The history of section 230 is that prior to 230 it was the law of the land that most internet services were not moderated at all and therefore the people operating the services had limited liability for anything posted on them unless and until it was reported.
There was one early case involving compuserve, and because that server and didn't moderate editorial, they were treated like a newsstand that sells newspapers other people published, and so CompuServe was not liable for the individual things written by the posters. By contrast, There was a case involving Prodigy I think, where the service claimed to be moderated and thus safer for young people to go on to. This opened them up to liability because they asserted editorial moderation and some of the content they allowed through was found to be defamatory. Therefore, the state of the internet prior to section 230 was this: limited editorial moderation which limited liability for the things said, or editorial moderation where the website provider took on the liability for the things that were posted and also took on liability for damages when they moderate.
If suction 230 were to be removed, this would be the way things would go back to. Legally, if you never made any pretenses of moderation, you would be protected from the individual things that people post. And if you did choose to moderate, you would be personally responsible for everything that was posted on your website.
This is why a lot of free speech people were pushing for the abolishment of section 230 altogether, because at that point either everything becomes usenet again and largely unmoderated for editorial, for what remains becomes so fully locked down it would no longer be interactive. In other words, individuals who believe that abolishing section 230 would result in moderation that they like becoming the norm are likely incorrect. The more likely result would be that once section 230 was removed, remaining services that didn't immediately lock down would not have any editorial controls at all.
But I should tell you that if you are on the political left, there's an awful lot of stuff that would immediately get taken down because no company would want to potentially be treated as the speaker of a lot of that speech. In particular, accusations that a certain company did X or that a certain individual did Y would almost certainly be banned out right because the company's running the platforms would not want to be "saying" such things in court.
Of course on the political right there would be a lot of stuff taken down too, but not the stuff most lefties would want. Legally, there's generally nothing wrong with what is called hate speech, at least not in the United States. Therefore, we're talking about a certain company dumping talk to chemicals into a river maybe actionable defamation and therefore might be moderated, or making statements of fact about a certain politician maybe actionable defamation and therefore might be moderated, you can legally talk about your opinions on different races all day long.
A lot of politically neutral services would likely be up in the air as well. Things like recommendation algorithms or monetization decisions could have to change to accommodate the elimination of section 230 and the resulting legal regime.
There was one early case involving compuserve, and because that server and didn't moderate editorial, they were treated like a newsstand that sells newspapers other people published, and so CompuServe was not liable for the individual things written by the posters. By contrast, There was a case involving Prodigy I think, where the service claimed to be moderated and thus safer for young people to go on to. This opened them up to liability because they asserted editorial moderation and some of the content they allowed through was found to be defamatory. Therefore, the state of the internet prior to section 230 was this: limited editorial moderation which limited liability for the things said, or editorial moderation where the website provider took on the liability for the things that were posted and also took on liability for damages when they moderate.
If suction 230 were to be removed, this would be the way things would go back to. Legally, if you never made any pretenses of moderation, you would be protected from the individual things that people post. And if you did choose to moderate, you would be personally responsible for everything that was posted on your website.
This is why a lot of free speech people were pushing for the abolishment of section 230 altogether, because at that point either everything becomes usenet again and largely unmoderated for editorial, for what remains becomes so fully locked down it would no longer be interactive. In other words, individuals who believe that abolishing section 230 would result in moderation that they like becoming the norm are likely incorrect. The more likely result would be that once section 230 was removed, remaining services that didn't immediately lock down would not have any editorial controls at all.
But I should tell you that if you are on the political left, there's an awful lot of stuff that would immediately get taken down because no company would want to potentially be treated as the speaker of a lot of that speech. In particular, accusations that a certain company did X or that a certain individual did Y would almost certainly be banned out right because the company's running the platforms would not want to be "saying" such things in court.
Of course on the political right there would be a lot of stuff taken down too, but not the stuff most lefties would want. Legally, there's generally nothing wrong with what is called hate speech, at least not in the United States. Therefore, we're talking about a certain company dumping talk to chemicals into a river maybe actionable defamation and therefore might be moderated, or making statements of fact about a certain politician maybe actionable defamation and therefore might be moderated, you can legally talk about your opinions on different races all day long.
A lot of politically neutral services would likely be up in the air as well. Things like recommendation algorithms or monetization decisions could have to change to accommodate the elimination of section 230 and the resulting legal regime.
From a superpositional standpoint it's pretty obvious.
