carnegie
About
- Username
- carnegie
- Joined
- Visits
- 213
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 3,613
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,085
Reactions
-
Bill introduced to strip Section 230 protections from the internet
I have no doubt that's true. The effects would range far and wide with the internet as we know it ceasing to operate. The liability which many providers (and users) would face would outweigh the benefits they might gain or the profits (X-liabilty) they might make.Mike Wuerthele said:
If this, or similar 230 "reform" bills are passed, the forums here will absolutely be shut down.gatorguy said:The practical effect will be that a site like this AppleInsider Forum can longer exist.
Cheerleaders of the bill need to consider unanticipated consequences. Comment forums will largely disappear from most fan sites, and the ones that remain will heavily moderate (censor). It's rare that any of them earn enough profit to weather just one lawsuit over content posted by a user.
People and businesses shouldn't be responsible for the speech of others just because they provide resources or services which facilitate that speech or its propagation. And they shouldn't have to choose between not exercising any control whatsoever over speech that happens on their property (or using their facilities) or being liable for any speech which occurs on their property (or using their facilities). That's just untenable and is inconsistent with how liability has traditionally worked - nothwithstanding the bad publisher / distributor / platform distinction which built up in common law.
I'd add that it seems a lot of people don't realize that they - as individuals - are protected by Section 230 just as providers, such as Apple Insider and Twitter, are. The reason we don't face liability for, e.g., retweeting or reposting something written by others, is Section 230. We aren't responsible for the speech of others, and that's as it should be. We are, and should be, responsible for our own speech.
-
Apple ordered to pay VirnetX $503M for infringing patents
Yes, it's a little more complicated than that. All of the patent claims which Apple was ultimately found to have infringed in this case have been invalidated by the PTAB.flydog said:
Virnet owns a valid patent, and Apple infringed it. Am I missing something?ThinkmanDuv said:Unbelievable……VirnetX is a known serial offender ALWAYS litigating in TEXAS, where the accused always ALWAYS ALWAYS loses. No doubt Apple will win on appeal. Talk about a situation the Congress should be looking into that might actually fall under their purview, rather than badgering Tech companies with issues of which they have little or no understanding!
-
Apple ordered to pay VirnetX $503M for infringing patents
VirnetX has won on some issues in these cases, but so has Apple. For instance, the Federal Circuit overruled the infringement findings for two of the patents involved in this case. Apple and others have also had a lot of success in PTAB proceedings against VirnetX getting patent claims (including the three this judgment is based on) invalidated.CloudTalkin said:
Not likely. Why do you think Apple will fare better on this appeal than they've fared on all the other appeals? Apple has been soundly trounced by VirnetX in multiple trials and appeals. The cases have been going on for a decade and Apple still hasn't prevailed. Back in March I said Apple is employing the Samsung defense of just appeal until everyone get's tired. It's not working here because the verdicts keep getting worse. You should probably look into the history of the cases before confidently proclaiming an Apple victory on appeal.ThinkmanDuv said:Unbelievable……VirnetX is a known serial offender ALWAYS litigating in TEXAS, where the accused always ALWAYS ALWAYS loses. No doubt Apple will win on appeal. Talk about a situation the Congress should be looking into that might actually fall under their purview, rather than badgering Tech companies with issues of which they have little or no understanding!
Further, the damages award in this case didn't get worse for Apple it got better. It went from a royalty rate of $1.20 per unit to a royalty rate of $0.84 per unit. -
Apple demands Telegram remove posts related to Belarus protests, controversy ensues
The freedom of the press referred to in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects a right to use technology to spread one's speech more widely, not a special right enjoyed by the press as a profession or industry. Whether someone acts as a member of 'the press' - whatever that would mean - they enjoy the same protections under the First Amendment. That's true both as a matter of original understanding and as a matter of modern prevailing interpretation.drsternlight said:Freedom of the press applies only against government, not private entities such as Apple. Further it protects only owners of presses, not content contributors.
It's the press as a technology, not the press as an industry, that is protected by the First Amendment.
-
FCC head says commission can interpret Section 230 regulations, signals plan to do so
AppleInsider said:Federal Communications Chairman Ajit Pai on Thursday announced that the agency would move forward with new rules that would "clarify the meaning" of the law that regulates Internet publishers and platforms.
Credit: FCC
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides broad protections for online platforms shielding them from liability for content posted by others on their sites -- including illicit material assuming certain actions were taken by the platforms. The protections allowed early platforms to flourish, but has come under scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators.
In a statement on Thursday, Pai said that the FCC's general counsel informed him that the Commission has the "legal authority to interpret Section 230." On that advice, Pai said he would move forward "with a rulemaking to clarify its meaning."I intend to move forward with an @FCC rulemaking to clarify the meaning of #Section230.
Read my full statement below. pic.twitter.com/LhUz5XMdSC-- Ajit Pai (@AjitPaiFCC)
The FCC chairman also said that the U.S. Commerce Department recently petitioned the agency to clarify ambiguities in the Section 230 protections, and noted that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said that the courts have applied Section 230 in a way that appears to "go far beyond the actual text of the provision."
In September, the U.S. Justice Department unveiled draft legislation that would reform the legal protections. The U.S. Senate has also subpoenaed the CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to testify before Congress about the existing protections.
Section 230 has been a favorite target of Republicans, who believe that social media companies use those protections to censor conservative viewpoints. Democrats have their own issues with the law, including that it shields social media platforms when they proliferate misinformation, disinformation, and misleading content.
The Justice Department included elements in its legislation that would deny immunity to platforms that don't take action on illicit content, and also includes a content for child sexual abuse. Existing proposed reforms, including the ones suggested by the Department of Justice, would require more moderation by platforms and social media, not less, to qualify for protections against users posting illicit content.
It isn't clear how Pai intends to reform or narrow the protections of Section 230, nor is it clear if the agency actually has the authority to do so beyond its own attorneys saying it does.
"Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech," Pai said. "But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters."Mr. Pai is wrong, as was Justice Thomas in his statement regarding cert denial in the Malwarebytes case.
