Diesel555

I agree. My final recommendation was to treat them with the same responsibilities as media companies which still have a lot of protection, but not as many protections as social media companies.

Edit: See thread below, the EARN IT act does not in any way reclassify the designation of social media companies under section 230 or solve the issues mentioned in this post with 230. The change to 230 just provides exceptions for CSAM. However, keep reading if you want background on 230 and why many people are trying to change it.

I want to provide some background on section 230 which the EARN IT act proposes to amend. I was against regulating social media companies, then I researched and wrote a paper on misinformation and changed my opinion on whether or not any policy action should be taken. I'm not saying the EARN IT act is correct (Edit: It's not), but here are some excerpts with sources on why I believe Section 230 should be amended in some way. I hope it makes more clear the reasons people want to change section 230.

Social media companies currently enjoy protections from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. For reference, Myspace was launched in 2003. Section 230 allows social media companies to be classified as interactive computer services and not information content providers (Gallo, 2021). Due to this designation, social media companies are not responsible for the content they distribute. Even media companies in America are still held responsible for libel or false information designed to incite immediate violence or public harm (FCC, 2021) which social media companies are not. The media is still provided many freedoms guaranteed by our constitution while being held responsible for gross negligence.

Social media companies do not adequately moderate the content they promote to their users, allowing members of society to be presented misinformation by domestic and foreign actors resulting in polarization, the propagation of false facts, and the loss of faith in our democratic electoral process. Social media algorithms, motivated by financial gains, promote divisive content and have little incentive to prevent the distribution of false information. This false, divisive information comes from internal actors, such as those who want to discredit climate change and COVID facts. It also comes from external actors, such as Russia, who want to destabilize our democratic systems and influence our policy choices in their best interest.

For example, YouTube shared videos containing COVID-19 misinformation 20 million times, generating 71 million reactions in eight months (Gallo, 2021). Russia's Internet Research Agency (IRA) is a private organization funded by a close confidant of Putin (Bowen, 2021). Eighty thousand posts were made on Facebook by IRA-controlled accounts in two years, reaching 126 million users. The IRA even organized political rallies in the United States through these accounts (Mueller, 2019). Intelligence services have determined that Russia uses its cyber teams to "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process," as Russia's influence operations demonstrated in the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton (Sayler, 2021).

I'm not saying that social media companies should be held to the same standard as content creators or the media, or that the EARN IT act is right. I haven't looked at the implications of that. However, the current law is outdated and something needs to change the incentives of social media companies to prevent these externalities (influencing elections, misinformation, etc) from effecting our population.

FCC. (2021, January 8). Broadcasting False Information. Federal Communications Commission. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/broadcasting-false-info...

Gallo, J. A. G., & Cho, C. Y. C. (2021, January). Social Media: Misinformation and Content Moderation Issues for Congress (No. R46662). Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46662

Mueller, R. S. M. (2019, March). Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume I of II. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

Sayler, K. M. S., & Harris, L. A. H. (2021, June). Deep Fakes and National Security (No. IF11333). Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11333

Section 230 is from 1996. For reference myspace launched in 2003. It has been modified since, but not in a way relative to this discussion. Section 230 classifies providers such as Facebook and Twitter as "interactive computer services" and not "information content providers." This protects them from lawsuits based on the content they provide.

I'm not arguing that Facebook should be held to the same standard as the person who creates the content. However, when Facebook services misinformation on COVID with negligent moderation or even intentional promotion, or they allow eighty thousand posts by Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA)-controlled accounts in two years near an election, reaching 126 million users [1 (Mueller Report)], maybe there needs to be some amendment. Perhaps not completely recategorizing Facebook, but adding some more responsibilities on these major platforms to at least not promote bad information, polarizing content, and information campaigns from foreign governments. When I did some research into how to disincentivize social media companies from spreading misinformation, reforming 230 was the best option I saw.

Edit: I posted a more detailed version of this elsewhere on this thread to provide more background. Then I realized I couldn't delete this abridged version.

[1] Mueller, R. S. M. (2019, March). Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume I of II. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

Clearly that seller is getting some benefit for selling the product through Amazon, probably close to 20-40% of the value of their product if they didn't. They aren't just using Amazon because it's fun. It provides them some value.

> I'm trying to avoid amazon as much as possible, but if you charge 20-40% more for the same item when ordered direct from you vs your amazon storefront, I'll give amazon my business every time. I wish retailers would stope doing this.