People support the police because they do a bunch of things that people do respect and want. If there's murder to be solved, people want the police to be in there. If your house gets robbed, they want the police to come find the guy who did it and lock them up.
At their best, police are protecting people's individual rights from being infringed by others.
People hate the police state because instead of providing basic order and thereby protecting people's rights, they end up using the pretext of order to harm people's individual rights on behalf of the government system.
In a sense, it's similar to left wing arguments against guns: the tool can be misused and often is so we should eliminate the thing. There's a nice first order logic to it, but we live in a multiple order world with multiple effects to an action.
Of course, it could be that having a tool like the police will inevitably mean it gets corrupted and break it's mandate, and that may be true too. Power corrupts, after all.
But it's also true that without some force capable of using force to enforce societal norms, someone else will come in and use force to enforce whatever they want and thus use of force is required.
Does that have to look like contemporary police forces? Not necessarily, but I don't think people who support police are necessarily so fixated on a specific form.
I do think a healthy society is one with mechanisms other than violent enforcement of norms to maintain order. A healthy society has cultural norms and mores, values and concepts such as honor or guilt that serve to get people to act in ways that don't need enforcement in the first place.
People support the police because they do a bunch of things that people do respect and want. If there's murder to be solved, people want the police to be in there. If your house gets robbed, they want the police to come find the guy who did it and lock them up.
At their best, police are protecting people's individual rights from being infringed by others.
People hate the police state because instead of providing basic order and thereby protecting people's rights, they end up using the pretext of order to harm people's individual rights on behalf of the government system.
In a sense, it's similar to left wing arguments against guns: the tool can be misused and often is so we should eliminate the thing. There's a nice first order logic to it, but we live in a multiple order world with multiple effects to an action.
Of course, it could be that having a tool like the police will inevitably mean it gets corrupted and break it's mandate, and that may be true too. Power corrupts, after all.
But it's also true that without some force capable of using force to enforce societal norms, someone else will come in and use force to enforce whatever they want and thus use of force is required.
Does that have to look like contemporary police forces? Not necessarily, but I don't think people who support police are necessarily so fixated on a specific form.
I do think a healthy society is one with mechanisms other than violent enforcement of norms to maintain order. A healthy society has cultural norms and mores, values and concepts such as honor or guilt that serve to get people to act in ways that don't need enforcement in the first place.
One of my favorite facts is that if your kid is yellow they put your kid in blue.
I really think about the amount hospitals probably charge to blue the yellow out of your kid.
I really think about the amount hospitals probably charge to blue the yellow out of your kid.
My first vehicle was an '83 Bronco II that was long past its prime, it didn't have the foot switch, but I'm pretty sure late 70s F150s and the like would have had them. The Bronco II wasn't based on the F150 platform but the ranger, so it already did a lot differently.
If the management wants to mandate minimum tip, they should just increase food prices by 25% and give it to the workers. After all, they're not the boss of their customers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRrVOfOU9qE
Interesting, using a rotating blade to 3d print metal on an ender3.
Interesting, using a rotating blade to 3d print metal on an ender3.
I bought my current laptop a shocking 7 years ago in 2018, and what's kinda nuts is it's even still just fine for most gaming. I need to take it apart and clean out the fans and repaste the heatsinks, but that's it.
Return to the moon, pay for it by taking the moon rover back and selling it to billionaires.
Good news though! If you say something the regime doesn't like on Facebook the police can immediately find you! Just think about how much safer we are!
It's the place where your video games live. People should treat it exactly like what it is and nothing more.
Well I hope that he enjoys his suspended sentence with no jail time. I hope that will help him learn his lesson.
Physical media is irrelevant. You can have physical media that's so locked down that you don't actually own it.
What's actually going to make a comeback is media that you control. If you have a Sony rootkit CD or a DRM-free floc file, the latter beats the former every time. If you have a physical disc of the video game spore which requires you to call into Central servers before writing your video game, or you have a drm-free copy of a similar game that you bought off of Gog, the latter is the only one you actually own.
To that end, I've got a multi-disk NAS in mirroring mode with all my media, and I host jellyfin so I can watch it or listen to it using my own personal hardware, without any need to ask a corporate overlord permission to listen to my own music.
I do have a large library of ebooks, but I've also got a a very real library of paper books on shelves, and short of coming around door to door, nobody can change the contents of either, but particularly not the dead tree books.
It's a big contrast to physical media like what you can get on playstation, xbox, or the Nintendo switch. You can own the physical media for any of these consoles but without an internet connection be totally incapable of playing your games.
