Your MesaZona Blogger goes meekly into anything Tech - it's intimidating and bamboozling all at the same time. But hey, let's go there > FEAR NOTHING. New To Techdirt? Explore some core concepts:
- If Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property, What Is It?
- Infinity Is Your Friend In Economics
- Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period
You can always dig deeper if you want.
That's the point > always go to the source for Mis - Uses of Technology
From the Please Don 't Department
Bethesda, Microsoft Make Conflicting Statements About Game Exclusivity After Studio Purchase
Several weeks ago, Microsoft bought Zenimax Media, the parent organization of Bethesda Softworks for over $7 billion. Bethesda is a celebrated studio best known for its Fallout and Elder Scrolls titles. Both series have long histories of being published across a wide range of gaming platforms, including the PC, PlayStation, and Xbox markets. Almost immediately after the deal, however, many gamers openly worried that Microsoft would warehouse the properties to either the PC or Xbox markets exclusively.
The worry didn't cease when Kotaku interviewed Xbox chief Phil Spencer about the implications of the deal and Spencer's remarks were decidedly noncommittal. . .
____________________________________________________________________________
From the you-don't-own-what-you-buy Department
From the you-don't-own-what-you-buy dept
Three years ago, Google jumped into the home security market. After a troubled development cycle it launched Nest Secure, a $500 home security system that competes with the likes of Abode and Simplisafe. But things didn't go quite as planned. Last year, the company took some deserved heat for failing to mention the system's "Nest Guard" keypad control base included a hidden microphone, creating ample paranoia among owners. Google also took heat for failing to really deploy updates at the same pace that other Nest products had seen, and for making changes that locked you into the Google ecosystem at the cost of interoperability.
Last week the company quietly told Android Police it would be killing the Nest Secure completely. The company didn't really explain why, or what happens next, only to state that the product will still work. For now. Of course when Ars Technica pressed the company as to how long existing users can expect their expensive security service to get support, the company apparently couldn't be bothered to answer:
"We tried asking Google about all this a few days ago when we got a tip that the Nest Secure was listed as "no longer available" (thanks, Bill!) but the company wouldn't answer. . .
__________________________________________________________________________
From the Now-That's-Influence Department
Three TikTok Influencers Influenced A Judge To Block Trump's TikTok Ban
Remember Trump's ridiculous executive order to ban TikTok if it wasn't sold to an American company? Then there was a grifty non-deal in which Oracle agreed to host TikTok's new American subsidiary, though nothing about that deal appears to have been finalized, and the executive order was still somewhat in place. The first stage of the ban on the app was blocked by a judge in a lawsuit from TikTok itself. But that ruling did not (yet) block the second stage of the executive order which was set to go into effect this month.
So some good news: that too has been blocked thanks to a lawsuit from three TikTok influencers: Douglas Marland, Cosette Rinab, and Alec Chambers. The three of them filed their lawsuit in September, right after the details of the executive order came out. I don't know much about these influencers, but I will note they had some high-powered, big time lawyers working the case for them (including the firm the judge in this very case worked at prior to being put on the bench...).
The lawsuit noted that the three influencers were a comedian, a fashion creator and a musician "each of whom has developed a significant following by creating and posting content on TikTok." They argued that the executive order violated their 1st Amendment rights, creating prior restraint of their speech. As they correctly note, even on the flimsy "national security" basis that Trump, Wilbur Ross, and Mike Pompeo made in pushing through this executive order, you can't just ban speech broadly like that. . .
SPOILER ALERT ENDING: There had been some chatter a few weeks back that since Trump got all the headlines he wanted out of his TikTok ban and the Oracle deal, he no longer much cares about it. The assumption was that the administration would likely just let the issue fade away, and now the court is helping that process move along. Of course, this also demonstrates what a preposterous, vindictive, unconstitutional, garbage move this whole thing was in the first place.
____________________________________________________________________________
From the So-Good Luck-With-That Department
"Everyone wants to do something about Section 230. It’s baffling how seldom we talk about what happens next. What if Section 230 is repealed tomorrow? Must Twitter cease fact-checking the President? Must Google display all search results in chronological order? Perhaps PragerU would finally have a tenable claim against YouTube; and Jason Fyk might one day return to showering the Facebook masses with his prized collection of pissing videos.
Suffice to say, that’s not how any of this works.
Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, Section 230 isn’t what’s stopping the government from pulling the plug on Twitter for taking down NY Post tweets or exposing bloviating, lying, elected officials. Indeed, without Section 230, plaintiffs with a big tech axe to grind still have a significant hurdle to overcome: The First Amendment. . . Or, as TechFreedom’s brilliant Ashkhen Kazaryan wisely puts it, the First Amendment protects Twitter from Trump, but not Trump from Twitter. . ."
THE FINISH RUNS LIKE THIS:
With that, it seems that Americans haven’t fallen out of love with Section 230, rather, alarmingly, they’ve fallen out of love with the First Amendment.
In case you’re wondering if you too have fallen out of love with the freedom of speech, consider the following:
If you're upset that Twitter and Facebook keep removing content that favors your political viewpoints,
Your problem is with the First Amendment, not Section 230.
If you're upset that your favorite social media site won't take down content that offends you,
Your problem is with the First Amendment, not Section 230.
If you're mad at search engines for indexing websites you don't agree with,
Your problem is with the First Amendment, not Section 230.
If you're mad at a website for removing your posts - even when it seems unreasonable
Your problem is with the First Amendment, not Section 230.
If you don't like the way a website aggregates content on your feed or in your search results,
Your problem is with the First Amendment, not Section 230.
If you wish websites had to carry and remove only specific pre-approved types of content
Your problem is with the First Amendment, not Section 230.
If you wish social media services had to be politically neutral,
Your problem is with the First Amendment, not Section 230.
If someone wrote a negative online review about you or your business,
Your problem is with the First Amendment, not Section 230.
If you hate pornography,
Your problem is with the First Amendment, not Section 230.
If you hate Trump’s Tweets
Your problem is with the First Amendment, not Section 230.
If you hate fact-checks,
Your problem is with the First Amendment, not Section 230.
If you love fact-checks and wish Facebook had to do more of them,
Your problem is with the First Amendment, not Section 230.
And at the end of the day, If you hate editorial discretion and free speech,
You probably just hate the First Amendment... not Section 230.
____________________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment