but anonymous libel. Should the FBI be allowed to seize the domains and shut them down?
Websites should decide whether they are publishers or platforms. If they are platforms, at a certain size threshold they should be regulated as a public utilities, with the government being able to require certain fair standards for moderation.
"like when writing, printing, mass media, telecomms etc were first invented. In each case society had to adjust."
Easy to say.
Some more concrete starting points.
1. Nobody has ever successfully sued a government for the mass psychological work a government has done on its home population. All governments do such work. It rarely even becomes a political issue.
2. Facebook and Twitter and a fortiori Google which is much bigger than both of them are part of the updated new state.
That can be filed under "society adjusting to an analogue of the invention of writing and printing" if one wants to think like that.
3. Fairly superficial questions are being asked now when they weren't prior to the internet, or back in the days when newspapers were spreading. This includes by lawheads but that's
a) for professional reasons,
b) because they can't get their heads around people's mass psychological "active" participation in their own oppression (hardly anybody in the chattering and professional classes can look at a streetful of people picking their handheld internet-connected computers and verbalise anything intelligent about what they see - they'd rather stick their well-groomed fingers in their ears and say "La"),
c) because they don't understand point 2. It's practically taboo, so I'm not singling out lawyers for the stocks here. But it's because 2 isn't understood that people talk in terms of "public utility regulation" or "libel law", as if private vs (old-time) state is the key measure to use, one that's assumed as a given to have enormous usefulness.
Was thinking the river would be a natural breaking point probably for the winter and that they'd be spending the winter securing and preparing for crossing, not beginning to already.
This war is showing that real-time intelligence from drones and satellites enables the nimble to outmanoeuvre the inflexible opponent with poor logistics. I don't see the Ukrainians stopping for winter at all. We just have to keep giving them kit. Best use of our defence budget for years.
Unless the Russian troops got well dug in the little bit of eastern Kherson ahead of time, the standard thinking has been that that the sand flats and fens on the east side of the Dnieper do not afford much cover and are not the easiest to defend, which is why they they had to make it to Kherson / Melitopol / Enerhodar quickly in the early days of the war.
Of course, same applies for Ukraine if they take any of the area.
Was thinking the river would be a natural breaking point probably for the winter and that they'd be spending the winter securing and preparing for crossing, not beginning to already.
This war is showing that real-time intelligence from drones and satellites enables the nimble to outmanoeuvre the inflexible opponent with poor logistics. I don't see the Ukrainians stopping for winter at all. We just have to keep giving them kit. Best use of our defence budget for years.
Unless the Russian troops got well dug in the little bit of eastern Kherson ahead of time, the standard thinking has been that that the sand flats and fens on the east side of the Dnieper do not afford much cover and are not the easiest to defend, which is why they they had to make it to Kherson / Melitopol / Enerhodar quickly in the early days of the war.
Of course, same applies for Ukraine if they take any of the area.
The suggestion is that the Ukrainians have landed special forces in the peninsular at the mouth of the river. They can be covered by HIMARS etc there, and driving them out of the area might be difficult - not easy terrain for heavy vehicles, and not a majorly developed areas.
On the flip side - not much infrastructure (docks etc) to resupply a force there.
Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:
@SenMarkey A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.
@elonmusk Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?
Is that an Elon Musk parody account, or is Elon Musk beyond parody?
These websites need to decide if they are publishers or platforms. If they are publishers, they should be liable for information published on them. If they are platforms, they should be regulated as public utilities once they get above a certain size.
It's not that simple.
Firstly, it is not really possible for a website (even one as small as PB) to monitor all comments to ensure that they are nobody is posting stuff that is libelous (or worse). No website could profitably vet all comments.
And, ultimately, as a publisher, that's what you'd have to do.
Which means that everyone is a platform.
Which brings us to point two: platforms work because they surface stuff that keeps people coming back. It's why Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, Tiktok, etc. spend gazillions of dollars trying to optimize algorithms so you see stuff that keeps you coming back.
