anonymouse

AppleZulu said:

This is going to be a disaster. 

meterestnz said:

lordjohnwhorfin said:

I still can’t

jfabula1 said:

lordjohnwhorfin said:

You voted for

godofbiscuitssf said:

anonymouse said:

… (more)

godofbiscuitssf said:

AnObserver said:

I agree. Too many who have no knowledge about how things really work are in control.

Except in this case, they're backing into the right answer.  Facebook, Twitter, and most others these days are CURATORS, not just platforms that repost and relay other people's opinion.  Curation IS opinion, IS editor.ial content.  They are owners of that, and they've been hiding behind Section 230 to blast their own agendas and opinions while individual users are still on the hook legally and financially for their own posts.  

That obviously isn't equal treatment under the law.  Section 230 needs to be gutted, or killed.  It's not like corporations don't have a million other avenues of protection for themselves, and where they don't, they have lawyers.  Endless supplies of lawyers.

I don't know how you have formed your ideas about this but you still have it completely backwards. Repealing Section 230 isn't going to stop, to use your word, "curation" of content by FB and others, it's just going to mean that they delete a lot of content that they now leave up. Individual users would still be "on the hook for their own posts," but anything the "curators" deem to put them on the hook as well, like false and defamatory posts from political operatives, will be removed. Without Section 230 a lot of individual "voices" are going to be muted, but the so called "curators" aren't going to be muted.

It's really amazing how so many people, especially those who have benefited the most from Section 230, have the rather wild idea that Section 230 is somehow muzzling them or somehow giving "curators" some sort of special "immunity" to "censor" when the reality is exactly the opposite.

(less)

I didn’t say it would stop curation. I said that big corporations weren’t just reposting other people’s opinions and acting as a “community board”, they were acting as an editorial entity themselves in ADDITION to posting thr content of others.  

Right now, Twitter and Facebook, through curation of user feeds, gets to be an agent free to give their users a view of the truth, or what “the majority believe” about a person, all without fear or reprisal or consequence because of Section 230. 

However, If an individual says something similar that is counter factual that causes harm, they’re subject to libel laws. 

We all benefited by 230 before platforms started with their engagement algorithms. facebook’s engagement tactics are well known, and border on election interference in their bias toward right wing candidates and rightwing extremist viewpoints.  

That’s not simple store and forward of the content of others.  That’s Facebook pushing its own content and own agenda.  For its own purposes. That makes their participation subject to the user side of Section 230 in addition to the hosting side. 

tundraboy said:

-anonymouse said:

I don't know how you have formed your ideas about this but you still have it completely backwards. Repealing Section 230 isn't going to stop, to use your word, "curation" of content by FB and others, it's just going to mean that they delete a lot of content that they now leave up. Individual users would still be "on the hook for their own posts," but anything the "curators" deem to put them on the hook as well, like false and defamatory posts from political operatives, will be removed. Without Section 230 a lot of individual "voices" are going to be muted, but the so called "curators" aren't going to be muted.

Yes the curators won't be muted.  But now they will be legally responsible for the information that they put on their sites.  Just like any publisher. Because if you are curating a site, then you are a de facto publisher.

That's all that repeal advocates want.  You should be legally answerable for what you allow to be printed on your newspaper, broadcasted on your TV network, displayed on your highway billboard, and now, posted on your website.

Seriously, what is wrong or bad about that?

9secondkox2 said:

It may be tough for a bit, but it’s necessary. We shouldn’t have allowed everyone to-especially China - to tariff us like they have without responding in

muthuk_vanalingam said:

anonymouse said:

… (more)

danox said:

... certainly no one in their right mind four weeks ago would have believed, that the man in the White House would be as stupid as he’s proven to be. ...

I feel comfortable that I'm in my right mind and four weeks, four months, four years ago, and even further back, I knew that this man was as stupid as he's proven to be. In fact, he's probably even more stupid than he's "proven to be." Donald Trump is profoundly stupid. As a con man, he's proven to be an idiot savant, but, first and foremost, he's always been an idiot.

(less)

How can a successful con-man be an idiot? If a con-man is an idiot, he cannot succeed even at a basic level, forget about becoming the President of the wealthiest country in the world. May be, there is something else going on behind the scenes as someone else alluded to in this forum - Stock market manipulation at a large scale to get him and few of his friends super-rich in a short period of time. It is a conspiracy theory, but nothing else makes sense to intrepret what is going on.

CheeseFreeze said:

anonymouse said:

… (more)

CheeseFreeze said:

Kuminga said:

Is there anymore doubt the EU is evil and anti American?

Trump is right in this one 

What an arrogant & narcissistic thing to say. Have you considered the USA being anti-European? 

Also, this article is sensationalist nonsense written by someone who’s clearly incredibly biased. It totally misrepresents the demands of EU and places the conflict in the wrong context. 

I recommend people to actually read EU’s arguments (easy to Google) instead of this brain rot article.

(less)

In exactly which particulars is the article wrong and what exactly is the EU's position where you believe it differs from what is stated in the article. Please be specific and cite sources in your response.

Ok, I won't hold my breath for that, but, frankly, it's hard not to see how the EU putting the screws on American tech companies doesn't lend credence to Trump's rhetoric. This is a boon for the radical elements in charge of our government right now, which will end up backfiring on the EU, and all because the EU wants to appropriate Apple's, and other tech companies', IP and shake them down for cash. 

Sure. Here is the actual *information* summarized, without the usual AppleInsider craziness:   

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_816 

The European Commission has issued two legally binding decisions under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to ensure that Apple enhances interoperability between its iOS operating system and third-party devices and applications. 

Key Requirements:

1. Interoperability with Connected Devices:

• Apple must grant third-party device manufacturers access to specific iOS features to facilitate seamless integration. This includes functionalities such as notifications, background processes, and various wireless technologies (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, NFC). 

2. Transparency and Predictability for Developers:

• Apple is required to provide clearer guidelines and technical documentation to developers. This aims to make the process for requesting interoperability with iOS devices more transparent and predictable, ensuring that developers have the necessary information to integrate their products effectively. 

These measures are designed to promote competition and innovation by allowing third-party devices and applications to work as seamlessly with iOS as Apple’s own products, thereby offering consumers more choices. 

While Apple has expressed concerns that these directives might hinder innovation and place the company at a disadvantage compared to others, the European Commission maintains that these steps are essential for ensuring a fair and open digital market. 

These decisions are part of the European Commission’s ongoing efforts to enforce the DMA, targeting major tech companies to ensure they do not engage in anti-competitive practices. 

The reason why Apple specifically is targeted is the fact Android already does comply. Again, AppleInsider likes to look at it this from the lens of a cult. Maybe they should be acquired by Fox News?

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

… (more)

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

longpath said:

This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.

Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en

By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.

Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.

Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them. 

EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!

EU law makes a mockery of law.

The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective. 

You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers. 

(less)

But if those numbers are set only for the purpose of insuring that the 5 largest US tech companies are captured as "gatekeepers", then Apple didn't just "fall" into the group of "gatekeepers". And it makes being a "gatekeeper" (under the DMA)  a meaningless label.  

Like I said, that line of argument is open for debate but saying it didn't just 'fall' into the group of 'gatekeepers' is ridiculous because you are pumping the situation full of claims that are just your opinion.

DAalseth said:

pulseimages said:

DAalseth said:

No, I’ll pass