carnegie

SpamSandwich said:

cpsro said:

Tulsi Gabbard is a nut case and the GOP has become so corrupt and ugly behind Trump and McConnell, they can’t tolerate being caught in lies and are currently threatening our very democracy.

Company forums are not public and consequently aren’t subject to the 1st Amendment. It’s unreasonable to expect all expression on a company forum to be accurately moderated or moderated to one’s own liking. Section 230 needs to remain.

Section 230 has only existed since 1989 and it isn’t a free pass for everything.

The hyperbole in this thread reminds me a lot of the “end of the world” nonsense people insisted would result as a consequence of eliminating so-called “Net Neutrality”. Obviously, it was all panic talk.

Get informed here:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Section 230 was passed in 1996, not 1989.

That said, Section 230 really wasn't needed until we got the terrible decision in Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy Services (1995). (Though it might have been seen as needed in anticipation of such bad rulings, or perhaps even in response to the not-as-terrible ruling in Cubby v Compuserve (1991).)

People generally aren't responsible for the speech of others. In some limited contexts common law has held them liable for the speech of others (e.g., for newspapers when it came to so-called letters to the editor). But in most contexts they aren't. Section 230 was putting internet actors back to that status - mostly not being responsible for the speech of others. Some try to frame Section 230 as giving internet providers some kind of special exemption from liability. But that's not really what it does. Rather, it prevents them - as well as internet users - from facing some kind of special liability for the speech of others which they, absent bad court decisions, wouldn't have and which they shouldn't have.

Mike Wuerthele said:

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. 

If this, or similar 230 "reform" bills are passed, the forums here will absolutely be shut down.

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.

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.

SpamSandwich said:

Incidentally, the site OpenSecrets has far more extensive information about who is being paid by Apple.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/apple-inc/summary?id=D000021754

In my opinion, against Apple’s business interests they have only contributed to politicians and candidates whose anti-business positions put them squarely in the anti-capitalist realm. Supporting only politicians who have a stated goal of extorting or destroying your business is a very bad position to put the entire company in. They should be practical instead of partisan about lobbying.

Apple has spent (pretty modest amounts of) money to lobby politicians.

But those contributions to candidates aren’t from Apple. Apple can’t contribute to candidates. Those contributions are from people associated with Apple - e.g., employees and their family members.

flydog said:

chasm said:

Epic just lost the case by not demanding a jury trial, and Apple knows this.

The judge has already told Epic — repeatedly — that they broke the contract as a stunt and brought these problems on themselves.

she is not going to change that view in July.

Juries are triers of fact, not law, and the facts are largely undisputed here. A jury trial would add nothing for either side, and even if they agree to one, this case will likely be disposed well before it would start. 

There are plenty of questions of fact in this case such as, e.g., how should the relevant markets be defined. There are questions of law which can affect that consideration, but it's ultimately a question of fact. If a jury was involved, the judge would answer the questions of law and provide the jury with guidance on how to consider the questions of fact. This is a case which a jury could be asked to hear, and the judge indicated that was her preferred course.

The issue here is that Epic is only making equitable claims, it isn't making legal claims. In other words, it's asking for injunctions to stop Apple from doing certain things. It isn't asking for damages. Generally speaking parties have a right to trial by jury in federal civil cases. But they don't necessarily have such a right when it comes to equitable rather than legal claims.

Apple made counterclaims in this case, and when it filed those counterclaims (along with an answer to Epic's claims) it demanded a jury trial. It has a right to have a jury trial on its claims (which include legal claims). But it doesn't necessarily have a right to have a jury trial on Epic's equitable claims. So, if Epic insists on not having a jury trial on its equitable claims, there either has to be separate trials - one with a jury on Apple's claims (to include legal claims) and one without a jury on Epic's equitable claims  - or Apple has to agree not to have a jury. (Or, I suppose, the judge could make a determination that under the circumstances Apple has a right to have a trial by jury on Epic's claims.)

There would be reasons to have a trial by jury in this case, even on Epic's claims. But Apple has agreed to have a bench trial. I suspect Apple feels pretty good about its chances with this judge after having heard what she's said so far.

The merits case was already set to be decided by a jury unless Apple changed its mind or the judge decided all the issues through summary judgment. I'm not sure how likely the former is, but I think the latter is quite unlikely. Apple demanded, as was its right, a jury trial on all triable issues when it filed its answer and counterclaims.

Also, Epic had proposed a schedule which would have had the trial starting in late March or early April while Apple proposed a schedule which would have had it start in early August. So it looks like the schedule will be closer to what Apple had proposed.