If they are platforms, then do they have the right to act in their own economic best interests by working on algorithms to ensure you see stuff that will keep you coming back?
That seems pretty fucking crazy: if lots of people come onto your platform, you're no longer allowed to run the service for shareholders, by algorithmically curating content.
"Firstly, it is not really possible for a website (even one as small as PB) to monitor all comments to ensure that they are nobody is posting stuff that is libelous (or worse). No website could profitably vet all comments."
AI says Hi! ?
If AI can understand libel can we make a few lawyers redundant?
We are in a completely new situation - like when writing, printing, mass media, telecomms etc were first invented. In each case society had to adjust.
What is not tolerable is that if the BBC, Mail or Grauniad libels person X they can be liable for zillions; but if the same number of readers see an anonymous libellous post on Facetwit (or a post by someone not worth powder and shot) the libelled person has no remedy.
It means among other things that Facetwit has a commercial advantage over the Mail - it can make billions by salacious libels without accountability.
It also means that Facetwit has no reason to value truth for its own sake or even for commercial reasons.
At the moment the Facetwits are saying (1) yes we can make billions by unaccountable libellous lies (2) we can't possibly afford to moderate our content. One side has to go.
What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander.
If we're holding Facebook/Twitter responsible for anonymous libels, then you need to hold Politicalbetting's owners responsible too. Because people are (broadly) anonymous on here. And they can post libel. And we probably won't get it taken down that quickly.
And what are you going to do about 4Chan/8Chan: they are nothing but anonymous libel. Should the FBI be allowed to seize the domains and shut them down?
What about this: users being anonymous unless and until they post something libellous, and then they lose their anonymity?
Who decides what is libellous? Which court, in which country?
The US killed UK libel tourism, for exactly this kind of problem.
To combine the Ukraine news and British vs US sport discussion, Rugby Union is the closest sport we have to frontal warfare.
The rolling maul, rucks, repeated surges into tackle, desperate defence, occasional stalemate: just like artillery-driven trench warfare. Like Bakhmut.
The quick break out from the scrum, sprint across the pitch, touchdown between the posts: the rapid unexpected rout, Kharkiv- style.
The drop goal like a surprise missile attack or sinking of the flagship.
Territory more important than any other field sport. Momentum so visible and vital.
And the way the marginally weaker team can keep going for 60 minutes and then tires, after wave after wave of attrition, with the opposition running in the tries in the last few minutes. Very warfare-like.
T20 cricket has the potential to be easily the world's biggest sport, after football
1. It is non-stop compulsive viewing, between competitive teams 2. It has an ENORMOUS fan base in the subcontinent - 1.6bn people 3. It is also worldwide, England to Oz to SA to the Windies 4. It is perfectly aimed at humans who nowadays have less patience with long form of anything 5. The Asian diaspora will spread it globally 6. It has a natural glamour, the nightgames, the personalities, plus the easiness of understanding
Cons:
It is not a flawless product (the advantage to toss winning teams is an example). It needs to recruit a couple more rich nations to take off? And more
But I can see it overtaking Basketball and NFL, which remain hard to export for the USA (esp the latter)
You could argue it's too reliant on India for success. If Indians get fed up with the game in favour of something else it could be in trouble.
To combine the Ukraine news and British vs US sport discussion, Rugby Union is the closest sport we have to frontal warfare.
The rolling maul, rucks, repeated surges into tackle, desperate defence, occasional stalemate: just like artillery-driven trench warfare. Like Bakhmut.
The quick break out from the scrum, sprint across the pitch, touchdown between the posts: the rapid unexpected rout, Kharkiv- style.
The drop goal like a surprise missile attack or sinking of the flagship.
Territory more important than any other field sport. Momentum so visible and vital.
And the way the marginally weaker team can keep going for 60 minutes and then tires, after wave after wave of attrition, with the opposition running in the tries in the last few minutes. Very warfare-like.
