Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 07:55:27 JST DeanBaker13

   Can the state of Texas force Facebook to post lies about Joe Biden? https://cepr.net/can-the-state-of-texas-force-facebook-to-post-lies-about-joe-biden/

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 07:55:25 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @timjan @DeanBaker13 @GreenFire I've done the counterpoint to Dean thing in the past. I can't do it every time he tweaks his proposal. Last I checked he still misunderstood the nature of the 1st Amendment & distributor liability if you removed 230.

     https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/29/those-who-dont-understand-section-230-are-doomed-to-repeal-it/

   • Embed this notice
     timjan (timjan@social.linux.pizza)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 07:55:27 JST timjan

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • Kevin Leecaster

     @DeanBaker13
     This might be(?) the first time I've seen a well argued case for modifying 230. Still not sure I'm convinced that unintended consequences wouldn't harm more than it would help.

     I wonder if @mmasnick has a counter point already...
     @GreenFire

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 09:12:50 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @DeanBaker13 @timjan @GreenFire because I've explained this to you before. The "cost" of losing 230 is disproportionately placed on smaller entities. The "cost" is in having to face many more ruinous legal threats that are RIDICULOUSLY expensive.

     Meta & Google have buildings full of lawyers. The cost is meaningless to them.

     The cost to smaller sites would put many out of business.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 09:12:51 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @mmasnick @timjan @GreenFire I have responded to Mike's posts in the past. (He seems upset that I modify the proposal based on criticisms -- I plead guilty on that.) Not to rehash everything, but he seems to argue that removing Section 230 protection would raise costs, but somehow not advantage smaller sites that still benefit from it. That seems hard to understand on this planet.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 09:44:44 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @DeanBaker13 @timjan @GreenFire your proposal removes it for smaller sites too Dean.

     Don't lie. You just remove it for those who don't use advertising. Plenty of smaller sites rely on advertising. Without advertising many smaller sites would die.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 09:44:45 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @mmasnick @timjan @GreenFire So the cost will be great to sites that don't lose Section 230 protection? Interesting claim.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 09:45:47 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • David
     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @david1 @DeanBaker13 @timjan @GreenFire no, section 230 enabled tons of smaller sites and much greater competition. I did a whole research report on this.

     And it enabled SITES LIKE THE ONE WE'RE ON.

   • Embed this notice
     David (david1@mastodon.world)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 09:45:48 JST David

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @DeanBaker13 @mmasnick @timjan @GreenFire I gotta admit I'm not even sure what sites he refers to when he's referring to smaller sites. Section 230 helped create the giant social media companies, and because of that, the smaller sites have mostly died.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 10:00:02 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • David
     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @DeanBaker13 @david1 @timjan @GreenFire "Also, if 230 protection is valuable, sites that currently take ads or sell personal information can change the way they operate."

     Tell me your an academic who has NEVER had to run a small business without telling me your an academic who has never had to run a small business.

     Holy shit Dean. That's embarrassing.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 10:00:03 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • David
     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire
     Unless I'm mistaken, this site does not sell advertising or personal information, which means it would still have Section 230 protection under my proposal. There are many other similar sites. Also, if 230 protection is valuable, sites that currently take ads or sell personal information can change the way they operate.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 10:06:52 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • David
     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire

     Yeah, I will disagree with you and sorry, I don't find it embarrassing. Businesses change the way they operate ALL THE TIME. Sorry if you are not aware of that fact.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 10:06:52 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • David
     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @DeanBaker13 @david1 @timjan @GreenFire I run a business. It relies on 230 to host a community and advertising to stay in business. You want me to lose the part of my business that's important to me (the community) if I want to be able to keep it in business.

     That's insane. It's academic foolishness from an out of touch ivory tower with no actual real world experience.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 10:07:44 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • David
     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @DeanBaker13 @david1 @timjan @GreenFire if we got rid of the community (as would be necessary without 230, we'd get less advertising and still die). if we got rid of advertising... we wouldn't make enough money to survive and would go under as well.

