Aaron Mackey and Sophia Cope report for Electronic
Frontier Foundation on a Ninth Circuit decision that further compromises
Section 230.
The defendant was Malwarebytes, and plaintiff was Enigma,
which claims content was blocked for “anti-competitive purposes”. But (according to EFF) CDA230 says nothing about competitive
motives as a reason for content moderation, at least if moderation is justifiable
for other reasons (like terms of service).
Breitbart, in a story by Allum Bokhari, reports that
Facebook called itself a “publisher” rather than a “platform”, in defending
itself in a lawsuit against Facebook by Laura Loomer, which Facebook had banned
as a “dangerous person” and won’t allow on its platform even as a political
candidate. FB also mentioned the idea of "compelled speech".
That situation obviously raises serious issues, which
in some ways are parallel to an issue that I have, that I’ll get back into in
detail again later.
Laura Loomer admittedly said some provocative things.
But is Facebook’s calling her a “dangerous individual” potential libel, or is
that the “opinion rule”.
I wanted to present David Pakman’s video today, about
CNN’s copyright claim for Pakman’s use of it during the impeachment inquiry
(House videos are public domain – and he used the House feed).
Facebook cut off his monetization with no explanation
for Pakman’s supposed violation of “community standards”.
No comments:
Post a Comment