How would you compare rugby union with the versions of football played at leading boarding schools such as
* the Eton Field Game and Wall Game * Winchester Football * Harrow Football
Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:
@SenMarkey A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.
@elonmusk Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?
Is that an Elon Musk parody account, or is Elon Musk beyond parody?
These websites need to decide if they are publishers or platforms. If they are publishers, they should be liable for information published on them. If they are platforms, they should be regulated as public utilities once they get above a certain size.
It's not that simple.
Firstly, it is not really possible for a website (even one as small as PB) to monitor all comments to ensure that they are nobody is posting stuff that is libelous (or worse). No website could profitably vet all comments.
And, ultimately, as a publisher, that's what you'd have to do.
Which means that everyone is a platform.
Which brings us to point two: platforms work because they surface stuff that keeps people coming back. It's why Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, Tiktok, etc. spend gazillions of dollars trying to optimize algorithms so you see stuff that keeps you coming back.
If they are platforms, then do they have the right to act in their own economic best interests by working on algorithms to ensure you see stuff that will keep you coming back?
That seems pretty fucking crazy: if lots of people come onto your platform, you're no longer allowed to run the service for shareholders, by algorithmically curating content.
"Firstly, it is not really possible for a website (even one as small as PB) to monitor all comments to ensure that they are nobody is posting stuff that is libelous (or worse). No website could profitably vet all comments."
AI says Hi! ?
If AI can understand libel can we make a few lawyers redundant?
We are in a completely new situation - like when writing, printing, mass media, telecomms etc were first invented. In each case society had to adjust.
What is not tolerable is that if the BBC, Mail or Grauniad libels person X they can be liable for zillions; but if the same number of readers see an anonymous libellous post on Facetwit (or a post by someone not worth powder and shot) the libelled person has no remedy.
It means among other things that Facetwit has a commercial advantage over the Mail - it can make billions by salacious libels without accountability.
It also means that Facetwit has no reason to value truth for its own sake or even for commercial reasons.
At the moment the Facetwits are saying (1) yes we can make billions by unaccountable libellous lies (2) we can't possibly afford to moderate our content. One side has to go.
What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander.
If we're holding Facebook/Twitter responsible for anonymous libels, then you need to hold Politicalbetting's owners responsible too. Because people are (broadly) anonymous on here. And they can post libel. And we probably won't get it taken down that quickly.
And what are you going to do about 4Chan/8Chan: they are nothing but anonymous libel. Should the FBI be allowed to seize the domains and shut them down?
What about this: users being anonymous unless and until they post something libellous, and then they lose their anonymity?
How will you catch them? And will you leave libel as a civil wrong?
Another suggestion: just chip everyone. Remove some "privileges" if they annoy any powerful interests.
Variations and fancy decorations: before chipping everyone, make being chipped a requirement for using the internet. (Anyone who says "Ha - that's impossible or highly unfeasible", please think again.) Or issue licences for different kinds of internet use, "linked" of course to "your" chip "account". Etc. etc. Details.
Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:
@SenMarkey A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.
@elonmusk Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?
Is that an Elon Musk parody account, or is Elon Musk beyond parody?
These websites need to decide if they are publishers or platforms. If they are publishers, they should be liable for information published on them. If they are platforms, they should be regulated as public utilities once they get above a certain size.
It's not that simple.
Firstly, it is not really possible for a website (even one as small as PB) to monitor all comments to ensure that they are nobody is posting stuff that is libelous (or worse). No website could profitably vet all comments.
And, ultimately, as a publisher, that's what you'd have to do.
Which means that everyone is a platform.
Which brings us to point two: platforms work because they surface stuff that keeps people coming back. It's why Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, Tiktok, etc. spend gazillions of dollars trying to optimize algorithms so you see stuff that keeps you coming back.
If they are platforms, then do they have the right to act in their own economic best interests by working on algorithms to ensure you see stuff that will keep you coming back?
