carnegie

cat52 said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

bluefire1 said:

I’m disappointed  that not one member of the Committee brought up the subject of  Section 230 of the Telecommunication Act and if immunity should still apply since, Apple aside, they have evolved from platforms to publishers. 

By no legal definition has even Twitter or Facebook evolved from a platform to a publisher. That may change with the ongoing reform, but today, all of them are very clearly platforms.

Bill Barr clearly disagrees with you.  In an interview two weeks ago he shared the following comments:

I think there are — clearly these, these entities are now engaged in censorship.  And they originally held themselves out as open forums where people, where the third parties could come and express their views and they built up a tremendous network of eyeballs.

They had a lot of market power based on that presentation.  And now they are acting much more like publishers because they’re censoring particular viewpoints and putting their own content in there to diminish the impact of various people’s views.

Apple itself is guilty of censorship as well, for instance several months ago they banned all apps dealing with covid which didn't originate from a "trusted source".  Whether you agree with Apple's decision or not, giving certain people the opportunity to speak while shutting others out is of course the very definition of censorship.

So if you want to censor certain viewpoints, you're going to lose your Section 230 immunity.

Attorney General Barr doesn't seem (in that short passage) to be saying that the law currently works that way. If he was saying that, he was wrong.

An internet provider or user doesn't become a publisher - for, e.g., defamation law purposes - because it censors certain viewpoints. You don't lose §230(c)(1) immunity because you censor certain viewpoints. We could, I suppose, change the law - though I don't think we should in this regard. But as it is, that isn't how the law works.

bluefire1 said:

I’m disappointed  that not one member of the Committee brought up the subject of  Section 230 of the Telecommunication Act and if immunity should still apply since, Apple aside, they have evolved from platforms to publishers. 

I've seen a lot of misinformation about how §230 works. Some seem to think that if an internet provider censors some material, it loses its immunity (from, e.g., defamation claims) for material posted by others. That's not the case. Even if an internet provider or user - like, e.g., Twitter or Apple Insider - censors material based on viewpoint, it doesn't lose its §230(c)(1) immunity. Indeed, even if it acts in bad faith in censoring material it doesn't lose that immunity.

There are a couple aspects of the protection provided to internet providers and users by §230. It seems that some conflate - intentionally or otherwise - those aspects.

§230(c)(1) says that internet providers and users aren't treated as publishers of information provided by others. Full stop. That treatment - not being treated (for, e.g., defamation law purposes) as the publisher of information provided by others - isn't conditional. It doesn't depend on anything.

$230(c)(2) provides protection, for internet providers and users, for blocking access to certain material - for, e.g., censoring certain material. This is a separate immunity basis than that provided by §230(c)(1). §230(c)(2) says that internet providers and users aren't liable for actions taken in good faith to block material that they consider objectionable. What they consider objectionable provides them with great latitude to decide what material they will block, and still be acting in good faith. But here's the key, this immunity which is conditioned on good faith is against liability they might otherwise have for having blocked certain material. It means that someone can't, in most cases, sue them because they blocked something. This good faith requirement has nothing to do with their having immunity against actions brought based on material they didn't block. Even if they act in bad faith in blocking something, they don't become liable (under, e.g., defamation law) for material posted by others which they don't block. They just, possibly, become liable for having blocked something which they might - in fairly rare circumstances - have had some legal obligation to leave up (e.g., they might have had some contractual obligation).

Apple Insider could, if it wanted, declare that it was going to delete all pro-Trump comments and it could proceed to do just that. It would still have §230(c)(1) immunity for any comments, posted by others, which it left up. It doesn't lose that immunity. It doesn't, e.g., become a publisher for defamation law purposes. The key is that it isn't responsible for information posted by others. It is responsible for information it posts. It could be sued for, e.g., defamation if it posted something defamatory. And if it edited someone's post to make it defamatory, it might also be liable. But it isn't liable for stuff that others post, even if it chooses to delete some stuff that people post.

So moves in Apple shares will have less impact on the DJIA going forward. That index isn't cap-weighted, it's just based on share prices. So if the share price of one of the Dow 30 companies moves $10, that move has the same effect on the index regardless of whether the share price was $50 or $400 before. A 10% move in a company with a share price of $400 moves the index 8 times as many points as a 10% move in a company with a share price of $50, even if the market cap of the $50 share price stock is 10 times greater than that of the $400 share price stock.

The DJIA divisor will be adjusted to account for this split, and then going forward a $10 move in Apple will have the same effect that a $10 move today would.

Apple's share price was getting pretty high for a Dow 30 company.

mike1 said:

Any other of the dozens of wireless headphone manufacturers named in the lawsuit?

Koss filed complaints against other wireless headphone makers as well, including Bose and Skullcandy.

Sunny1 said:

FWIW - it was supposed to open at $26, finally opened to the public at $46 and ended the day at $39. Institutional investors might have been able to buy at $26 but the public could buy only at $46. Doesn’t that put the stock 15% down from open?

indiekiduk said:

Sunny1 said:

FWIW - it was supposed to open at $26, finally opened to the public at $46 and ended the day at $39. Institutional investors might have been able to buy at $26 but the public could buy only at $46. Doesn’t that put the stock 15% down from open?

I'm seeing the same, open at 46.00, closed at 39.20 which means a 14.7% decline. A very different story, this article should be updated.

JAMF was down from the opening, yes. But it was up on the day.

When calculating what a stock did on a given day, you use the previous day's close as the base not the given day's open. If the share price closed at $25 yesterday, opened at $40 today, and closed at $35 today, then it's up $10 today not down $5.

With an IPO there is no previous day's close. In that case you use the IPO offering price, which was $26. JAMF was up $13.20 from that IPO offering price.

Also, I'd note that JAMF wasn't supposed to open at $26. It wasn't supposed to open at any given price, that was going to depend on the bids an asks that came in before it opened from trading. The $26 was the IPO offering price. Quite often IPOs open well above the IPO offering price on the first day of trading.