     Congrats. Thanks for killing Techdirt in your grand experiment based on vibes.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 10:08:21 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • David
     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire Also, as I pointed out to you before, it seems that Facebook is worried about losing Section 230 protection, in spite of its fleet of lawyers https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/facebooks-pitch-congress-section-230-me-not-thee

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 10:08:21 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • David
     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @DeanBaker13 @david1 @timjan @GreenFire Facebook has literally been running ads non-stop in DC offering to get rid of 230.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 10:21:35 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • David
     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @david1 @DeanBaker13 @timjan @GreenFire if you're going to use that example, how about you talk about Veoh. Veoh was another competitor that actually got sued under the DMCA. And won.

     But the cost of the lawsuit was too big and it shut down.

     That's the future Dean seems to want.

     https://www.techdirt.com/2013/03/15/veoh-wins-important-case-against-universal-music-over-dmca-safe-harbors-again-is-still-dead-due-to-legal-fees/

   • Embed this notice
     David (david1@mastodon.world)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 10:21:36 JST David

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @DeanBaker13 @mmasnick @timjan @GreenFire Let's take as an example of "smaller sites" video sharing sites - like YouTube but smaller. Examples are Vimeo, DTube, Dailymotion, etc. For these companies, DMCA compliance is important. One might expect these companies would be shut down because DMCA is stricter making compliance is too expensive. But this has not happened at all. The real problem is people prefer YouTube.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 10:36:58 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • David
     • Kevin Leecaster
     • timjan

     @mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire I can't say I know Techdirt's business -- maybe you do post lots of things that are arguably defamatory. I have no idea, but I have to say, I would not design policy around ensuring one company's survival, even yours.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 10:36:58 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     @DeanBaker13 Dean, come on. Those who do not post defamatory information get sued ALL THE TIME. https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/06/judge-dismisses-techdirt-lawsuit/

     And I was giving you one example to show how it would create problems, not saying "just my business" faces this issue.

     I've said in the past that I've regretted interacting with you. This is why.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 11:12:04 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     @DeanBaker13 Part of the lawsuit was over comments. The judge ruled on 230 grounds.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 11:12:05 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @mmasnick I'm also at a loss to understand the relevance of a lawsuit filed against material that you published directly -- this of course is not protected by Section 230.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 11:13:54 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     @DeanBaker13 we get on average two dozen bogus defamation threats per year. I spend a ridiculous amount of money on lawyers dealing with them already.

     If you put in your solution, that likely goes up an order of magnitude.

     I'll make you a deal: will you agree to pay my legal bills and the legal bills of other small companies dealing with such things? If so, then we can discuss your proposal seriously.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 11:13:55 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @mmasnick Print and broadcast media deal with defamation lawsuits, I am at a loss to understand why you insist that Internet platforms can do it, especially when offered the safe harbor of removing potentially defamatory material after notice has been given.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 02:09:14 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     @DeanBaker13 it's this dismissive attitude that just really gets to me. "Obviously you would have to destroy your business and make it untenable to continue, just to make sure the biggest tech companies have no more competition" is what I hear when you say stuff like that.

     Please, Dean, I beg of you: TALK TO PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY RUN A BUSINESS impacted by these laws. Stop dismissing real people. You're advocating for a policy that will do serious harm.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 02:09:15 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @mmasnick Obviously you would have to change your policy on comments. You would have to review the ones where you get a takedown notice. My guess is that the vast majority of instances would be totally frivolous and easily ignored. There will be some that will be plausible and in those cases you can quickly remove the risk by taking them down. Right, I don't see that as an impossible burden given the benefits.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 02:11:01 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     @DeanBaker13 already we get TONS of complaints. You say "oh you can just ignore the frivolous ones." You have no idea. Without 230, YOU CANNOT IGNORE THE FRIVOLOUS ONES because the FRIVOLOUS ONES TURN INTO LAWSUITS.

     You ignored my earlier question: will you agree to pay my legal bills? These lawsuits each will cost in the low six figures just to get a dismissal.

