Notices by Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social), page 4

@AnnemarieBridy admittedly that was a big part of the reason I quickly felt more comfortable at Bluesky. It's amazing how frequently I want to use quote tweet, not to dunk on people, but to enable broader discussions.

@nicol @hallvors @FantasticalEconomics it turns out that regulating platforms based on size creates a long list of challenges and tradeoffs that might not be worth it. See: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3863015

@FantasticalEconomics @hallvors i don't think it's something to fear. Imagine if Mastodon had to make sure that its userbase was "neutral" and that if moderation favored progressives too much it would have to "even things out" or whatever. It would be a mess.

@SrRochardBunson @FantasticalEconomics Assuming you're talking about the US context, this is false. There is no such thing as declaring something a platform or a publisher.

The main laws in question, Section 230, is only about whether the speech is created by the website or by a 3rd party.

Some, usually ignorant, politicians have *PRETENDED* that there is a distinction between platform and publisher, but they're either misinformed or willfully misrepresenting reality.

@hallvors @FantasticalEconomics in the US context, the answer is an emphatic no. There has been some attempt (mainly by GOP run states) to argue that social media can be declared a "common carrier" which would have some equal treatment requirements, but that hasn't played well in the courts.

@hermeticvm @mmasnick.bsky.social it seemed like the only appropriate response to the way you phrased your question.

@hermeticvm @mmasnick.bsky.social the framing of your question gives away both your bias and your ignorance. Let me reframe i accurately:

Why should a group of advertisers agree on a set of best practices they can send to companies, saying "this is what it will take to make us feel comfortable seeing our brands advertised on your site"?

Because that's what happened. Not the conspiracy-laden nonsense you just said.

@Gargron Thanks Eugen. Greatly appreciated.

@andypiper i'll be around as always. can't get rid of me that easily.

@tchambers yup. i'll have more to say on that soon...

Sharing over here as well. I'm joining the Bluesky board to help provide them guidance. I remain a supporter of all experiments in decentralized social media, and will write more on that later. I still have high hopes for Mastodon/ActivityPub as well...

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/06/why-im-joining-the-bluesky-board-to-support-a-vision-of-a-more-open-decentralized-internet/

@GuyBerger "independent evidence"? Google News has no ads in most countries. Meta makes money from people using the site no matter what, and has nothing specifically around news.

"Common cause" does not mean what you think it means.

And honestly, I cannot parse the rest of your comment. I don't think you understand anything about this and I am coming to the conclusion discussing this will be a waste of my time.

@GuyBerger are you replying to a specific point or just in general?

1. They never made money from news. That's made up.

2/3/4: They only removed news when forced to by gov'ts It was outside researchers who showed no loss of engagement, not them.

Try harder.

Bigger point: linking should ALWAYS be free. They were giving FREE DISTRIBUTION to an industry that historically paid a ton for distribution.

@toddalstrom @openvibe ah but mobile only. No desktop app.

@toddalstrom @openvibe very interesting! will check it out.

@lisabortolotti Buffer just added Bluesky. But yeah, I'll check out Fedica too.

Testing out Buffer, which in theory will let me post to Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads via a single interface (don't expect to use this that frequently, but at least wanted to test it out...)

@GuyBerger @SecureWaffle @jeffjarvis if this is your standard, your argument is sunk. As it has already been shown that news links make no significant marginal additional money for Google/Meta.

Meta's traffic stayed the same when it removed news links in Canada.

Your understanding of value flows is deficient.

@GuyBerger @jeffjarvis I think your piece is unfair in multiple ways, including misrepresenting what myself and others said on the podcast in material ways. And, then, furthermore, your "debunking" of the things we didn't even say is not a debunking. It's just an opinion. You point to no actual facts.

And, why the "neo-liberal" line? Why make it tribal and partisan like that.

Makes me think you're not a serious person, but just an agitator.

@jxyzn i'm around. was on vacation for a couple weeks, but i'm around.