elpool2

That seems unworkable because, well, I just don’t want social media to be dumb pipes. Without sites making editorial decisions every site will be full of porn and animal torture videos. The current status quo seems way better tbh.

Actually, it looks like there is something in the law that only provides DMCA safe harbor to providers that have a policy of terminating accounts of repeat infringers. I'm still not sure if an ISP would even need that safe harbor though.

I don’t see how it would ever make sense to hold social media liable for user posted defamation.

Look at the recent Afroman defamation lawsuit and consider how YouTube is supposed to know whether that music video was defamatory or not. It took a court 3 years to reach a conclusion but you want YouTube to make that same call instantly, on millions of posts a day. What you’d get is a world where Afroman’s (non defamatory) speech basically cannot be shared on social media at all.

It seems like you would still have to remove the infringing content, but no need to disconnect or ban the user who shared it.

But if you’re a pure ISP and not hosting content on your own servers, then I guess, yeah DMCA doesn’t really apply to you?

But there is a difference between “illegal to regurgitate it” and “illegal to remember it”. IIRC in this case that settled the judge had ruled on “remember” (fair use) but not on the other.

As described in the ruling, Apple hired a consulting group to estimate how much value developers get from the iphone platform, which found that

(1) Apple’s platform technology is worth up to 30% of a developer’s revenue. (2) Apple’s developer tools and services are worth approximately 3%–16%. (3) Apple’s distribution services are worth approximately 4%–14%. (4) Apple’s discovery services are worth approximately 5%–14%.

Then Apple claimed this study was how they came up with the 27%, but the Judge basically said nah you guys came up with that number before the study, and you even know it would be a non-starter for almost all developers.

"To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath"

Yikes. I really thought Apple was going to get away with all their crazy restrictions they came up with after the previous ruling (and maybe they still will, who knows) but this looks pretty bad for them.

It would make sense if Apple decided to still have Google be their default, even without the payment. Not sure how likely that is though.

Sure, it’s ok for them to decide what kind of content they want on their own platform.

Edit: not ok for govt to coerce them into it though

The right to forget is about removing personal information from a site, or removing articles about you from search results. An answer to a Stackoverflow question isn't really personal info.

I was responsible for drawing 1/25th of this gif back in the day. There was actually way more tiles created but this is one version that went viral. Crazy to see it still pop up like this every couple of years.

It's fairly accurate though. The preliminary injunction in that case blocked government agencies from even talking to social media companies (though some of that got reversed by the 5th circuit).

Do you have a link to the tweet from Sweeney saying he would breach the contract?

I think everything you said was fair, but you also mentioned Twitter being a conservative cesspool, and a lot these features like federation and composable moderation are designed to help prevent the whole "rich guy buys the company and turns it into something you don't like" scenario.