   • Embed this notice
     Robert Thau (rst@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 03:55:24 JST Robert Thau

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @mmasnick @DeanBaker13 Dean keeps saying your business will be unaffected just so long as it abandons its revenue stream. What businessman can possibly object to that?

   • Embed this notice
     Jonathan Joelson (jjoelson@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 04:07:37 JST Jonathan Joelson

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @mmasnick @DeanBaker13 I hope you don’t take this the wrong way as I’m a long time reader and appreciator of your work, but my read on this thread is that while your experience running Techdirt gives you a valuable perspective on how this stuff plays out in the micro, it also creates a pretty big conflict of interest. Are you really objectively evaluating the merits of this potential policy change or are you talking your own book?

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 04:29:11 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • Jonathan Joelson

     @jjoelson @DeanBaker13 honestly, i rarely view it through the impact on me personally. but dean was insisting that there were no issues for smaller companies, so I was expressing my own example.

     I have advocated for many things that I think are right, but which are bad for me at a business level (e.g., I'm against link taxes, which would make me money and I'm against paying to scrape, which would make me money).

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 08:46:57 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • Robert Thau

     @DeanBaker13 @rst if that's your goal, why not just pass a law requiring fb/twitter to use subscriptions? or get broken up?

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 08:46:58 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • Robert Thau

     @rst @mmasnick Neither of us knows if switching to a subscription model would work for Musk or Zuckerberg, but one thing I would be very confident predicting is that both sites would be much smaller as subscription-based sites. If that is the case, their moderation decisions have less impact, which would be a very good thing.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 08:46:59 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • Robert Thau

     @rst @mmasnick FWIW, I did not say no businesses would be affected. Many would be able change their business model, some would not. The issue here is how many sites that rely on advertising or selling personal info could not take responsibility for monitoring comments and ads (like print or broadcast outlets). I'm sure the ones impacted would not be zero, but the reality is no change is ever going to have zero negative consequences.

   • Embed this notice
     Robert Thau (rst@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 08:46:59 JST Robert Thau

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @DeanBaker13 @mmasnick Let's turn this around. Elon's explicit plan for Twitter is to pivot from ad-based revenue to subscription services, including add-ons like payments. (Their revenue from sale of user data is negligible.) That won't work for Elon because he's insane. But it might work for Zuck.

     Would you be happy if it did? Of course not, because your goal is to hurt Facebook and Twitter. And you're so maniacally focused on that that you don't care if it kills any plausible competition.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 09:04:55 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • Robert Thau

     @DeanBaker13 @rst also, you know why it would make those sites smaller? because people who aren't well off and privileged like yourself, won't be able to afford to subscribe.

     Very progressive of you.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 10:38:49 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • Robert Thau

     @mmasnick @rst They could come to this site, what's the problem?

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 10:38:49 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • Robert Thau

     @DeanBaker13 @rst they... can come here now too. why must the law deny them other sites?

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 15:58:49 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     @DeanBaker13 i just want to point out how ridiculously out of touch and elitist you sound and then I am out of this conversation.

     I would suggest you get some perspective.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Thursday, 29-Feb-2024 15:58:50 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @mmasnick The law doesn't -- newsflash 97 percent of the people in the country have a cellphone -- I realize in Masnick world I guess that means they are all rich, but if people value seeing certain sites, they can pay for them like they do cell phones.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 01-Mar-2024 03:58:16 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • sneedy maccreedy

     @crumbleneedy @DeanBaker13 also, the "bundlers" would immediately become the new gatekeepers, and way more powerful than the things Dean currently fears. Meaning... Meta, Google, Apple, and Microsoft would immediately take them over.

   • Embed this notice
     sneedy maccreedy (crumbleneedy@aus.social)'s status on Friday, 01-Mar-2024 03:58:17 JST sneedy maccreedy

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @DeanBaker13 @mmasnick 'why couldn't?' maybe someone could, but nobody is, the infrastructure (means of bundling multiple outlets across different platforms, collecting payments, app(s) for consuming, etc) doesn't exist, and in the meantime, the trends are going in the opposite direction, so making it necessary for a content provider to charge in order to stay in business means putting more content out of reach of more people.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Friday, 01-Mar-2024 03:58:18 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • sneedy maccreedy

     @crumbleneedy @mmasnick Can't see why it wouldn't be scalable -- say Musk wants to charge $3 a month for Twitter, and there are a number of smaller sites charging a $1 or $2 per month and maybe many will charge almost nothing. Why couldn't a service bundle 200 or 300 together and charge $30 a month? (People used to pay this much -- adjusted for inflation -- for newspaper subscriptions.)