Unless you change "I'll give amazon my business every time" to "I won't accept it" it will continue. It's basic economics in a competitive environment with a lot of buyers and sellers. To you, the cost of the Amazon experience is worth the financial benefit. There are likely other consumers that the Amazon experience is not worth it who buy it from the manufacturer. And likely, on the other side, there are those would use the Amazon experience for a mere 5-10% discount instead of the 20-40%. Those people receive a "consumer surplus" for getting it at 20-40% below value instead of 5-10%. The market has settled at 20-40%.

Big picture, if you don't like it in a competitive environment, buy from the manufacturer and help shift the supply demand curve.

I think the OP was simply discussing the officer's time and he may be right. The article doesn't state who initially reported and pursued the charges. But your comment shows the issue I was trying to highlight.

You missed the point which was not normative - that resources are not always interchangeable at a 1:1 ratio. You can clearly fire and hire wherever you want. It's the efficiency of that transaction to be discussed. Does the value gained by adding an enforcer outweighs the value lost by removing a "mean-tweet-enforcer"?

If the force's problems are caused by a shortage of enforcers and adding one more enforcer provides a huge value... while at the same time this "mean-tweet-enforcer" provides little value, then absolutely, make the trade.

But if this "mean-tweet-enforcer" does a lot of other valuable things, and this one article that made the news is just a one-off, while at the same time the police are not at a shortage of people but have process issues leading to the reported evidence failures, and adding another enforcer does not help much - the trade may not value society.

I just see a lot of arguments that we should reallocate resources without analyzing the tradeoff where one side may gain little from a lot of expenses. The OPs article states that the burglary issues, from what I can see before the paywall, were caused by evidence failures. If the argument were able to show that the resources lost by looking into this tweet could be reallocated to solve the evidence failures in the article by securing more CCTV feeds or something, then that's a strong argument. Either way, the comparison is theoretical. There are no mean tweet enforcers. The discussion is not normative, but positive. Simply not all resources are a 1:1 trade.

Ah the fallacy that resources can be applied equally everywhere. The fallacy that reducing enforcement of "mean tweets" can equally be applied to increasing the enforcement of burglaries. In microeconomics this dichotomy is described as the Production Possibility Frontier that recognizes tradeoffs exist. I dislike seeing the arguments "why are we spending money here when we could there" when they are not a 1 for 1 trade. We may sacrifice a large percentage of "here" to get a small percentage of "there". Read more on the Production Possibility Frontier if curious what I mean by that.

An example is that the guy who solved this "mean tweet" problem is the same guy who could go and solve the burglaries problem. Assume you have a team that analyzes cyber crime that is underemployed but the team is required for rare cases. In their free time they enforce "mean tweets" (I'm not arguing that is okay, I'm arguing about resources). The assumption that they could use their free time better to solve burglaries is probably not true. Unless they Aram Mojtabai from the Blacklist. All of his resources are 1:1 as he can do anything.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.” - John Stuart Mill

> So it's important that our 'values' of true justice, equality, transparency etc. are not compromised, and we don't want to regress to early 20th century racism

This is a challenging problem for a democracy being exploited by an authoritarian government.

The challenge is 1) Not causing xenophobia (as the article implies) while still 2) recognizing and preventing the practices and influence of the CCP on our population, corporations, and economy which do not align with our moral values and also preventing the export of externalities onto democracies whose very structure allows it.

Most of the books I read have something along the lines of first recognizing the author's appreciation for and love of the Chinese people then discussing what the CCP is doing and what a democracy can do to protect itself without compromising its values.

If anyone looking into this dichotomy has not seriously studied the subject and just thinks the US government is trying to start a Cold War, is paranoid, or that open markets and will magically fix this problem I recommend a book published in 2022. "The World According to China" - Elizabeth C. Economy.

You in no way responded to the content in my post.

"free speech" and "free markets" are completely separate topics which may or may not be mutually exclusive, both of which are studied well academically. I make no claims on free speech. I simply provided a basic academic background to markets in microeconomics.

Then you provide random sayings to try to discredit my post which have no logical connection to my content.

There is a lot of ignorance in economics. And while ignorance is okay, I am ignorant in a lot of fields, ignorance without recognizing what you do not know is dangerous. This is a well studied field and America's founders even agreed government should have some say in markets. Here is a well cited source for that, search for "free markets". Of note definitions are important and clearly the authors of the link below include government regulation in a "free market" which the definition I gave and the one you responded to do not.

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-econom...

> alleging the company’s proprietary tractor software is creating a monopoly that’s unfair to small farmers. (from the article)

The monopoly is in repairing their own goods, not on the tractor market. Usually the debate for right to repair includes the argument that repairing a good should be a competitive market on its own. The definition of the market is key (is it the tractor market or the repair of John Deer tractors market). If it's the first, debatable on the monopoly. If it's the second, clearly a monopoly.

