News Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread III - L6ckdown

[Hojuman]

I can see it
View attachment 1196956

Stop it

 

[jatz14]

Read the judgement..
PRODIGY commenced operations in 1990. Plaintiffs base their claim that PRODIGY is a publisher in large measure on PRODIGY's stated policy, starting in 1990, that it was a family oriented computer network. In various national newspaper articles written by Geoffrey Moore, PRODIGY's Director of Market Programs and Communications, PRODIGY held itself out as an online service that exercised editorial control over the content of messages posted on its computer bulletin boards, thereby expressly differentiating itself from its competition and expressly likening itself to a newspaper. (see, Exhibits I and J to Plaintiffs' moving papers.) In one article PRODIGY stated:

and the subsequent law from the prima facie case.
(3)
The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

They can’t be a publisher and editor while silencing political debate and simultaneously claiming protections under the same law,
..
only a fascist would argue otherwise.

Yes. They can.

And if you don't like being called a rwnj, stop peddling their s**t.

And the first thing a fascist country would do is put what media companies can allow/disallow under state control.

This is not an attempt to free public discourse from the tyranny of corporations, it's an attempt to control public discourse by political actors from the far right.



On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Only Forwards]

PRODIGY

I seen them a few times.

While I enjoyed firestarter and breathe, Smack my bitch up was always a highlight.

I dunno if they were vaccines but a lot of the audience seemed to be medicating themselves though.

 

[Roogal]

Would somebody please take the masterkey off this lockdown dungeon master.

 

[DesertRoo]

Yes. They can.

And if you don't like being called a rwnj, stop peddling their sh*t.

And the first thing a fascist country would do is put what media companies can allow/disallow under state control.

This is not an attempt to free public discourse from the tyranny of corporations, it's an attempt to control public discourse by political actors from the far right.



On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

You argue like a 1st year uni student..
Stop mixing opinions and facts, im happy to keep going if you can reference what you’re saying otherwise this exercise is pointless.

Go back read up on media and commutation law, why the prima facie case of Stratton Oakmont vs Prodigy needed to define what social media is and the argument between whether they were a publisher or an editor.. understand the obligations and special protections both these titles cover. What that means in the context of the argument..

Your second statement lacks the nuanced understanding the difference between an authoritarian vs fascist regime..

So yeah if big tech wants to be a publisher and editor, claiming those protections, while simultaneously silencing political debate, those protections should be removed, as they are not appropriate.


This is the same stuff they tried to pull SOPA..

look at all these rwnj like Noam Chomsky

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020 The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police...

harpers.org

 

[7577969923]

You argue like a 1st year uni student..
Stop placing opinions as facts, im happy to keep going if you can reference what you’re saying otherwise this exercise is pointless.

Go back read up on media and commutation law, why the prima facie case of Stratton Oakmont vs Prodigy needed to define what social media is and the argument between whether they were a publisher or an editor.. understand the obligations and special protections both these titles cover. What that means in the context of the argument..

Your second statement lacks the nuanced understanding the difference between an authoritarian vs fascist regime..

So yeah if big tech wants to be a publisher and editor, claiming those protections, while simultaneously silencing political debate, those protections should be removed, as they are not appropriate.

This is the same stuff they tried to pull SOPA..


So yeah if big tech wants to be a publisher and editor, claiming those protections, while simultaneously silencing political debate, those protections should be removed, as they are not appropriate.

My understanding of the Stratton Oakmont case was that it hinged on the fact that Prodigy had made a previous choice to gain the benefits of editorial control through guidelines, moderators, etc, and was therefore liable for the content created by its users. Without the subsequent legislation passed as section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 1996 the implications for the social media platforms would have been that to avoid legal liability for user content they would have to be completely free of any moderation. By passing Section 230 surely it was congresses intent that they actually wanted the platforms to moderate the content posted by users, and that will include from time to time banning users that violate their terms of use.

The irony is that if Prodigy had run a truth defense of the post about Stratton Oakmont they probably would have won the case as the post proved to be factual.

 

[7577969923]

My understanding of the Stratton Oakmont case was that it hinged on the fact that Prodigy had made a previous choice to gain the benefits of editorial control through guidelines, moderators, etc, and was therefore liable for the content created by its users. Without the subsequent legislation passed as section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 1996 the implications for the social media platforms would have been that to avoid legal liability for user content they would have to be completely free of any moderation. By passing Section 230 surely it was congresses intent that they actually wanted the platforms to moderate the content posted by users, and that will include from time to time banning users that violate their terms of use.

The irony is that if Prodigy had run a truth defense of the post about Stratton Oakmont they probably would have won the case as the post proved to be factual.

I think the problem your argument runs into is that you're advocating stripping the social media platforms of their first amendment rights.

 

[Lomas]

My understanding of the Stratton Oakmont case was that it hinged on the fact that Prodigy had made a previous choice to gain the benefits of editorial control through guidelines, moderators, etc, and was therefore liable for the content created by its users. Without the subsequent legislation passed as section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 1996 the implications for the social media platforms would have been that to avoid legal liability for user content they would have to be completely free of any moderation. By passing Section 230 surely it was congresses intent that they actually wanted the platforms to moderate the content posted by users, and that will include from time to time banning users that violate their terms of use.

The irony is that if Prodigy had run a truth defense of the post about Stratton Oakmont they probably would have won the case as the post proved to be factual.

Are you saying they were the fire starter?

 

[7577969923]

Are you saying they were the fire starter?

They didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the earth was turning.