That seems pretty fucking crazy: if lots of people come onto your platform, you're no longer allowed to run the service for shareholders, by algorithmically curating content.
"Firstly, it is not really possible for a website (even one as small as PB) to monitor all comments to ensure that they are nobody is posting stuff that is libelous (or worse). No website could profitably vet all comments."
AI says Hi! ?
If AI can understand libel can we make a few lawyers redundant?
We are in a completely new situation - like when writing, printing, mass media, telecomms etc were first invented. In each case society had to adjust.
What is not tolerable is that if the BBC, Mail or Grauniad libels person X they can be liable for zillions; but if the same number of readers see an anonymous libellous post on Facetwit (or a post by someone not worth powder and shot) the libelled person has no remedy.
It means among other things that Facetwit has a commercial advantage over the Mail - it can make billions by salacious libels without accountability.
It also means that Facetwit has no reason to value truth for its own sake or even for commercial reasons.
At the moment the Facetwits are saying (1) yes we can make billions by unaccountable libellous lies (2) we can't possibly afford to moderate our content. One side has to go.
What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander.
If we're holding Facebook/Twitter responsible for anonymous libels, then you need to hold Politicalbetting's owners responsible too. Because people are (broadly) anonymous on here. And they can post libel. And we probably won't get it taken down that quickly.
And what are you going to do about 4Chan/8Chan: they are nothing but anonymous libel. Should the FBI be allowed to seize the domains and shut them down?
What about this: users being anonymous unless and until they post something libellous, and then they lose their anonymity?
That would mean they weren't anonymous, they had an identity known to the admins who had somehow verified it. This information would leak.
SeaShantyIrish2 - Thanks for your kind words. As for my own votes, I had to cast a write-in vote, as I did in 2016 and 2020. And I believe that since democracies, including ours, have real external enemies, we Americans ought to be looking for ways to unite with each other. "Czar Putin", "Emperor" Xi, and the Iranian mullahs do not wish us well. And I could list many others, of course.
Two more Episcopalian Repubulican leaders: Missouri Senator John Danforth: "John Claggett Danforth (born September 5, 1936) is an American politician, attorney and diplomat who began his career in 1968 as the Attorney General of Missouri and served three terms as United States Senator from Missouri. In 2004, he served briefly as United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Danforth is an ordained Episcopal priest."
Danforth gave Clarence Thomas his start in politcs, and stayed a supporter of Thomas through a tough time.
And John Vliet Lindsay, a not very successful mayor of New York City. (He became a Democrat in 1971.) There is a thinly disguised portrait of Lindsay in Jimmy Breslin's "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight". That's a fun read if you don't mind a bunch of gangsters getting killed in an internal Mafia power struggle.
(There were some sharp comments about Baptists earlier, which would hurt the feelings of the most famous leader of the Ebenezer Baptist church if he could hear them -- but the comments wouldn't surprise him.
Incidentally, some of the first Baptist churches in the US were multi-racial, appealing to the poor of all races.
The church nearest me is Presbyterian, and holds services in Chinese, as well as English. They also have some outreach to Spanish speakers, but I don't know the details.)
"Lockdown was a sustained assault on our rights – and our humanity 3/5 Adam Wagner's Emergency State lays bare the human rights problems of lockdown and its enforcement – but why does his analysis stop short? By Jonathan Sumption" (£)
"Lockdown was a sustained assault on our rights – and our humanity 3/5 Adam Wagner's Emergency State lays bare the human rights problems of lockdown and its enforcement – but why does his analysis stop short? By Jonathan Sumption" (£)
Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:
@SenMarkey A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.
@elonmusk Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?
Is that an Elon Musk parody account, or is Elon Musk beyond parody?
These websites need to decide if they are publishers or platforms. If they are publishers, they should be liable for information published on them. If they are platforms, they should be regulated as public utilities once they get above a certain size.
It's not that simple.
Firstly, it is not really possible for a website (even one as small as PB) to monitor all comments to ensure that they are nobody is posting stuff that is libelous (or worse). No website could profitably vet all comments.