Something that you increasingly need to pay attention to now is whether the hardware itself requires internet access and access to a central server you do not control. There have been a number of instances where for example people owned thermostats in their home and could not operate their furnace because the servers for the thermostat company had been shut down. Anyone with a Google video game unit should know that since the streaming service has been shut down they can no longer ever play any of the games that they bought for that. Even someone with an old Nintendo Wii my plug it into the wifi today and discover that many of the items on the home screen are like an old shopping mall that's about to shut down -- the old signs are there, but the real estate has been vacant for years.
I was fairly lucky because I got to experience with this looks like firsthand over 15 years ago. Around 2008, there was a video game streaming service called gametap. It proposed that you would pay a subscription fee and be able to get access to an entire game library on your PC. Had some really good games on offer too, including the original fallout games. Two things occurred: first, is that streaming service lost the license for that video game, you could not play that video game any longer. Second, if you stop paying the subscription fee, you will lose access to all of your video games, and they also locked your saved games behind a paywall as I recall. That was a very early lesson for me how about the dangers of outsourcing ownership.
What's actually going to make a comeback is media that you control. If you have a Sony rootkit CD or a DRM-free floc file, the latter beats the former every time. If you have a physical disc of the video game spore which requires you to call into Central servers before writing your video game, or you have a drm-free copy of a similar game that you bought off of Gog, the latter is the only one you actually own.
To that end, I've got a multi-disk NAS in mirroring mode with all my media, and I host jellyfin so I can watch it or listen to it using my own personal hardware, without any need to ask a corporate overlord permission to listen to my own music.
I do have a large library of ebooks, but I've also got a a very real library of paper books on shelves, and short of coming around door to door, nobody can change the contents of either, but particularly not the dead tree books.
It's a big contrast to physical media like what you can get on playstation, xbox, or the Nintendo switch. You can own the physical media for any of these consoles but without an internet connection be totally incapable of playing your games.
Something that you increasingly need to pay attention to now is whether the hardware itself requires internet access and access to a central server you do not control. There have been a number of instances where for example people owned thermostats in their home and could not operate their furnace because the servers for the thermostat company had been shut down. Anyone with a Google video game unit should know that since the streaming service has been shut down they can no longer ever play any of the games that they bought for that. Even someone with an old Nintendo Wii my plug it into the wifi today and discover that many of the items on the home screen are like an old shopping mall that's about to shut down -- the old signs are there, but the real estate has been vacant for years.
I was fairly lucky because I got to experience with this looks like firsthand over 15 years ago. Around 2008, there was a video game streaming service called gametap. It proposed that you would pay a subscription fee and be able to get access to an entire game library on your PC. Had some really good games on offer too, including the original fallout games. Two things occurred: first, is that streaming service lost the license for that video game, you could not play that video game any longer. Second, if you stop paying the subscription fee, you will lose access to all of your video games, and they also locked your saved games behind a paywall as I recall. That was a very early lesson for me how about the dangers of outsourcing ownership.
Hoe_math is a good creator. I don't need to meet women being married for 14 years, but I've learned a lot from his videos.
The model for history that I have at the moment sees the enlightenment as the era where ideas were created, the French revolution was when those ideas manifested as an actual nation state which fundamentally changed how people related to those ideas, and more or less all of the ideas of modernism including rationality, logic, reason, and rejection of anything that's outside of a relatively simplified frame of reference, ended up turning the West into a military and scientific superpower. The problem is that modernism is not capable of sustaining a society and that's what philosophers such as Nietzsche warned about. Eventually the contradictions of the modernist era resulted in the world wars which led to the current postmodern era that we live in which under my model started almost immediately after the World wars ended.
The problem is that the postmodern era is a house of straw built on quicksand. The idea that you would make the rejection of objective truth your objective truth and the rejection of grand and narratives your grand narrative is self-evidently contradictory in a way that very quickly tears itself apart, and can't be reconciled without bringing in other frames of reference which the modernist abortion of postmodernism which characterizes the late postmodern period we live within explicitly rejects.
The ideal that I've developed and articulated a little bit in my last book was a superpositional view of the world where multiple ways of seeing things can exist at once and are weighted against one another without collapsing into synthesis, but unfortunately it's probably more likely that we end up collapsing into a new modernist regime or return in a lot of ways to the pre-modern regime.
One can hope, though, that perhaps we can find some people wise enough to lead us into a new era that can inherit traits of previous areas that were successful without trying to collapse it into a simplified caricature of itself.