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Friday, 01-Mar-2024 03:58:19 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • sneedy maccreedy

     @crumbleneedy @mmasnick In this country we have cable packages where people can pay a fee, typically between $60-$100 a month) to subscribe to literally hundreds of cable channels. I imagine that if we went this route we would see similar bundling options and probably at considerably lower prices (you wouldn't be paying to watch NFL football).

   • Embed this notice
     sneedy maccreedy (crumbleneedy@aus.social)'s status on Friday, 01-Mar-2024 03:58:19 JST sneedy maccreedy

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @DeanBaker13 @mmasnick streaming services are fragmenting, the number of media outlets, podcasts, newsletters etc that i could potentially subscribe to grows daily - here, in the US (where i'm from originally), europe, etc etc. it's not scalable for consumers.

   • Embed this notice
     sneedy maccreedy (crumbleneedy@aus.social)'s status on Friday, 01-Mar-2024 03:58:20 JST sneedy maccreedy

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @DeanBaker13 @mmasnick i make a decent amount of money but i also live in a country (australia) where cost of living (esp housing) is fairly high, so subscribing to each and every outlet i find valuable would bankrupt me. it's not a realistic option for non-rich people here and probably in many other countries.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 05:43:00 JST Mike Masnick ✅

     in reply to

     • Quinn Norton

     @quinn @DeanBaker13 this is why i keep suggesting Dean is an out of touch elitist in the ivory tower. Very much a "let them eat cake" attitude.

   • Embed this notice
     Quinn Norton (quinn@social.circl.lu)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 05:43:02 JST Quinn Norton

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @DeanBaker13 @mmasnick this is unnerving for me. i'd guess we have similar politics, but it feels like you don't know much about poverty as it is lived in america.

   • Embed this notice
     Quinn Norton (quinn@social.circl.lu)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 05:43:03 JST Quinn Norton

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @DeanBaker13 @mmasnick cell phones aren't optional if you're poor. in a lot of budgets they come before food. they are required to participate in society, *especially* if you're poor. this is why homeless people pay at shops for monthly service.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 05:43:04 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • Quinn Norton

     @quinn @mmasnick hundreds of millions pay for cell phones every month, tens of millions pay for cable -- they must be able to afford it. They won't pay for what they can get free, but telling me people can't pay $10-$20 a month for access to a vast array of Internet sites is at odds with reality. Whether they choose to or not we would have to see, but they did pay this much for newspapers 30 years ago.

   • Embed this notice
     DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 05:43:05 JST DeanBaker13

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅
     • Quinn Norton

     @quinn @mmasnick The point is that hundreds of millions of people pay it every month -- non-rich people also used to pay for newspaper prescriptions. The idea that you have to be rich to buy a daily newspaper is not very serious.

   • Embed this notice
     Quinn Norton (quinn@social.circl.lu)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 05:43:05 JST Quinn Norton

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @DeanBaker13 @mmasnick i feel like this went off the rails, hundreds of millions of people pay every month? afaik, the top is nytimes with 10 mil and no one even comes close. the reason journalism is dying is because *in fact* hardly anyone pays anymore, rich or poor. but yeah, putting high quality information behind paywalls does hurt society, as does putting higher ed behind paywalls. but no one goes into debt for news.

   • Embed this notice
     Quinn Norton (quinn@social.circl.lu)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 05:43:06 JST Quinn Norton

     in reply to

     • Mike Masnick ✅

     @DeanBaker13 @mmasnick cell phones are not a luxury item. you have to have one to function in society, and it's a pretty heavy weight on the budget, too.