No, without 230 businesses just wouldn't have business models where UGC without pre-publication editorial review was part of their business model because there would be no way to make such a business model viable in the face of liability. General liability law was evolving in ways which were starting to make that clear at the time the Communications Decency Act was being drafted, which is why Section 230, a protection that was seen as essential to prevent the imminent destruction of the participatory net, was included in the CDA as a major tool to get political support for supporting the state censorship that made up the rest of the CDA. (Perhaps ironically, Section 230 is the only operative part of the CDA not struck down as unconstitutional.)
People are stuck in bubbles created by companies. If recommendation algorithms were developed to recommend videos that tell contrary perspective or didn't recommend similar videos and fill My Feeds with similar videos, no individual would have being in the bubble in first place in best scenario or at worst in some private forum like he/she used to in early days of internet. Instead people have started allowing companies to create bubbles and censor them too and now they are rationalising the power they gave to corporates.
As cars become more like IoT devices on wheels, these nascent technologies would lead to more security issues than a simple key lock mechanism. Just imagine getting locked into a car with glass you can't break (like in cybertruck) and getting asked to pay a ransom to get it unlocked.
> Just imagine getting locked into a car with glass you can't break (like in cybertruck) and getting asked to pay a ransom to get it unlocked.
If there is no threat of force, just wait the attacker out.
If there is a threat of force (for example, the attacker has a gun), then you would have been just as bad off without some crazy movie-plot attack involving your door locks.
What is your standard here? If the massacres had been riled up by spreading paper pamphlets you would want to shut down the printers? If it had been though the TV news, shut down the TV stations?
I think Twitter and Facebook should continue to do more to mitigate harms, but the people doing the harm don't get a pass. The Myanmar government must think Westerners are idiots. They kill tens of thousands of people and the general response is Facebook is bad.
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted the three most senior managers of genocide, incitement to genocide, and crimes against humanity. They were sentenced to life in prison. The sentences were reduced, upon appeal, to between 30 and 35 years.
A Rwandan court sentenced one of the announcers to life in prison.
This information is easily found on Wikipedia for those curious enough to look.
If you incite violence against a specific group using a specific platform then yes, the publisher has some degree of responsibility for that. What's wrong about that observation?
He just told you what's wrong. It's like putting the blame on the messenger. People need to take responsibility for their actions rather than blame the platform for allowing it to be said. How about you don't say it in the first place? What are we going to do next, ban the air because it enables some bad people to tell and shout their violent opinions and transmits sound pressure waves?
People aren't saying the goverment isn't worse. They're saying that Facebooks lack of moderation is part of the cause and deserves criticism even if they aren't nearly as evil as the Myanmar goverment
Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) was a Rwandan radio station which broadcast from July 8, 1993 to July 31, 1994. It played a significant role in inciting the April–July 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.
Widely listened to by the general population, it projected hate propaganda against Tutsis, moderate Hutus, Belgians, and the United Nations mission UNAMIR. It is widely regarded by many Rwandan citizens (a view also shared and expressed by the UN war crimes tribunal) as having played a crucial role in creating the atmosphere of charged racial hostility that allowed the genocide to occur. A working paper published at Harvard University found that RTLM broadcasts were an important part of the process of mobilising the population, which complemented the mandatory Umuganda meetings.[2] RTLM has been described as "radio genocide", "death by radio" and "the soundtrack to genocide".[3]
You don't shut down all printers but do you think a company that would let Myanmar print thousands of pamphlets calling for genocide should suffer no consequences or at the very least critcism?
What if the pamphlets had been printed on HP printers connected to home PCs? Does HP have a moral duty to install surveillance software in all their printers to prevent genocide?
More generally, does every company that sells a dual-use product/service have a duty to interrogate the motives of the buyer and apply editorial control over all uses of that product/service that they could conceivably have visibility of?
> What is your standard here? If the massacres had been riled up by spreading paper pamphlets you would want to shut down the printers? If it had been though the TV news, shut down the TV stations?
The original post reads "he didn't study at WhiteHatJr". I think it was a satire, as I found it was a pretty funny remark. I believe you are pointing your finger at the wrong person.