 

[DesertRoo]

My understanding of the Stratton Oakmont case was that it hinged on the fact that Prodigy had made a previous choice to gain the benefits of editorial control through guidelines, moderators, etc, and was therefore liable for the content created by its users. Without the subsequent legislation passed as section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 1996 the implications for the social media platforms would have been that to avoid legal liability for user content they would have to be completely free of any moderation. By passing Section 230 surely it was congresses intent that they actually wanted the platforms to moderate the content posted by users, and that will include from time to time banning users that violate their terms of use.

The irony is that if Prodigy had run a truth defense of the post about Stratton Oakmont they probably would have won the case as the post proved to be factual.

Yep but when Congress enacted the law/protections they stated pretty clearly what they thought was protected speech..

‘true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.’

The moment big tech became partisan is the moment those protections should be removed. This isn’t a case for trump, they have way to much power in determining king makers.

 

[Grogg]

They didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the earth was turning.

They didn't light it, but they tried to fight it.

 

[Royal Flush]

The only thing that currently matters is in bold and I hate to break it to you - it won't solve the current outbreak, crushing the outbreaks will only happen with the tools at our current disposal. On current rates we're looking at at least a year to get even close to enough of our population fully vaccinated.

I have another important piece of information, as much of the world is currently discovering, this is far from over and even 100% vaccination in the next 12 months with current vaccines will not be a panacea and ticket to no lockdowns or changes to what was "normal" 2 years ago. My money is on this lasting to some extent for at least the next few years. Best enjoy the small blessings and do everything we all can to be safe and look after each other.

Could be worse IMO, 40 years ago we were shipping poor young bastards off to SE asia to kill people minding their own business in their own countries and get shot at. A couple of decades before the main chance at a European holiday for Australian males under the age of 40 involved the possibility of being obliterated into a million pieces. Could always be worse and there is nothing to say that we can't make improvements to our society in general from these events.

There is zero chance the world will be locked down indiscriminately for at least a couple to a few years.
Targets will be 60% to 80% vaccination, covid safe precautions and back to it.
That's it and that's how we will live with it.
Those that are concerned can lock themselves down.
The rest of us need to feed our families.

Yes I agree, the virus will continue to mutate , and that's how i predict what is meant by "we need to learn to live with it".



On Pixel 4 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[7577969923]

Yep but Congress enacted the law/protections they stated pretty clearly what they thought was protected speech..

‘true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.’

The moment big tech became partisan is the moment those protections should be removed.

I think the notion that big tech is partisan is problematic or at least very difficult to prove. Research has proven that Facebook, for example, actually leans conservative. I am also sure that every person they have suspended or banned from the platform they can point to a violation of T & Cs that was the trigger.

If congress removes the protection offered by Section 230 then the CEOs of the platforms will say they can't moderate anything at all due to the liability it confers on them and all the things that government wants them to filter like child trafficking, terrorism etc gets a free run.

 

[rickety]

Would somebody please take the masterkey off this lockdown dungeon master.

Well Mickey from Malvern seems to think he is a Test opener. Has now faced an over of wrong uns from our Dan, the new sheik of tweak and has pretty much shouldered arms to each new delivery. Quite an insipid display.

 

[DesertRoo]

I think the notion that big tech is partisan is problematic or at least very difficult to prove. Research has proven that Facebook, for example, actually leans conservative. I am also sure that every person they have suspended or banned from the platform they can point to a violation of T & Cs that was the trigger.

If congress removes the protection offered by Section 230 then the CEOs of the platforms will say they can't moderate anything at all due to the liability it confers on them and all the things that government wants them to filter like child trafficking, terrorism etc gets a free run.

yes, they’re completely neoliberal at the moment and they pull the shade cloth off the liberal part when they have too.
Like Murdoch they’ll pick and choose which side of the fence they sit when a better deal comes along.. gives them way way to much power.

I’d rather them moderated like a utility then in their current form..

 

[shintemaster]

There is zero chance the world will be locked down indiscriminately for at least a couple to a few years.
Targets will be 60% to 80% vaccination, covid safe precautions and back to it.
That's it and that's how we will live with it.
Those that are concerned can lock themselves down.
The rest of us need to feed our families.

Yes I agree, the virus will continue to mutate , and that's how i predict what is meant by "we need to learn to live with it".
On Pixel 4 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Who said anything about locking down "indiscriminately"?

 

[Mav]

 

[Billy Not Really]

 

[bengrina]

Thoughts are with all those doing it really tough right now

 

[Ligma]

Period penny

 

[Muscles Thommo]

Friday 6th and six more cases... Yay

 

[Tas]

The thing that infuriates me the most is that this should have been handled at federal level. States should have only had to deal with managing their local health issues. We have ZERO leadership from the federal government.

 

[year of the roo]

Friday 6th and six more cases... Yay

All weren't in quarantine. Sigh.

 

[Royal Flush]

Who said anything about locking down "indiscriminately"?

In a random manner.
IE sudden lockdown.

On Pixel 4 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Tas]

“There are many people, who are perhaps not doing as they should,” Mr Andrews said on Thursday.

It is a bit like driving down the road where the speed limit changes every hundred meters, 80, 60, 40, 60, 40, 80... wtf check the mirrors and traffic and all of a sudden wtf is the speed limit, did I miss a sign?

Our rules are all over the place, constantly changing, I think a lot of people are suffering covid fatigue particularly here in Melbourne. I think people can handle long lockdowns like we have, but when things become a bit chaotic I think some people can get out of the loop.

I know Dan is doing his best, but we need to get a handle on this variant, nationally. We need to stop allowing people to bring this s**t in, no vaccine, no flight home. We should have locked down the border with NSW when we knew their half-arse approach was going to fail spectacularly.