4 ms·

Book publishers and magazines aren’t held to a very serious standard these days. This isn’t the UK; free speech in the US is number 1. It’s far more fundament

Book publishers and magazines aren’t held to a very serious standard these days. This isn’t the UK; free speech in the US is number 1. It’s far more fundamental than any legislation will fix. America is built on aristocratic protectionism like every other nation. Things like the Constitution allowing for copyright protection for a limited time is made effectively forever given the perspective of an average human life span. It will always end up being gamed. Personally, I’m tuning out more from consumerism and “the tech industry”. Even before covid I’d grown sick of what became circular debates over big O and comp sci 101 in tech, and routine office life. I’m learning musical instruments and writing creatively. Ditched my TV. Things like 230 are useful for big tech Corp. Not me. Let them defend it. I’m not interested in performing unpaid political lobbying for them.

gumby 6y ago
> Things like 230 are useful for big tech Corp. Actually that part of the law protects comment sections in personal blogs: you aren't liable for any comments left on your posts and spam fighting or highlighting etc (or not) of posts doesn't magically transform them into statements of yours. Spammers have reduced the value of comments on blog posts but they are still important.
- withPurpose9973 6y ago
  Who cares? Encrypt your message and distribute it to interested parties. You know what I’ve learned online? Human beings do human being stuff. golf clap Society doesn’t need to protect a particular form of distribution of expression. Just your freedom to express.
pavlov 6y ago
> “Things like 230 are useful for big tech Corp. Not me.” You’re writing this on a site that’s protected by Section 230. It’s useful for everyone, from the smallest blog to FB, that lets user-generated content through without premoderation. Repealing this law would mean a web with a lot more moderation, not less.
- withPurpose9973 6y ago
  Do not dare suppose you know where others should find value. Your subjective feelings as 1 in 7 billion are not universal truth. Why are real world laws around moderation ok but online should be different? Does that communication not have a real world effect? Yet another human pipe dream fed to the masses to empower corporations, rile the public up about government interference (never mind laws enable tech corp meddling in our lives; cognitive dissonance among smart people is a thing). And now you’re doing free political lobbying. Understand, my freedom of speech is intact without the web. Probably even more so without technology watching me at work and home. For what? Turning my lights on and off with my voice? ML applied to science and engineering are one thing. Filtering people with rough edge incomplete statistical tools (described as such by experts) is just awful on the surface of it. Pretty sure what’s good for social stability is not giving up our agency to nation state political demands. Believing that society is too big to fail. Seems every time societies do that they die. The more people it pushes aside the less internal support it has. So respectfully, I disagree.

gumby 6y ago

> Things like 230 are useful for big tech Corp. Actually that part of the law protects comment sections in personal blogs: you aren't liable for any comments left on your posts and spam fighting or highlighting etc (or not) of posts doesn't magically transform them into statements of yours. Spammers have reduced the value of comments on blog posts but they are still important.

withPurpose9973 6y ago
Who cares? Encrypt your message and distribute it to interested parties. You know what I’ve learned online? Human beings do human being stuff. golf clap Society doesn’t need to protect a particular form of distribution of expression. Just your freedom to express.

pavlov 6y ago

> “Things like 230 are useful for big tech Corp. Not me.” You’re writing this on a site that’s protected by Section 230. It’s useful for everyone, from the smallest blog to FB, that lets user-generated content through without premoderation. Repealing this law would mean a web with a lot more moderation, not less.

withPurpose9973 6y ago
Do not dare suppose you know where others should find value. Your subjective feelings as 1 in 7 billion are not universal truth. Why are real world laws around moderation ok but online should be different? Does that communication not have a real world effect? Yet another human pipe dream fed to the masses to empower corporations, rile the public up about government interference (never mind laws enable tech corp meddling in our lives; cognitive dissonance among smart people is a thing). And now you’re doing free political lobbying. Understand, my freedom of speech is intact without the web. Probably even more so without technology watching me at work and home. For what? Turning my lights on and off with my voice? ML applied to science and engineering are one thing. Filtering people with rough edge incomplete statistical tools (described as such by experts) is just awful on the surface of it. Pretty sure what’s good for social stability is not giving up our agency to nation state political demands. Believing that society is too big to fail. Seems every time societies do that they die. The more people it pushes aside the less internal support it has. So respectfully, I disagree.