This podcast mini-series will tackle those questions with regard to six specific topics of concern: the FISA Court, U.S. broadband access, the third-party doctrine, barriers to interoperable technology, law enforcement use of face recognition technology, and digital first sale.
The EFF only cares about internet freedom when it aligns with their politics, not when it is used to silence their political opponents.
They have been a big proponent of anti-censorship software, including TOR and Signal, and they made HTTPS-everywhere. However, they do focus on censorship by governments much more than with online services.
They've had a hand in the Lumen project (Previously Chilling Effects) which lists DMCA takedowns.
The "silencing political opponents" is only an issue if you view Twitter and Youtube as public "platforms", instead of some private website. As we all know, they're politically-curated content publishers much like this forum. Anyone can make their own reddit or youtube, the hard part is getting people to use those alternatives.
If EFF wants to side with electronic liberty instead of compelled fairness, I'm with them. Of course they must also agree with me that Twitter and Reddit etc. are then liable for all the content they publish, protections from Section 230 must not apply.
I don't think the EFF know how to "fix" censorship by tech giants, or see it as needing a discussion. We already know how to fix it, and we are here on .win hardware because of it.
Facebook deleting groups because they're wrong-think is absolutely not in good faith, and the law was made to protect ISPs and Library networks.
As soon as you go beyond spam removal and troll patrol, and start deleting the President's posts or any reference to atrazine causing a potent endocrine disruption in amphibians, you're getting into all the liability of a publisher.
I believe the lawsuits must prove damages. For Facebook and Youtube, ad-clicks and page-views are people's livelihoods. That's where all the lawsuits will be, no need to worry about the Hello Kitty Island Adventure Wiki.
Edit:
Communications with dynamic web content is actually a pretty nuanced topic, but here's my simplistic opinion. I'm saying that with lawsuits on the table, big players can step back and barely moderate, allowing free speech, or they can entirely push people off their site with an honest policy. Deplatforming dissenters might be the best case for civil rights though, if there's no "algorithm" to invisibly mess with discovery and ad revenue. It's well within the website owner's rights to ban anyone they don't like, they just can't claim to be airports and the sky when they're the airlines.
Make the internet splintered again. Diversity of thought, arenas of ideas.
The EFF only cares about internet freedom when it aligns with their politics, not when it is used to silence their political opponents.
The EFF has gone over to the dark side a long time ago. Some of their employees are pronouned abominations, so what do you expect?
They have been a big proponent of anti-censorship software, including TOR and Signal, and they made HTTPS-everywhere. However, they do focus on censorship by governments much more than with online services.
They've had a hand in the Lumen project (Previously Chilling Effects) which lists DMCA takedowns.
The "silencing political opponents" is only an issue if you view Twitter and Youtube as public "platforms", instead of some private website. As we all know, they're politically-curated content publishers much like this forum. Anyone can make their own reddit or youtube, the hard part is getting people to use those alternatives.
If EFF wants to side with electronic liberty instead of compelled fairness, I'm with them. Of course they must also agree with me that Twitter and Reddit etc. are then liable for all the content they publish, protections from Section 230 must not apply.
I don't think the EFF know how to "fix" censorship by tech giants, or see it as needing a discussion. We already know how to fix it, and we are here on .win hardware because of it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230#c
Facebook deleting groups because they're wrong-think is absolutely not in good faith, and the law was made to protect ISPs and Library networks.
As soon as you go beyond spam removal and troll patrol, and start deleting the President's posts or any reference to atrazine causing a potent endocrine disruption in amphibians, you're getting into all the liability of a publisher.
I believe the lawsuits must prove damages. For Facebook and Youtube, ad-clicks and page-views are people's livelihoods. That's where all the lawsuits will be, no need to worry about the Hello Kitty Island Adventure Wiki.
Edit:
Communications with dynamic web content is actually a pretty nuanced topic, but here's my simplistic opinion. I'm saying that with lawsuits on the table, big players can step back and barely moderate, allowing free speech, or they can entirely push people off their site with an honest policy. Deplatforming dissenters might be the best case for civil rights though, if there's no "algorithm" to invisibly mess with discovery and ad revenue. It's well within the website owner's rights to ban anyone they don't like, they just can't claim to be airports and the sky when they're the airlines.
Make the internet splintered again. Diversity of thought, arenas of ideas.