Notices by DeanBaker13 (deanbaker13@econtwitter.net)

It was unions that made manufacturing jobs good jobs, not the factories https://cepr.net/manufacturing-jobs-unions-made-them-good-not-the-factories/

Are NPR reporters prohibited from discussing corporate profit margins? McDonald's, Starbucks and other chains are being forced to rollback pandemic markups and it treats it as a bad economy story https://cepr.net/is-npr-prohibited-from-talking-about-profit-margins/

@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.

@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.

@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).

@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.)

@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.

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

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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

@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.

@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.

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

@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.

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/