@zuck So when I post this, it shows up on Threads also?
Notices by David (david1@mastodon.world)
-
Embed this notice
David (david1@mastodon.world)'s status on Saturday, 23-Mar-2024 08:04:31 JST David
-
Embed this notice
David (david1@mastodon.world)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 10:21:36 JST David
@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
David (david1@mastodon.world)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 09:45:48 JST David
@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
David (david1@mastodon.world)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 09:10:44 JST David
@mmasnick I would say the Thomas/Gorsuch view Section 230 turns media companies into common carriers makes more sense than you make it out to be. Section 230 allows companies to legally do content moderation but only if such actions are "taken in good faith". For example, if left wing spam, but not right wing spam, is blocked, it's not in good faith. But this inability to be partisan about spams is what is meant by calling them "common carriers".