I do recognize you were responding to the OP's claim that John Deer is a monopoly, not to the article's description of it. But I wanted to mention the article's description as related to right to repair.

I wish more people understood that markets include government regulation to ensure they operate in a competitive way. In a competitive market there must be so many buyers and sellers so that each has a negligible impact on the market price [1]. Obviously governments try to prevent monopolies to uphold this assumption. Regulation must also prevent market failures. Such failures occur with externalities. The most famous example being a factory that pollutes the environment thus producing negative health effects on people but incurring no cost for that damage without government intervention. Another example of a failure is information asymmetry (the doctor that recommends a procedure he knows you don't need but you trust him for his information) which is illegal.

My point is, markets do include government regulation. Academic debate is not centered on whether or not markets include government regulation by microeconomics definition. The debate is how much, where, when and how. If "free market" is defined as no government intervention, it is not an accepted practice and even conservative economists would not recommend it. I think there is a reason the term "free market" is not included in my microeconomics textbook. We look for a competitive market (described by the desired result), not a "free market" (described by the methods, not the result).

[1] Mankiw, Principle of Microeconomics 8th edition

Interagency cooperation is a well documented issue in our current government. However, this discussion has clearly occurred for years if you look at the documentation. Simply, nothing was done to resolve the issue until the true effects came to bear. People realized there was an issue. Both sides saw the issue. Both sides issued documentation. Both sides did nothing until the issue actually happened. Then they freaked out. I blame the FAA for this one. They should have raised their concerns publicly much earlier. I have worked with the FAA a bit, I have not been impressed.

This is why I included my initial post on this topic. The 5G band affects the Radar Altimeter. The flight control systems rely on many inputs. If one of those inputs is the Radar Altimeter than the issue with RA could translate to an effect on the flight control system. This is well recognized and hence why the approaches (the way airplanes get close to runways in bad weather) that use this system are unavailable via NOTAMs.

Big picture in bad weather certain aircraft that relied on their radar altimeter to help guide them to the runway cannot do so at certain locations.

http://www.alpa.org/resources/aircraft-operations-radar-alti...

> When operating in U.S. airspace, the following operations requiring radio altimeter are prohibited in the presence of 5G C-Band wireless broadband interference

> Instrument Landing System (ILS) Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) SA CAT I, SA CAT II, CAT II, and CAT III

Here is the S-ILS RWY 36 for DFW that requires SA CAT II. At the bottom you can see "RA 107/12" which means the airplane can fly down to 107' without seeing the runway. The 5G NOTAMS effect this approach.

https://resources.globalair.com/dtpp/globalair_06039I36LSAC2...

Here is the NOTAM for DFW affecting approaches.

> FDC 2/3758 (A0495/22) - IAP DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL, DALLAS-FORT WORTH, TX. ILS RWY 17C (SA CAT I), AMDT 11B ... ILS RWY 17L (SA CAT I), AMDT 7 ... ILS RWY 18R (SA CAT I), AMDT 8A ... ILS RWY 35C (SA CAT I), AMDT 3 ... ILS RWY 35R (SA CAT I), AMDT 4B ... ILS RWY 13R (SA CAT I - II), AMDT 9B ... ILS RWY 17R (SA CAT I - II), AMDT 23D ... ILS RWY 18L (SA CAT I - II), AMDT 3 ... ILS RWY 31R (SA CAT I - II), AMDT 15 ... ILS RWY 17C (CAT II - III), AMDT 11B ... ILS RWY 17L (CAT II - III), AMDT 7 ... ILS RWY 18R (CAT II - III), AMDT 8A ... ILS RWY 35C (CAT II - III), AMDT 3 ... ILS RWY 35R (CAT II - III), AMDT 4B ... ILS RWY 36L (SA CAT II), AMDT 4 ... PROCEDURE NA EXC FOR ACFT USING APPROVED ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF COMPLIANCE DUE TO 5G C-BAND INTERFERENCE PLUS SEE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 2021-23-12, 2021-23-13. 19 JAN 05:00 2022 UNTIL 19 JAN 05:04 2024 ESTIMATED. CREATED: 13 JAN 05:05 2022

> This is what happens when the richest country in the world has some of the poorest populations in the world.

I find this statement to be misleading. If one person in the entire country lived in extreme poverty than there would be some population that is among “some of the poorest populations in the world.”

However, while the US does have issues which should not be ignored, the US cannot be compared to countries where much of the population lives in extreme poverty and other human rights issues. This comparison hurts the real cause that other countries desperately need help and that entire populations do truly live in extreme poverty.

The United Nations Development Programme puts out the Human Development report which has a great website and iPhone / Android app to access the data. A good indicator is the percentage of the population living below the income poverty line. Explore this site, it’s great. Here is a link to one stat.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/indicators/167106

App: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/human-development-report-app/i...

The draft United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021, S.1260 which passed the Senate 68-32, has verbiage on the lab leak too - it requires a report from the Director of the National Intelligence to Congress within 180 days which provides:

> (1) an assessment of the most likely source or origin of the SARS–CoV–2 virus, including a detailed review of all information the United States possesses that it has identified as potentially relevant to the source or origin of the SARS–CoV–2 virus, including zoonotic transmission and spillover, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), or other sources of origin, transmission, or spillover, based on the information the United States Government has to date;

> (5) an account of efforts by the PRC to cooperate with, impede, or obstruct any inquiry or investigation to determine the source and transmission of SARS–CoV–2 virus, including into a possible lab leak, or to create or spread misinformation or disinformation regarding the source and transmission of SARS–CoV–2 virus by the PRC or CCP, including by national and local governmental and health entities; [1]

I look forward to seeing the report.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/126...

You and the commenter above you miss the point. If you change "Hospitalized" to "unable to work" the point is still valid. I just do not have statistics on "unable to work" and I do not like to state things without evidence. However, it is very likely that 100% of those cases are not "unable to work" and that some percentage >0 is asymptomatic. The point stands.

Either way, you focused on the minor point rather than the main purpose which is a "both and" scenario rather than a "either or" where the two arguments are debating different issues which are not mutually exclusive but for some reason are used to argue against each other as if it's an either/or scenario (risk to ones self vs risk to others - It can be low risk to the individual and high risk to others at the same time).

It has been frustrating to see how these two non-mutually exclusive points have been used to debate each other. We talk around each other and can't have a logical conversation.

I just think people's perception in how easily their opinion should change public policy is wrong. And I'm glad it is. They usually don't know all the nuances behind a given policy.

I see people both irritated with the lack of change in American government while also not politically active (Facebook doesn't count).

Creating policy change is challenging in a government defined by federalism and representative democracy like the United States. I agree letting someone know is likely not enough to make a big change (and it shouldn't be). But if enough people think one way and let the right people know, then they can influence change. People need to organize. A large group that agrees on a topic has influence. Elected officials will listen to them because they can move a large number of votes. The group needs a way to communicate their desires and power (ie. numbers) to elected officials. This is usually accomplished via interest groups which can lobby for their interest. I know lobbying is a dirty word, but it exists on one end of the spectrum. The spectrum exists from attending a local town hall and voicing your solo opinion (which I recommend doing!) to smaller organizations on local issues all the way to the major interest groups (Sierra Club, NAACP, NRA, AARP, etc) voicing millions of opinions.

There is a correlation, but not on the magnitude per person, work required, or time frame that most people hope for. You likely won't make a meaningful change with a single letter (I say likely because you can find counterexamples).

I just want to point out that I see two common arguments here which are not mutually exclusive and are for some reason used to debate one another.

1) Those not at risk are a threat to those at risk (at home, at restaurants, etc). We should be concerned not because of their own safety, but because of the risk to others.

2) The author appears to be (or children in general) overly scared based on the risk COVID poses to them. They are relatively safe. I like to look at risk in terms of things I can relate to - safer than dying from a car accident this year. Parents should worry more about driving (1:10k per year [1]) than their child dying to COVID (1:500k [2]). The difference is even greater for injured in a car vs hospitalized by COVID (magnitudes of difference).

Can we stop talking around each other and recognize both are true?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

[2] https://www.ncmd.info/news/covid-deaths-children-rare/ (I could list others - most sources are children deaths / total deaths which is different than children tested positive / children deaths - and that discounts all asymptomatic / not tested children).

> The faculty is so sick that they don't have enough people to run the school.

This depends on how you define "so sick". Tested positive? Yes. Hospitalized? I bet not all (or > 1.8% [1]) of them. I notice when verbiage sensationalizes COVID. The OP, I believe, is also sensitive to this.

> Honestly, do people think children just exist in isolation?

This is the primary argument. Your two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. He can believe that the kids are overly scared based on the statistics because, well, they are not at that much risk while at the same time recognizing that individuals not at risk put other people who are at risk in danger.

This is why we fail to have beneficial conversation, we talk around each other.

[1] https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/omicron-...

PDF version of Exhibit plex_5803 (1996)

http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/plex_5803.p...

for those who do not have a twitter account (twitter won't let me load all the images without asking me to log in) or just want a textual version / transcript.

Text version in a website can also be found here about two pages down under "Appendix: Comes vs. Microsoft – exhibit plex_5803, as text":

http://techrights.org/2009/06/26/eee-versus-cross-platform/

* I'm Just providing an alternative, I'm not trying to start the standard argument about twitter links.

Below is to point out that causation is being thrown around way too much with respect to the pandemic, not that the conclusions are incorrect.

> A global pandemic that has resulted in 4.5 million people quitting their jobs in the United States in the last month

4.5 million people quit their jobs and there was a global pandemic. 4.5 million would need to be compared to historical rates to say the pandemic resulted in an increase of X people quitting their jobs, not the total of 4.5 million. But even that X increase is a correlation and I highly doubt that the pandemic was 100% responsible for every single one of those individuals quitting their jobs.

A more complete story can be found from the bureau of labor statistics.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm

> Over the 12 months ending in November 2021, hires totaled 74.5 million and separations totaled 68.7 million, yielding a net employment gain of 5.9 million.

I still agree that the idea of bullet 1. is likely valid, that people are leaving jobs that are undesirable and getting better ones - but I'd be careful to add the reason why. Causation has been thrown around casually during the pandemic to influence policy without any evidence of the causation or the magnitude of that causal relationship. You could just delete "A global pandemic that has resulted in" and the sentence would stand alone.

Some settings in airplanes are last left. And this is okay. If you had to reset every setting at all times it would cost time. Sometimes you find one that you go "man I wish that wasn't last left." Then software updates fix that.

> I am not a pilot, but that's exactly what I thought when I read the memo too. They should be putting responsibility for the next flight on the next flight's crew, not the prior flight's crew.

It's not a matter of responsibility, it's a risk mitigation measure. Adding the additional check is common in aviation. Yes, it is the next crew's responsibility, however if you can mitigate a risk by adding some procedure to what the previous crew does, at little or no cost until a software update is released fixing the issue, you do that every time.

I agree with the lack of fun of just lifting weights. I'll also add the unwelcome feeling in most gyms - which I later realized was really more my own insecurity. Lifting weights also did not help me cardiovascularly. It took me a long time to find some strength training I really enjoyed, and for me that was CrossFit.

I know CrossFit has a bad reputation, but I believe this to be a function of two things - Poor regulation (it's easy to open a gym, some gyms are just bad) and overly competitive gyms (which can lead to a bad group or coaches that encourage you to push too far). However, I think there are a lot less bad gyms now than there used to be. Most are very welcoming and safe. Joining Crossfit is one of the best things I have done, and it's at least worth a shot if you are looking for something new. Especially if you have a slightly competitive personality (it also provides an outlet for competitiveness).

It's like TypeScript, it's hard to explain why people like it compared to Javascript - just try it.

What are the odds of being hit by a car in the next year? I'm honestly curious, so I googled what I could find. From what I find the odds of an injury from an accident are 1:8393 which does support your statement (assuming every accident is getting hit by a car).

https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortalit...

Do you have better stats?

> You sound like Germany 1938.

The author was just pointing out China's incentives. Any negotiator, a person analyzing international relation theory, or any policy maker must do this.

He doesn't sound like Germany 1938. He sounds like a person trying to analyze a power dynamic.

The Congressional Research Service tries to boil down complicated issues for Congressional members in public, short reports. Here is the one on Taiwan that discusses Taiwan and China in two pages (and has Lithuania).

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10275

They do talk about China's perspective on the second page. They do not ignore it. They do not sound like Germany 1938.

> Law enforcement and the general institution of law does not care.

TLDR: Don't blame the street-level bureaucrats and everyone in the institution for policy failures.

You fail to understand that this is a public policy issue. I bet you the average individual cop does care. I use the term average so people don't resort to extremes (good cop or bad cop). His workload is so high that your issue falls below his threshold. It's not his fault, it's the fault of local public policy. It's undermanned and underfunded.

I remember my brother yelling at an Amazon driver for speeding. He's incentivized to do so by his employer. Yes, the driver probably shouldn't speed, but he's also not making very much money and needs this job. His employer is likely more guilty for not providing additional drivers, at cost, to allow safety. But that would be a market imperfection due to externalities which are not regulated (the externality being public safety - the cost of which the private institution generally does not bear). The same type of issue occurrs in the public policy arena, but the failure is on the lack of funding towards a known issue which results in poor services to the public. No, people cannot do more with less with zero losses.

Source article behind paywall https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facing-hostile-chine...

I use an alternative band for it. https://www.borealiswatch.com/store/#!/Borealis-Vulcanized-R...