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.
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.
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).
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.
Thanks and wow, they’re really doing everything imaginable to make it difficult to include such a link. And their rules say the link cannot contain any additional parameters so it rules out the possibility of just linking directly to a payment form. You would have to log in first, then pay.
It will be interesting to see how far the anti-steering ruling actually goes. Will Apple still be able to block links to a alternative payment options? Or what if the link contains a token that logs you in automatically and goes straight to a payment form that’s almost indistinguishable from an in-app form?
The issue is that the way this is written the AI doesn't have to be responsible for the liable content, it just has to be involved. If I post something defamatory on HN, and HN helpfully checks my grammar, then HN is no longer protected by section 230. The language isn't precise enough. Maybe a court would interpret "involved" to mean "materially contributed to the illegal nature of the content", but maybe not?
They have to pay for showing links, and those links do send traffic to news sites. That is indisputable.
You’re phrasing is just incorrect, honestly. Linking to a website is not at all taking the site’s “content”. And monetizing search results doesn’t do anything “at the newspaper’s expense”, what expense has a news site incurred by someone sharing a link to their site?
The part you quoted and called bullshit is factually correct though. CAN has told Meta and Google that if they show links to news sites (which do drive business to those sites) then they have to pay those news sites. It’s not a characterization, it’s what has actually happened. How can you deny that?
There are different degrees of “secure”, right? Maybe you could give a key to the FBI without China getting ahold of it, maybe it’s still “secure enough”. But you can’t say it’s “just as secure” as not giving it to them. And that’s what law enforcement often asks for: Give us access without making it any less secure.
My company has been fully remote since 2020, I agree that collaboration is still easy. The sort of meetings where we used to sit in a conference room and brainstorm on a whiteboard just now happen over Teams with screen sharing.
I do think it's much easier when everyone is remote though. It sucks when half the people in a meeting are in a conference room and the rest are remote. You end up dealing with dumb technical difficulties and its too easy to exclude virtual folks from the conversation.
Because one of the things the negotiating framework covers is how much money google and meta must pay to news providers when news content is “made available” to canadians, and “made available” specifically includes when “access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means, including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content”. So if the negotiated value is anything over $0 then, yeah, it’s a “link tax”.
I’m on Google/meta’s side because link taxes are a bad idea for the internet as a whole. That anyone (even Meta, who I generally dislike) should have to pay to link to a news article is morally offensive to me.
The difference is that smoking is clearly linked with lung cancer, established by heaps of clear scientific data. The link between social media and suicide is pretty weak by comparison.
In 2007 the question was "can Apple compete with other cell phone makers". The market for cell phones (even smart phones) was already well established, but Dvorak here says the iphone "will be passé within 3 months". What he didn't know is that Apple had made something far better than all the competition.
Now, with AR/VR I think the skeptics aren't saying Apple's product won't be good, but that even if it's the best product in the category there's still just not much of a market for it.
Ah, that makes much more sense. But, it could be the case that reddit thinks someone will end up paying their outrageous fees, just not him. It doesn’t necessarily follow that they think Apollo is actually worth that much. Then again, if that’s the case it would be reasonable to work out some sort of discount that reflects the true value of the Apollo user base.
Not at all. But it seems like the Apollo dev’s argument was “if it actually costs reddit $20m they why not buy Apollo for only $10m”, which doesn’t make sense.
This doesn’t make what reddit is doing any more reasonable though, imo.
I'm not sure that math is right? If the API access actually costs reddit $20m/year then charging Apollo users $20m/year just offsets those costs. So in the first year they actually lose $10m, and just break even in following years. It only makes sense to buy Apollo if the api costs are low.