The model for history that I have at the moment sees the enlightenment as the era where ideas were created, the French revolution was when those ideas manifested as an actual nation state which fundamentally changed how people related to those ideas, and more or less all of the ideas of modernism including rationality, logic, reason, and rejection of anything that's outside of a relatively simplified frame of reference, ended up turning the West into a military and scientific superpower. The problem is that modernism is not capable of sustaining a society and that's what philosophers such as Nietzsche warned about. Eventually the contradictions of the modernist era resulted in the world wars which led to the current postmodern era that we live in which under my model started almost immediately after the World wars ended.
The problem is that the postmodern era is a house of straw built on quicksand. The idea that you would make the rejection of objective truth your objective truth and the rejection of grand and narratives your grand narrative is self-evidently contradictory in a way that very quickly tears itself apart, and can't be reconciled without bringing in other frames of reference which the modernist abortion of postmodernism which characterizes the late postmodern period we live within explicitly rejects.
The ideal that I've developed and articulated a little bit in my last book was a superpositional view of the world where multiple ways of seeing things can exist at once and are weighted against one another without collapsing into synthesis, but unfortunately it's probably more likely that we end up collapsing into a new modernist regime or return in a lot of ways to the pre-modern regime.
One can hope, though, that perhaps we can find some people wise enough to lead us into a new era that can inherit traits of previous areas that were successful without trying to collapse it into a simplified caricature of itself.
The Irish and Scottish are examples of colonialism which most people don't think of either because of contemporary racial narratives or because western civilization became myopic.
I figured using three languages of colonized people which the English did their best to suppress was poetic.
I figured using three languages of colonized people which the English did their best to suppress was poetic.
Irish (Gaeilge):
Is féidir a mhaíomh gurbh iad Éire agus Albain dhá cheann de na chéad tionscadail choilíneacha ag Sasana. Ní smaoiníonn go leor daoine air ar an dóigh sin mar, in ainneoin na bhfíoras go léir, ní mhothaíonn sé cosúil le coilíneachas nuair is daoine bána atá á gcoilíniú, agus tá golwg thar a bheith gearr againn ar an stair.
Scottish Gaelic (Gàidhlig):
Faodar a ràdh gur e Èirinn agus Alba dà de na ciad phròiseactan colonaidh aig Sasainn. Chan eil mòran dhaoine ga fhaicinn mar sin, oir, a dh’aindeoin nan fìrinnean uile, chan eil e a’ faireachdainn mar cholonaidheachd nuair is daoine geala a tha fo cholonaidheachd, agus tha mioipia eachdraidheil iongantach oirnn.
Welsh (Cymraeg):
Gellir dadlau mai Iwerddon a’r Alban oedd dau o brosiectau trefedigaethol cyntaf Lloegr. Nid yw llawer o bobl yn ei weld felly oherwydd, er gwaethaf yr holl ffeithiau, nid yw’n teimlo fel trefedigaethu pan fo pobl â chroen golau yn cael eu trefedigaethu, ac mae gennym olwg fer hanesyddol anhygoel.
Is féidir a mhaíomh gurbh iad Éire agus Albain dhá cheann de na chéad tionscadail choilíneacha ag Sasana. Ní smaoiníonn go leor daoine air ar an dóigh sin mar, in ainneoin na bhfíoras go léir, ní mhothaíonn sé cosúil le coilíneachas nuair is daoine bána atá á gcoilíniú, agus tá golwg thar a bheith gearr againn ar an stair.
Scottish Gaelic (Gàidhlig):
Faodar a ràdh gur e Èirinn agus Alba dà de na ciad phròiseactan colonaidh aig Sasainn. Chan eil mòran dhaoine ga fhaicinn mar sin, oir, a dh’aindeoin nan fìrinnean uile, chan eil e a’ faireachdainn mar cholonaidheachd nuair is daoine geala a tha fo cholonaidheachd, agus tha mioipia eachdraidheil iongantach oirnn.
Welsh (Cymraeg):
Gellir dadlau mai Iwerddon a’r Alban oedd dau o brosiectau trefedigaethol cyntaf Lloegr. Nid yw llawer o bobl yn ei weld felly oherwydd, er gwaethaf yr holl ffeithiau, nid yw’n teimlo fel trefedigaethu pan fo pobl â chroen golau yn cael eu trefedigaethu, ac mae gennym olwg fer hanesyddol anhygoel.