https://www.ft.com/content/ce1d6a00-89a0...ac3b9ee271

Article raises good questions on policing of tech companies.


"...Powerful tech companies do. Yet they also continue to benefit, in the US at least, from laws that treat them as “special” and allow them to get around all sorts of legal issues that companies in every other kind of business have to grapple with. This amounts to billions of dollars in corporate subsidies to the world’s most powerful industry. It is clear that the internet is a fundamentally different place than it was in 1996 — one that needs fundamentally different.

The golden goose is a little-known bit of Federal Trade Commission legislation. Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act (CDA) was crafted in 1996 to allow tech firms exemption from liability for nearly all kinds of illegal content or actions perpetrated by their users (there are a few small carveouts for things like copyright violations and rare federal criminal prosecutions). In recent years, the tech industry has thrown a tremendous amount of money and effort into ensuring that it maintains section 230 as a “get out of jail free” card...."

I'm not subscribing to be able to read it. But if it advocates tech companies censoring user's speech out of fear of being fined or sued...I'm against it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

How about we make search engines public utilities...

I'm down!

How about when a tech company gets hacked...we stop fining them?

What other victim of crime do we punish monetarily for being a crime victim?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(08-28-2017 11:03 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  How about when a tech company gets hacked...we stop fining them?

What other victim of crime do we punish monetarily for being a crime victim?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

They are paid to not be victims. When they become victims because of their own lack of vigilance they should be fined. It's the same basic idea behind professional malpractice.

If these Tech companies don't want the stress of managing important information then they should find something else to do.

(08-28-2017 03:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-28-2017 11:03 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  How about when a tech company gets hacked...we stop fining them?

What other victim of crime do we punish monetarily for being a crime victim?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

They are paid to not be victims. When they become victims because of their own lack of vigilance they should be fined. It's the same basic idea behind professional malpractice.

If these Tech companies don't want the stress of managing important information then they should find something else to do.

They pay a fine to the government...which does not help the consumer, and does not harm the perpetrator.

Many of these hacking incidents are caused by bugs in 3rd party software.

So you are fining someone just for using an OS or web software or anti-virus that someone else introduced a bug into that didn't have perfect testing.

Like fining a burglary victim for buying a lock with an unknown flaw in it and getting robbed.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Removing Section 230 removes all the legal protections this site enjoys. I'd probably shut CSN down the first whiff of a lawsuit that came up without Section 230. It's just too ruinously expensive to fight a protracted legal battle with Giant Omni Multinational Corp, Inc without 230's protections.

(08-28-2017 03:47 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-28-2017 03:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-28-2017 11:03 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  How about when a tech company gets hacked...we stop fining them?

What other victim of crime do we punish monetarily for being a crime victim?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

They are paid to not be victims. When they become victims because of their own lack of vigilance they should be fined. It's the same basic idea behind professional malpractice.

If these Tech companies don't want the stress of managing important information then they should find something else to do.

They pay a fine to the government...which does not help the consumer, and does not harm the perpetrator.

Many of these hacking incidents are caused by bugs in 3rd party software.

So you are fining someone just for using an OS or web software or anti-virus that someone else introduced a bug into that didn't have perfect testing.

Like fining a burglary victim for buying a lock with an unknown flaw in it and getting robbed.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

So?

It is nothing like fining a burglary victim.

It's like fining the jewelry store you gave your Rolex to for cleaning who knowingly used locks that didn't work and who didn't bother to have a guard because that costs too much.

They have a duty to protect your stuff. That includes known holes in third party software. It isn't that third party's fault--it's theirs.

(08-28-2017 03:56 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Removing Section 230 removes all the legal protections this site enjoys. I'd probably shut CSN down the first whiff of a lawsuit that came up without Section 230. It's just too ruinously expensive to fight a protracted legal battle with Giant Omni Multinational Corp, Inc without 230's protections.

Their target seems to be tech companies deciding who to allow and who not to and setting up rules. (I guess it is only non-subscription for a certain time). They quoted the CEO who said he woke up in a bad mood and banned a group and that nobody should have that power. They use the example of Google continuing to support illegal sex groups but choosing to ban certain "hate" groups.

(08-28-2017 04:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So?

It is nothing like fining a burglary victim.

It's like fining the jewelry store you gave your Rolex to for cleaning who knowingly used locks that didn't work and who didn't bother to have a guard because that costs too much.

They have a duty to protect your stuff. That includes known holes in third party software. It isn't that third party's fault--it's theirs.

What you're calling for is the death of all software that isn't shipped by vendors big enough to pay for ludicrous insurance policies. Your tort ideal will lead to a world where everybody other than Red Hat, Microsoft, and Apple are sued out of existence. You don't understand how modern software is written, deployed, evolves, and works. This isn't the 1970's anymore with IBM shipping guaranteed bug free software for computers as big as a house.

I'm not saying you don't have a point. I'm perpetually pissed off at how absolutely p*ss poor the long term updates and supports are for every single smartphone out there. Two years of support? We'd be at Microsoft's doorstep with pitchforks if they shipped Windows with only 2 years of support and updates. I'm just saying your "cure" will kill the patient.

(08-28-2017 04:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  Their target seems to be tech companies deciding who to allow and who not to and setting up rules. (I guess it is only non-subscription for a certain time). They quoted the CEO who said he woke up in a bad mood and banned a group and that nobody should have that power. They use the example of Google continuing to support illegal sex groups but choosing to ban certain "hate" groups.

Google is a private company. They can do whatever they want. A better question to ask is ... is it OK that Google has such total dominance in the online advertising space and thus controls the purse strings to a HUGE chunk of the internet, including, to some extent, this site? If your answer is no ... what are you doing to avoid using Google services, to opt out and avoid Google's tracking, and to support competitors (granted, they're pretty awful too in Yahoo! and Bing)?

The radical left has been invading tech for the last 3-4 years. Sadly I'm on the front lines of that battle, as it is getting harder and harder to run a conference free of a political agenda. Political lefties chased away over $10,000 in sponsorship money for my conference last year simply because I refused to cave to their demands. It's getting ugly folks. And the longer good people stay silent the worse it is going to get.

(08-28-2017 04:43 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-28-2017 04:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  Their target seems to be tech companies deciding who to allow and who not to and setting up rules. (I guess it is only non-subscription for a certain time). They quoted the CEO who said he woke up in a bad mood and banned a group and that nobody should have that power. They use the example of Google continuing to support illegal sex groups but choosing to ban certain "hate" groups.

Google is a private company. They can do whatever they want. A better question to ask is ... is it OK that Google has such total dominance in the online advertising space and thus controls the purse strings to a HUGE chunk of the internet, including, to some extent, this site? If your answer is no ... what are you doing to avoid using Google services, to opt out and avoid Google's tracking, and to support competitors (granted, they're pretty awful too in Yahoo! and Bing)?

The radical left has been invading tech for the last 3-4 years. Sadly I'm on the front lines of that battle, as it is getting harder and harder to run a conference free of a political agenda. Political lefties chased away over $10,000 in sponsorship money for my conference last year simply because I refused to cave to their demands. It's getting ugly folks. And the longer good people stay silent the worse it is going to get.

Don't worry, the EU will call them a monopoly and order that they transfer their value to Brussels in small unmarked bills.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk