Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 16-Feb-2024 09:38:05 JST Molly White

   • Mike Masnick ✅

   if you know me you know i love a good takedown of shoddy, irresponsible journalism. this one from @mmasnick is a banger.

   https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/15/has-wired-given-up-on-fact-checking-publishes-facts-optional-screed-against-section-230-that-gets-almost-everything-wrong/

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 16-Feb-2024 09:39:58 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • DeanBaker13
     • hardindr

     @hardindr @molly0xfff @DeanBaker13 and I have a long debunking of Baker's position on this: https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/29/those-who-dont-understand-section-230-are-doomed-to-repeal-it/

   • Embed this notice
     hardindr (hardindr@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 16-Feb-2024 09:39:59 JST hardindr

     in reply to

     • DeanBaker13

     @molly0xfff economist @DeanBaker13 has a serious proposal to get rid of section 230: https://www.cepr.net/section-230-can-we-talk-about-it/

   • Embed this notice
     Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 16-Feb-2024 09:40:00 JST Molly White

     in reply to

     it's incredible how many people who are furiously opposed to section 230 have so little idea of what it does (and doesn't do)

   • Embed this notice
     Marlinspike (marlinspike@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 16-Feb-2024 14:23:53 JST Marlinspike

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @molly0xfff @mmasnick The piece as a whole is not a defense of Facebook, but the entire fifth paragraph is clearly a defense of Facebook.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 16-Feb-2024 14:23:53 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • Marlinspike

     @marlinspike @molly0xfff I regularly criticize Facebook and will continue to do so. But if someone lies about them, I'm also going to push back on those lies?

     I mean, there is plenty of REAL shit that Facebook does that they can be criticized for that no one needs to bother pushing made up or misrepresented stuff.

   • Embed this notice
     Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 16-Feb-2024 14:23:54 JST Molly White

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • Marlinspike

     @marlinspike @mmasnick "defending Facebook" is a pretty strong misrepresentation of my post and of the Techdirt post

   • Embed this notice
     Marlinspike (marlinspike@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 16-Feb-2024 14:23:55 JST Marlinspike

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @molly0xfff @mmasnick It seems like the Techdirt author is being purposefully obtuse about their understanding of the points the Wired authors are trying to make. While I may not agree with them all, I would argue that they are at least well thought out. Honestly, it's kind of weird to find a thread on Mastodon defending Facebook.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 19-Feb-2024 11:20:15 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • DeanBaker13
     • hardindr

     @DeanBaker13 @hardindr @molly0xfff In which you still refuse to understand the 1st Amendment and how distributor liability worked pre-230. I told you this before. You still refuse to do the necessary research and so you publish misleading things

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Monday, 19-Feb-2024 11:20:16 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • hardindr

     @mmasnick @hardindr @molly0xfff My most version for anyone interested https://www.cepr.net/section-230-can-we-talk-about-it/

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 12:10:37 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • DeanBaker13
     • hardindr

     @DeanBaker13 @hardindr @molly0xfff Distributor liability is still bound by the 1st Amendment, because it's liability based on speech. Which means that, per multiple 1st Amendment lawsuits, there are standards of what it takes to make a distributor liable. And you.. acknowledge literally none of them.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 12:10:38 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • hardindr

     @mmasnick @hardindr @molly0xfff
     I thought you agreed that the bounds of distributor liability were determined by the law (which I am advocating changing) and NOT the 1st Amendment. Are you know saying this is part of the constitution?