And, ultimately, as a publisher, that's what you'd have to do.
Which means that everyone is a platform.
Which brings us to point two: platforms work because they surface stuff that keeps people coming back. It's why Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, Tiktok, etc. spend gazillions of dollars trying to optimize algorithms so you see stuff that keeps you coming back.
If they are platforms, then do they have the right to act in their own economic best interests by working on algorithms to ensure you see stuff that will keep you coming back?
That seems pretty fucking crazy: if lots of people come onto your platform, you're no longer allowed to run the service for shareholders, by algorithmically curating content.
"Firstly, it is not really possible for a website (even one as small as PB) to monitor all comments to ensure that they are nobody is posting stuff that is libelous (or worse). No website could profitably vet all comments."
AI says Hi! ?
If AI can understand libel can we make a few lawyers redundant?
We are in a completely new situation - like when writing, printing, mass media, telecomms etc were first invented. In each case society had to adjust.
What is not tolerable is that if the BBC, Mail or Grauniad libels person X they can be liable for zillions; but if the same number of readers see an anonymous libellous post on Facetwit (or a post by someone not worth powder and shot) the libelled person has no remedy.
It means among other things that Facetwit has a commercial advantage over the Mail - it can make billions by salacious libels without accountability.
It also means that Facetwit has no reason to value truth for its own sake or even for commercial reasons.
At the moment the Facetwits are saying (1) yes we can make billions by unaccountable libellous lies (2) we can't possibly afford to moderate our content. One side has to go.
What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander.
If we're holding Facebook/Twitter responsible for anonymous libels, then you need to hold Politicalbetting's owners responsible too. Because people are (broadly) anonymous on here. And they can post libel. And we probably won't get it taken down that quickly.
And what are you going to do about 4Chan/8Chan: they are nothing but anonymous libel. Should the FBI be allowed to seize the domains and shut them down?
Websites should decide whether they are publishers or platforms. If they are platforms, at a certain size threshold they should be regulated as a public utilities, with the government being able to require certain fair standards for moderation.
With all due respect, that's bullshit.
Nobody can be a publisher, because that requires vetting of all comments to check for their legality, etc., because you are making the publisher responsible for the veracity of everything on their site/app.
So, people need to be platforms.
Except there's a fundamental difference between YouTube and BT.
You don't pick up your phone and thing, you know what, I'll pick it up and have an interesting conversation with whoever the phone company's algorithm picks. You choose who you want to talk to.
YouTube/Twitter/TikTok/Facebook/etc., their whole business model is showing you content you might want to watch/read/engage with.
Are you saying that - because lots of people came to them because of their algorithm - that they can no longer use their algorithms to decide what to show you?
Twitter is not a platform. It's a website and an app. No one is forced to use Twitter. It has no special power. Fuck me, it only does a couple of billion in revenue. My little insurance company will probably do as much revenue as Twitter does now in a couple of years time.
Regulation should exist to protect consumers where they have no choice. That is unequivocally not the case with Twitter.
But even if it was, you can't apply different rules because someone has 50m users not 50k users. If Twitter must be responsible for anonymous posters, then so must PB.
Comments
Easy to say.
Some more concrete starting points.
1. Nobody has ever successfully sued a government for the mass psychological work a government has done on its home population. All governments do such work. It rarely even becomes a political issue.
2. Facebook and Twitter and a fortiori Google which is much bigger than both of them are part of the updated new state.
That can be filed under "society adjusting to an analogue of the invention of writing and printing" if one wants to think like that.
3. Fairly superficial questions are being asked now when they weren't prior to the internet, or back in the days when newspapers were spreading. This includes by lawheads but that's
a) for professional reasons,
b) because they can't get their heads around people's mass psychological "active" participation in their own oppression (hardly anybody in the chattering and professional classes can look at a streetful of people picking their handheld internet-connected computers and verbalise anything intelligent about what they see - they'd rather stick their well-groomed fingers in their ears and say "La"),
c) because they don't understand point 2. It's practically taboo, so I'm not singling out lawyers for the stocks here. But it's because 2 isn't understood that people talk in terms of "public utility regulation" or "libel law", as if private vs (old-time) state is the key measure to use, one that's assumed as a given to have enormous usefulness.
Of course, same applies for Ukraine if they take any of the area.
On the flip side - not much infrastructure (docks etc) to resupply a force there.
The US killed UK libel tourism, for exactly this kind of problem.
The rolling maul, rucks, repeated surges into tackle, desperate defence, occasional stalemate: just like artillery-driven trench warfare. Like Bakhmut.
The quick break out from the scrum, sprint across the pitch, touchdown between the posts: the rapid unexpected rout, Kharkiv- style.
The drop goal like a surprise missile attack or sinking of the flagship.
Territory more important than any other field sport. Momentum so visible and vital.
And the way the marginally weaker team can keep going for 60 minutes and then tires, after wave after wave of attrition, with the opposition running in the tries in the last few minutes. Very warfare-like.
* the Eton Field Game and Wall Game
* Winchester Football
* Harrow Football
?
And will you leave libel as a civil wrong?
Another suggestion: just chip everyone. Remove some "privileges" if they annoy any powerful interests.
Variations and fancy decorations: before chipping everyone, make being chipped a requirement for using the internet. (Anyone who says "Ha - that's impossible or highly unfeasible", please think again.) Or issue licences for different kinds of internet use, "linked" of course to "your" chip "account". Etc. etc. Details.
Guardian.
Danforth gave Clarence Thomas his start in politcs, and stayed a supporter of Thomas through a tough time.
And John Vliet Lindsay, a not very successful mayor of New York City. (He became a Democrat in 1971.) There is a thinly disguised portrait of Lindsay in Jimmy Breslin's "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight". That's a fun read if you don't mind a bunch of gangsters getting killed in an internal Mafia power struggle.
(There were some sharp comments about Baptists earlier, which would hurt the feelings of the most famous leader of the Ebenezer Baptist church if he could hear them -- but the comments wouldn't surprise him.
Incidentally, some of the first Baptist churches in the US were multi-racial, appealing to the poor of all races.
The church nearest me is Presbyterian, and holds services in Chinese, as well as English. They also have some outreach to Spanish speakers, but I don't know the details.)
"Lockdown was a sustained assault on our rights – and our humanity
3/5
Adam Wagner's Emergency State lays bare the human rights problems of lockdown and its enforcement – but why does his analysis stop short?
By Jonathan Sumption" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/lockdown-sustained-assault-rights-humanity/
Hobbs lead falls from 34k to 26k.
Republican candidate takes the lead in House District AZ1.
(No update given re other counties).
Nobody can be a publisher, because that requires vetting of all comments to check for their legality, etc., because you are making the publisher responsible for the veracity of everything on their site/app.
So, people need to be platforms.
Except there's a fundamental difference between YouTube and BT.
You don't pick up your phone and thing, you know what, I'll pick it up and have an interesting conversation with whoever the phone company's algorithm picks. You choose who you want to talk to.
YouTube/Twitter/TikTok/Facebook/etc., their whole business model is showing you content you might want to watch/read/engage with.
Are you saying that - because lots of people came to them because of their algorithm - that they can no longer use their algorithms to decide what to show you?
Twitter is not a platform. It's a website and an app. No one is forced to use Twitter. It has no special power. Fuck me, it only does a couple of billion in revenue. My little insurance company will probably do as much revenue as Twitter does now in a couple of years time.
Regulation should exist to protect consumers where they have no choice. That is unequivocally not the case with Twitter.
But even if it was, you can't apply different rules because someone has 50m users not 50k users. If Twitter must be responsible for anonymous posters, then so must PB.
https://www.ft.com/content/133589fd-ba37-4963-9113-e1c47c28d4d7